20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication side effects but does not require an ALJ to mention every alleged side effect.

McGowan v. Saul · filed 2021-05-14(c)(3)(iv)

To the extent that plaintiff is arguing that the ALJ had to mention every alleged side effect, the regulation does not require it.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) calls for consideration of medication side effects when assessing symptoms, but an isolated report of side effects does not establish reversible error when the ALJ gives adequate reasons to discount the claimant’s symptom testimony.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c)(3)(iv)

Also, while medication side-effects should be considered in assessing symptom testimony, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv), plaintiff does not establish reversible error in this case. ... This report does not alone suffice to establish error where the ALJ provided the necessary specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires ALJs to consider medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-10(c)(3)(iv)

ALJs should also assess any side effects that a claimant experiences due to medication. See SSR 16-3p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but an ALJ need not expressly discuss every reported side effect if the decision’s rationale is clear and supported by substantial evidence.

Acevedo v. Saul · filed 2021-12-27(c)(3)(iv)

Social Security regulations require the Commissioner to consider “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). ... In light of this evidence, the ALJ could conclude that Acevedo’s self-reported dizziness resulting from her medication was “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” R. 20.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider reported medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Delgado v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-18(c)

Thus, the ALJ should have addressed the reported medication side effect, and the ALJ is instructed to do so on remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication taken to relieve pain.

Hrab v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08(c)(3)(iv)

An ALJ must consider, among other things, “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” the claimant has taken to alleviate his pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Roddy v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-23(c)(3)(iv)

The court addresses medication side effect allegations from the regulatory framework of the subjective symptom evaluation; of course, in every social security case, whether side effect allegations are found consistent or inconsistent with the record inevitably will have some effect on the RFC limitations. See SSR 16-3p, at *11; 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)(titled “how we evaluate symptoms” and specifically listing side effects of medication as a consideration).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms and their effect on the ability to work.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Factors relevant to symptoms include daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate the pain; treatment for the pain other than medication; and measures used to relieve the pain. Id. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Moreover, the ALJ appeared to accept Long’s statements about diarrhea and need to frequently use the restroom caused by thrice daily doses of lactulose as well as Dr. Naran’s related opinion, but the ALJ confusingly found the RFC addressed the need to frequently use the restroom merely by including a sitting, standing, and walking limitation.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ to consider medication side effects when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Strapp-Pitts v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-31(c)(3)(iv)

The regulations are clear that in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, an ALJ should consider the “side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms.” SSR 16-3p, at *8; see also CFR 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). ... Because the ALJ provided an analysis supported by the record, the Court does not find that her conclusion was patently wrong.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider medication side effects when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Goldsmith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-26(c)

On this record, the ALJ did not err in evaluating Ms. Goldsmith’s subjective complaints regarding her medication side effects.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires ALJs to consider medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Kramer v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2023-07-27(c)(3)

ALJs must consider the side effects of a claimant’s medications.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires ALJs to consider medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Cunningham v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

ALJs must consider the side effects of a claimant’s medications.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires the ALJ to consider the effectiveness and side effects of a claimant’s medication when assessing functional limitations.

Spires v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)(iv)

In evaluating a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must appropriately consider all of the available evidence, including the effectiveness and side effects of any medication. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s RFC assessment with regard to the loose bowel movements and diarrhea side effects of Plaintiff’s medication is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ must consider medication side effects when evaluating symptoms and discuss them when pertinent to the evidence.

Zapata v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-12(b)(3)(iv)

An ALJ must consider “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)(3)(iv). The ALJ must discuss this factor if it is pertinent to the evidence presented.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider the claimant’s statements, medical records, treatment, daily activities, work efforts, and other evidence showing how the impairments affect the ability to work.

Johnson v. Apfel · filed 2001-02-21

The ALJ is to consider a claimant’s statements, the medical records, prescribed treatment, daily activities, efforts to work, and any evidence demonstrating how his impairments prevent work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1999).

Section 404.1529 treats pain as a symptom to be evaluated, rather than as a separate impairment.

Wilkerson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-06-24

Finally, plaintiff argues that the ALJ should not have used the grids because there was significant non-exertional limitations, and because pain was present as a significant limiting factor. Plaintiff points to non-exertional limitations "including pain and the lack of a valid driver's license." Pain is considered a symptom, not an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(5)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(G); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (1991). Moreover, the ALJ limited plaintiff to sedentary work, and nothing in the records indicates that he experienced any non-exertional limitations.

Section 404.1529 codifies the pain-evaluation standard that continues to apply after the 1984 amendment’s sunset.

Reed v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-10-07

While the 1984 amendment to § 423(d)(5) had a sunset provision on January 1, 1987, the standard has continued to be applied following that date because the 1984 amendments effectively codified the Secretary’s then existing regulation on evaluation of pain set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires pain to be evaluated using its listed factors, and the ALJ's failure to relate those factors to the evidence undermined the credibility finding.

Lawson v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-14

While recognizing the requirement to evaluate pain according to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and listing the factors to be considered, the ALJ did not discuss those factors in relation to the evidence before him.

Section 404.1529 requires adjudicators to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms using the regulatory criteria and the record as a whole, including objective evidence, treatment, and daily activities.

Parent v. Halter · filed 2001-05-18

In the present appeal, the ALJ “considered the effects of the claimant’s alleged impairments, pain and other symptoms in accordance with the criteria set forth in the regulations.” Tr. at 18. ... An ALJ may properly rely upon the discrepancies between the complainant’s allegations of pain and the medical treatment and daily activities. ... The Court holds the ALJ correctly considered Parent’s complaints of pain, limitations, and RFC in accordance with controlling regulations and Eighth Circuit precedent.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to follow specified steps when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Miller v. Massanari · filed 2002-01-17

The ALJ’s opinion must be in conformity with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 which outlines the necessary steps in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all relevant factors bearing on a claimant’s symptoms and credibility, including the nature of the symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, treatment, functional restrictions, and daily activities.

Brewster v. SSA · filed 2002-08-02

While the claimant’s subjective assertions of disabling pain have been considered, she cannot be accepted as fully credible in this regard. She has not sought medical treatment since 1998 despite her assertion that she has been disabled by severe pain. She does not ... take pain medication and she remains quite active[,] performing household chores, walking[,] reading, watching television, visiting with friends, caring for her son[,] and working on her computer. Considering the nature of the claimant’s symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, treatment including medication, the claimant’s functional restrictions and her daily activities, the undersigned concludes that the claimant retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work. ... When the ALJ’s observations and conclusions are read in context and in their entirety, it is plain that he did not base his credibility determination “solely” on claimant’s failure to seek medical treatment. To the contrary, the record suggests that he considered all relevant factors identified in Avery, supra, and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929. While the record contains some countervailing evidence to which claimant may point, the ALJ’s conclusion in that regard is nonetheless supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms and consider relevant factors beyond objective medical evidence when assessing their impact.

Smith v. SSA · filed 2003-03-12(c)

When, as here, the claimant has demonstrated that he suffers from an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or side effects he alleges, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant's symptoms to determine the extent, if any, to which they limit his ability to do basic work activities. ... Those factors include the claimant's daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant's pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes (or has taken) to alleviate pain or other symptoms; and any measures other than medication that the claimant receives (or has received) for relief of pain or other symptoms. Id. See also Avery, 797 F.2d at 23; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (3) .

Section 404.1529(a) requires symptom statements, including pain, to be evaluated for consistency with objective medical evidence and other evidence such as daily activities and efforts to work.

Back v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-11(a)

Statements of symptoms, including pain, are evaluated to the extent to which they “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” including “daily activities, efforts to work, and any other evidence showing how your impairment(s) and any related symptoms affect your ability to work.” § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) directs the ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptom complaints using factors including daily activities, pain frequency, medication effects, and other treatment that relieves pain.

Adamski v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-23(c)

In so concluding, the ALJ properly considered plaintiffs testimony and weighed it in accordance with various factors, including plaintiffs daily activities, the frequency of pain, the type, dosage, and side effects of medication, and other treatment that relieves pain. (T. 21).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate alleged symptoms, including determining whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them and then assessing their consistency with the objective medical and other evidence.

Genier v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-27

The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). That requirement stems from the fact that subjective assertions of pain alone cannot ground a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” of record.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but does not permit rejecting subjective pain complaints merely because they cannot be verified with complete certainty.

Beardsley v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-10(a)

Whatever uncertainty may exist around such self-reports is not by itself reason to discount them—otherwise, why ask in the first place?—and the relevant regulations specifically allow ALJs to consider claimants’ “daily activities.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). By the ALJ’s reasoning, the agency could ignore applicants’ claims of severe pain simply because such subjective states are impossible to verify with complete certainty, yet the law is to the contrary.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires a claimant's symptoms to be treated as limiting work capacity only to the extent that the alleged functional limitations are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Pamonicutt v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-14(c)(4)

[A]n individual’s symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish the individual’s capacity for basic work activities to the extent that the individual’s alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the case record.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate symptoms in two steps: consider whether they are consistent with the objective medical evidence, then assess how they affect the claimant’s ability to work.

LABRADOR v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-06-26

To determine a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must engage in a two-step process: first, consider all of a claimant’s symptoms that can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence, and second, determine how those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... In this case, the ALJ correctly engaged in the two-step process in evaluating Labrador’s subjective complaints and properly articulated specific credibility findings, which were supported by the evidence in the record, The ALJ determined that Labrador had a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. However, the ALJ also found that his statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not fully credible in light of the objective medical and other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether objective evidence shows an impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms, then to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the entire record and information beyond objective findings.

Keefer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-05(b), (c)

“First, the ALJ looks for objective medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms.” ... “Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” ... The ALJ is not to “evaluate an individual’s symptoms based solely on objective medical evidence unless that objective medical evidence supports a finding that the individual is disabled.” ... “Because symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone,” the ALJ is to “carefully consider any other information” about the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant’s statements about symptoms alone do not establish an impairment or disability, and that symptom evaluation considers their characteristics, daily activities, treatment, and inconsistencies with the record.

Radford v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-07(a), (c)(3)

Under SSR 16–3p, an ALJ must “consider all of the individual's symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence in the individual's record.” But, “an individual’s statements of symptoms alone are not enough to establish the existence of a physical or mental impairment or disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... SSR 16–3p identifies regulatory factors that the Agency looks to in determining disability: “[t]he location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [a claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; daily activities”; precipitating and aggravating factors; medications and their side effects; and other measures taken to relieve the pain or symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... An ALJ may find a claimant’s statements unpersuasive based on “any inconsistencies in the evidence” or “the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statement and the rest of the evidence.” Id. § 404.1529(a). ... Therefore, the ALJ properly weighed opinion evidence and determined that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not entirely consistent with record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s medical history, objective signs, statements, daily activities, treatment, medication effects, symptom characteristics, and other factors when assessing the limiting effects of symptoms.

Kadar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(c)(3)

In doing so, the ALJ considers evidence such as the claimant’s medical history; medical signs and laboratory findings; medical source statements; daily activities; evidence from attempts to work; lay evidence; recorded observations; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication or other treatment the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to weigh a claimant’s subjective symptom reports against the medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence.

Laboriel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-22(a)

Although the ALJ must consider the plaintiff’s subjective reports of pain and limitations, the ALJ “is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question; he may exercise discretion in weighing the credibility of the claimant’s testimony in light of the other evidence in the record.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). In exercising that discretion, the ALJ must determine whether the plaintiff’s subjective reports of symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the entire record, including factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, medication, and functional limitations.

Redmond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(c)

Under SSR 16-3p, an ALJ is to consider all of the evidence in the record in order to evaluate the limiting effects of a plaintiff’s symptoms, including the following factors: ... 7. Any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... Id., 2017 WL 5180304, at *7–8; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c) and former SSR 96–7p. ... Thus, it remains the province of the ALJ and not the reviewing court, to assess the consistency of subjective complaints about the impact of a claimant’s symptoms with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider the consistency of a claimant’s symptom testimony with the medical and nonmedical evidence of record.

Tingey v. Saul · filed 2019-09-10(c)(4)

Based on the record, the Court finds the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony about her disabling limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (in assessing subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ considers that testimony’s consistency with the medical and nonmedical evidence of record).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) and (c)(3) require consideration of all available medical and nonmedical evidence, including prior work history, when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Tullier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(1), (c)(3)

When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the Social Security Regulations provide that “all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources” will be considered, “including information about your prior work record.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors bearing on a claimant's symptoms, but a written decision need not discuss every factor if it gives specific, evidence-supported reasons for the weight assigned to the symptoms.

Dore v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-17(c)(3)

Other factors the ALJ must consider, known as the “Avery factors” in the First Circuit, include (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain or symptom; (3) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the effectiveness of any medication currently or previously taken; (5) the effectiveness of non-medicinal treatment; (6) any other self-directed measures used to relieve pain; and (7) any other factors concerning functional limitations or restrictions. Avery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19, 29 (1st Cir. 1986); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). But the ALJ is not required to address every Avery factor in his written decision for his evaluation to be supported by substantial evidence. Deoliveira v. Berryhill, 2019 DNH 001, 2019 WL 92684, at *5 (D.N.H. Jan. 2, 2019). Instead, the decision need only “contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors bearing on a claimant's symptoms, but a written decision need not discuss every factor if it gives specific, evidence-supported reasons for the weight assigned to the symptoms.

Dore v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2019-09-17(c)(3)

Other factors the ALJ must consider, known as the “Avery factors” in the First Circuit, include (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain or symptom; (3) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the effectiveness of any medication currently or previously taken; (5) the effectiveness of non-medicinal treatment; (6) any other self-directed measures used to relieve pain; and (7) any other factors concerning functional limitations or restrictions. Avery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19, 29 (1st Cir. 1986); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). But the ALJ is not required to address every Avery factor in his written decision for his evaluation to be supported by substantial evidence. Deoliveira v. Berryhill, 2019 DNH 001, 2019 WL 92684, at *5 (D.N.H. Jan. 2, 2019). Instead, the decision need only “contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step symptom evaluation and, when objective evidence does not substantiate the alleged symptoms, consider specified factors including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and other functional limitations.

Fleury v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(a), (b), (c)(3)

The evaluation of symptoms involves a two-step process. First, the ALJ must determine, based upon the objective medical evidence, whether the medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged....” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b); 416.929(a), (b). ... The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess alleged symptoms after an underlying condition is shown, considering objective evidence and the intensity, persistence, and effects of the symptoms.

Scott v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-30(c)

When a claimant alleges disability based on complaints of pain or other symptoms, he must provide evidence of an underlying medical condition and either objective medical evidence confirming the severity of his alleged symptoms or evidence establishing that his medical condition could be reasonably expected to give rise to his alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005). If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the claimant’s alleged symptoms but the claimant establishes he has an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his alleged symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s alleged symptoms and their effects on the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2002). If he or she does not fully credit the claimant’s subjective pain testimony, the ALJ’s decision must articulate his or her reasons and those reasons must be supported by substantial evidence. Hale v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms, including pain, and assessment of whether they are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence such as treatment and daily activities.

SWITZER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-10-25

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

Section 404.1529(a)–(b) requires a claimant relying on subjective pain and symptoms to show an underlying medical condition and either objective evidence confirming the pain’s severity or that the condition could reasonably be expected to cause the claimed pain.

Bailey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-11-06(a)–(b)

Where, as here, a claimant is trying to establish a disability through her own testimony of pain and subjective symptoms, the ALJ considers whether that evidence meets our “pain standard.” Id. The pain standard requires the claimant show: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)–(b). ... Here, the ALJ articulated explicit and adequate reasons for discounting Bailey’s subjective claims of pain, and those reasons were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including pain, and their effects on daily life and ability to work.

Soderquist v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-17(a)

When assessing subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect her daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects using relevant factors.

Overton v. Social Security Adm. Office of Disability · filed 2020-01-21(b), (c)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s own statements about his impairments and any pain he experiences. SSR 16-3p establishes a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (October 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual's symptoms, such as pain.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Then, once an underlying “physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual's symptoms is established,” an ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities...” Jd. ... Nevertheless, the ALJ proceeded to the next step to consider Claimant’s statements and his complaints of pain in the context of the medical evidence and opinion evidence in the record, and concluded that Claimant’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [his] symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence of record.” (R. 22). In evaluating Claimant’s statements and symptoms, the ALJ considered them in the context of Claimant’s conservative treatment history, his presentation at the hearing, his activities of daily living, and the contradicting objective medical evidence. (R. 21-22), The Court cannot say the ALJ’s analysis was not sufficient or not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs an ALJ to consider inconsistencies in the evidence when evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s symptom reports.

Overton v. Saul · filed 2020-01-22(c)(4)

In particular, the ALJ relied on inconsistencies as to (1) the effectiveness of Botox injections at controlling Overton’s migraines, and (2) the impact of her migraine‐related symptoms on her daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (directing ALJs to consider inconsistencies when making credibility determinations).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to carefully consider relevant evidence about a claimant’s symptoms, including daily activities and the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms.

Marbut v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)

The ALJ must “‘carefully consider’” all the evidence presented by claimants regarding their symptoms, which fall into seven relevant factors including ‘daily activities’ and ‘the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [their] pain or other symptoms.’” Del Carmen Fernandez v. Berryhill, 18-CV-326, 2019 WL 667743, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p)). ... The Court’s review of the record supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were inconsistent with the evidence of record, which did not indicate that Plaintiff had “a disabling condition according to regulations.” (T. 15.) ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the evidence before him, and that substantial evidence supports his evaluation of Plaintiff’s symptoms, making remand on this issue unwarranted.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ, after finding that a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work using the claimant’s history, medical records, statements, medical opinions, and other relevant evidence.

Shamsuzzaman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-14(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including the claimant’s history, the medical records and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms and how they limit a claimant’s capacity for work.

DE RODRIGUEZ v. SAUL · filed 2020-02-26(c)

The ALJ must examine all of the evidence when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and the extent to which they limit a claimant’s capacity for work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In doing so here, the ALJ found, and recited in his decision, substantial evidence to support his analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the factors set forth in the regulation.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-27

SSR 16-3p continues to require the ALJ to consider the factors set forth in the applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider all relevant evidence, including work history, daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment effects, and functional restrictions.

Santiago v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-06

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements about symptoms, the ALJ must consider all evidence relating thereto, including what are familiarly known as “the Polaski factors,” that is, the claimant’s prior work record; daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of the symptoms; any precipitating and aggravating factors; the dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and any functional restrictions. ... See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms not substantiated by objective medical evidence to consider the claimant’s daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, treatment, measures taken to relieve symptoms, and other functional-limitations factors.

Hamilton v. Saul · filed 2020-03-10(c)(3)

If the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must consider the other evidence. Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing superceded SSR 96-7p). The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider the record's consistency with a claimant's testimony when evaluating the severity of symptoms.

Hartl v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

The ALJ accordingly had a basis to decide that plaintiff’s testimony about severity of symptoms could not “reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see generally Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including pain, but those statements alone cannot establish disability.

Padilla v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16(a)

Congress expressly prohibits granting disability benefits based on a claimant’s subjective complaints. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (“An individual’s statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (an ALJ will consider all of a claimant’s statements about symptoms including pain, but statements about pain or other symptoms “will not alone establish” claimant’s disability).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies daily activities as a relevant factor an ALJ considers when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Gotlibowski v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-18(c)(3)

An ALJ is permitted to consider daily living activities in her credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (daily activities are a relevant factor which will be considered in evaluating symptoms); see also Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In reaching a credibility determination, an ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, and work record, among other factors”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process: first determine whether objective medical evidence establishes an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the record to determine work limitations.

Vaught v. Commissioner · filed 2020-03-20(b)–(c)

First, the ALJ looks for objective medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, such as pain.14 Id. at *3, §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to work. Id. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s activities of daily living when assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Hamilton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23

It was permissible for the ALJ to consider these activities of daily living in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; see Cruz v. Colvin, 278 F. Supp. 3d 694, 699 (W.D.N.Y. 2017) (holding that an ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is greatly restricted based on that claimant’s activities of daily living); Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that the ALJ correctly found that Poupore was not disabled because he was able to care for his one-year-old child, change diapers, vacuum, wash dishes, occasionally drive, watch television, read, and use the computer).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, evaluate their intensity and persistence against objective and other record evidence, and consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating factors, and treatment side effects.

Quintana v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(a), (b), (c), and (c)(3)

Under the regulations, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, in determining whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). First, the ALJ must decide whether a claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms or pain. See id. at § 404.1529(b). Then, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and consider whether the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record documenting Plaintiff’s limited capacity for work. See id. at § 404.1529(c). The ALJ has discretion to evaluate the credibility of a claimant’s statements and render an independent judgment in light of the medical findings and other evidence regarding his symptoms. See Mimms v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 180, 185-86 (2d Cir. 1984). If a claimant’s alleged symptoms suggest greater restriction of function than can be demonstrated by objective evidence alone, consideration will also be given to the following factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) nature, duration, frequency and intensity of her symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; and (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication and other treatment or measures which the claimant uses. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

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

Sumpay v. Saul · filed 2020-03-27(c)

Factors to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms include: 1) daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and 7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929 (c).

Section 404.1529 is the regulation under which the Commissioner must re-evaluate a claimant’s symptoms.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-27

The intent of the Court’s order of remand in Smith I was to have the Commissioner re-evaluate plaintiff’s credibility with respect to his alleged symptoms. Since the Commissioner eliminated the use of the term “credibility” after the remand, this was no longer feasible. Given the adoption of SSR 16-3p, it would have been appropriate for the Commissioner to explain the new standard and to re-evaluate plaintiff’s symptoms under the new procedure. However, this was not done. Accordingly, this matter will be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for re-evaluation of plaintiff’s symptoms under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work, while permitting consideration of the claimant’s statements, medical evidence, treatment history, and agency physician findings.

LOPEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-03-31(b)-(c)

Even if an ALJ concludes that a medical impairment exists, which could reasonably cause the symptoms alleged, he must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms, and the extent to which they affect the claimant’s ability to work. 20 CFR § 404.1529(b)-(c). In doing so, the ALJ may consider the internal consistency of the claimant’s own statements, the medical evidence, the claimant’s medical treatment history, and findings by state agency or other program physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate symptoms and consider relevant factors, but it need not discuss every factor individually.

McLeod v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(a), (c)(3)

The new policy ruling did not and could not change the underlying regulations. The longstanding two-part analysis for evaluating symptoms applies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). “An ALJ must first determine ‘whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms.’ If such an impairment exists, the ALJ ‘must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities.’” ... Relevant factors to be considered in evaluating symptoms are listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). “It is well established that the ALJ is not required to discuss every factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.” ... The ALJ’s primary reason for discounting Plaintiff’s symptoms was that no treating source had limited him to the extent Plaintiff claimed. This was a valid basis for assigning Plaintiff’s symptoms less than full weight.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider seven categories of evidence when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, medications, relief measures, and other functional limitations.

Decker v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-13(c)(3)

If the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must consider the other evidence. Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing superceded SSR 96-7p). The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to consider all symptoms against the objective and other evidence, determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, and then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Long v. Saul · filed 2020-04-14

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers "all [the claimant’s] symptoms . . . and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). This involves a two-step inquiry where the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable mental impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)–(c), 416.929(b)–(c).

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant’s statements about symptoms alone do not establish disability, and permits consideration of daily activities and treatment when evaluating symptom severity and persistence.

Arvin v. SSA · filed 2020-04-22(a), (c)(3)

Again, under the relevant regs, a claimant’s “statements about [ ] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish” disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). An “ALJ’s determinations of credibility” are due “great weight and deference particularly since the ALJ has the opportunity, which [the Court does] not,” to observe “a witness’s demeanor while testifying.” Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 476 (6th Cir. 2003). The record reveals (and Plaintiff identifies) no error in the ALJ’s assessment of Arvin’s testimony, quite the opposite. Claimant testified that she could do housework for as much as “a couple of hours” at a time, that she continues to do grocery shopping, and that she sometimes goes out to dinner. R. at 322, 323, 325. Arvin had not been to a doctor specifically for her IBS or kidney issues, in “a couple years[.]” R. at 313. In March of 2017, Arvin sought treatment for gastroenteritis and complained of “some” diarrhea, for a duration of “1 day[,]” and sought phenergan for that ailment (the same medicine she averred taking for her purportedly disabling stomach issues, R. at 313). R. at 920. The provider’s “objective” assessment notes indicate that Claimant’s stomach issues “would resolve with time[.]” R. at 921–22. Both Plaintiff’s minimal treatment (really, the records of treatment actually pursued are not just limited, but inconsistent with Arvin’s claims) and persisting activities of daily living are logical and recognized bases for discounting claims of disabling limitation; here, they substantially support the ALJ’s calculus. See McKenzie v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 215 F.3d 1327 (table) (6th Cir. 2000) (“Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling pain are undermined by his non aggressive treatment.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (authorizing consideration of “daily activities” and “treatment”); cf. Kepke v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 636 F. App’x 625, 631 (6th Cir. 2016) (Claimant “received only conservative treatment for her ailments, a fact which constitutes a ‘good reason’ for discounting a treating source opinion.”).

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

Snook v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-30(c)(3)

Generally, the effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, substantial evidence of effective treatment provides a specific, clear, and convincing reason to discount a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony. See Youngblood v. Berryhill, 734 F. App’x 496, 499 (9th Cir. 2018); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039-1040.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ making a disability determination to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms and how they affect the claimant’s daily life and ability to work.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-30(a)

see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (in making a disability determination, the ALJ must consider all the claimant’s symptoms and how those symptoms affect a claimant’s daily life and ability to work).

Section 404.1529 supplies the proper three-step framework for evaluating a claimant’s allegations of symptoms, and that framework remains applicable despite removal of the term ‘credibility determination.’

Drew v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-04-30

Luna, Thompson, Kepler, and the other cases cited above were decided when the term used to describe the evaluation of a claimant’s allegations of symptoms resulting from her impairments was “credibility determination.” Although that term is no longer used, the applicable regulation never used that term and the procedure for evaluating a claimant’s allegations of symptoms has not significantly changed. Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 5871 (Jan. 18, 2017) (codified at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on January 29, 2018, when this case was decided.

Section 404.1529 supplies the applicable standard for evaluating a claimant's allegations of symptoms under the regulations in effect when the case was decided.

Stevenson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-05-07

The evaluation based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2018) is still the standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on September 5, 2018, when this case was decided.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms under the applicable symptom-evaluation requirements.

Webster v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-08(c)(3)

An ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms. Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3 (2017), 2017 WL 5180304, outlines the process ALJs are required to employ in evaluating such statements to fulfil the ALJ’s obligations set out in the Commissioner’s applicable regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). ... The court finds that the ALJ’s analysis conformed to the requirements set out in the regulations and the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptom statements: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the symptoms, then assess their intensity and persistence against the evidence to determine work-related limitations.

Baca v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-15

SSR 16-3p provides instruction on the evaluation of a claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms in disability claims. ... [Citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1529.] First, we consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain. Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms is established, we evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities for an adult[.] ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ properly evaluated Ms. Baca’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence and limiting effect of her symptom of fatigue pursuant to the relevant regulations and Tenth Circuit case law, and that her findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then assess their intensity, persistence, and functional effects using the entire case record and relevant factors.

Henderson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-20(b), (c), and (c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate the symptoms' intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the record.

King v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-08-20(a)

The ALJ performed his analysis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 and SSR 16-3p, finding King’s hearing loss could reasonably be expected to cause her alleged symptoms but that the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not consistent with the record evidence. Tr. 36-37. ... The Court agrees since, for example, King noted to Edwards in 2008 that she was able to use the phone successfully with her new hearing aids. Tr. 37, 912. Edwards further stated that King had “good target gain” in a real ear hearing aid performance test. Tr. 912. A follow-up with Edwards indicated that King had good target gain in November 2008. Tr. 37, 901.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider symptom testimony and evaluate its intensity and limiting effects using objective medical evidence and relevant factors such as treatment and daily activities; objective evidence cannot alone justify rejecting the testimony.

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-28(a), (c)(2), (c)(3)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements regarding pain and workplace limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” ... The ALJ’s finding regarding the Plaintiff’s credibility is not supported and is contradicted by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires symptom testimony to be evaluated using the regulatory factors in light of all record evidence, with explicit and adequate reasons for discounting it.

Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-20(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: “(1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the ‘duration, frequency, and intensity’ of the claimant’s symptoms; (3) ‘[p]recipitating and aggravating factors’; (4) the effectiveness and side effects of any medications; and (5) treatment or other measures taken by the claimant to alleviate symptoms.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c)(3)). The ALJ must consider these factors given all of the evidence of record. Id. And if the ALJ discredits this testimony, then the ALJ “‘must clearly articulate explicit and adequate reasons for’ doing so.” Id. (quoting Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s articulated reason to discredit Plaintiff’s subjective complaints – that she had generally normal exams with no musculoskeletal tenderness – is not supported by substantial evidence. (Tr. 21). Many of Plaintiff’s examinations showed pain and musculoskeletal tenderness and are therefore not “generally normal.” And many of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints involve pain and musculoskeletal tenderness. (See Tr. 15). For these reasons, the Court remands this action to the Commissioner for further consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(a) requires all evidence concerning symptom intensity, persistence, and functional effects to be considered in addition to medical signs and laboratory findings once an impairment capable of producing the symptoms is established.

Pecore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(a)

Once a claimant establishes that her pain is disabling through “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows . . . a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms,” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), “all evidence about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms must be considered in addition to the medical signs and laboratory findings in deciding the issue of disability,” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561.

Section 404.1529(a)’s reasonable-consistency standard is not violated merely because an ALJ calls testimony “not entirely consistent” when the ensuing analysis applies the appropriate standard.

Richardson v. P Andrew Saul, Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-26(a)

Richardson’s primary argument that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of her testimony is that he tacitly applied a higher standard than appropriate when he stated that her statements were “not entirely consistent” with the medical evidence. As Richardson correctly notes, the ALJ is required to determine only whether her testimony “can reasonably be accepted as consistent” with the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). However, the ALJ’s use of the phrase “not entirely consistent” cannot fairly be read to suggest that the ALJ imported and applied an improperly high standard in evaluating Richardson’s subjective testimony, particularly in light of his subsequent detailed discussion of Richardson’s testimony and of its inconsistency with the medical evidence of record. Id. at 19-20. Numerous courts have considered and rejected the argument that an ALJ’s use of a phrase like “not entirely consistent” is evidence that the ALJ applied an incorrect standard, in particular where, as here, the ALJ’s deployment of the phrase is followed by a discussion that is consistent with the appropriate standard.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms to consider all presented evidence, including the claimant’s work record and statements, medical-source evidence, and other persons’ observations.

Minks v. SSA · filed 2024-09-12(a), (c)(3)

Second, he must examine the “intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities.” Id. During the second step, the ALJ must “consider all the evidence presented,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), including information about [the claimant’s] prior work record, [his] statements about [his] other symptoms, evidence submitted by [his] medical sources, and observations by . . . other persons[.]” Id. at § 404.1529(c)(3) (emphasis added). ... For these reasons, the Court does not find that ALJ Crocker committed legal error when weighing Minks’s subjective complaints, the objective medical evidence, and the opinions of state agency consultants. ALJ Crocker adequately weighed the evidence under the regulations, and substantial evidence supports his conclusions.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ, when medical evidence does not confirm claimed symptoms, to assess non-exhaustive factors concerning the claimant’s activities, symptoms, medications, treatment, other relief measures, and other relevant circumstances.

Pribble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-16(c)

In cases where the medical evidence does not confirm the claimed symptoms, the ALJ considers a list of non-exhaustive factors, including: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and the side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. Here, the ALJ mistakenly conflated Plaintiff’s diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis with his long history of skin rashes. Thus, the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s testimony in the proper context, meeting the patently wrong standard.

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

Gossett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-16(c)(3)

Having found that Plaintiff suffers from an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, the ALJ evaluated the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the alleged symptoms (Tr. 200). Because Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms suggest impairments with limitations of a greater severity than was shown by objective medical evidence, the ALJ considered additional relevant evidence according to the seven factors outlined in the regulation (Tr. 200-04). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). However, “[a]n ALJ need not discuss every Section 404.1529 factor in her written decision” to be supported by substantial evidence. Kimberly K. v. Kijakazi, No. 1:22-CV-00090-LLK, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36672, at *7 (W.D. Ky. Mar.6, 2023). Plaintiff’s challenge that the ALJ did not properly consider “other factors” fails because the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant evidence when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, but does not require a factor-by-factor analysis of all seven listed considerations.

Lenihan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-16(c)

To evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms,” the ALJ considers medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Other relevant evidence includes: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain; any measures used to relieve pain; and “[o]ther factors concerning … functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). “The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, but should show that he considered the relevant evidence.” Hatcher v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-1123, 2019 WL 1382288, at *15 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2019) (citing Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005)).

When evaluating pain or other symptoms, § 404.1529(c) directs the Commissioner to consider daily activities, symptom frequency and intensity, precipitating and aggravating factors, and the effectiveness of treatment.

Quintanilla v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-16(c)

In evaluating pain, the Commissioner considers factors including the claimant’s daily activities; frequency and intensity of pain or other symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, and the effectiveness of treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... For the reasons explained herein, the ALJ’s decision did not adequately explain why he discounted the plaintiff's complaints regarding her limitations from her physical impairments.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and, if so, the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects, considering the listed symptom evidence.

Wilkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-20(c)(1)-(3)

Plaintiff referred to the evaluation process set out in SSR 16-3p, which sets out the two-step process for evaluating an individual’s symptoms: (1) “We determine whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment (MDI) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms;” and, (2) “We evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) and (2). ... Plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s ultimate determination does not undermine the fact that the ALJ used the correct legal standard and had substantial evidence to support his determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to assess their intensity and persistence from the entire record without rejecting the claimant’s statements solely for lack of objective medical support.

STEWART v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-24(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the AL] must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F .R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the AL] must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. ... In other words, an AL] may not tely on objective evidence alone at this step. ‘The issue, therefore, is whether the AL] in this case did so. ... Here, the AL] presents no evidence or analysis, other than the alleged lack of objective evidence, to support his dismissal of Plaintiffs testimony. ... In short, the Court agtees that the ALJ failed to adequately consider non-objective evidence when evaluating Plaintiffs subjective statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and other evidence, including the claimant’s statements and the listed symptom-related factors.

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

In considering Plaintiff’s symptoms, an ALJ must follow the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. The ALJ considers both objective medical evidence and “other evidence,” including statements by the individual “about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects relevant to symptoms, including daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; medication; other treatments or measures used to relieve symptoms; and any other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions caused by the relevant symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii); Moreno v. Astrue, 366 F. App’x 23, 28 (11th Cir. 2010). ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the ALJ properly supported his finding that Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record” (Tr. 26). The ALJ first credited Plaintiff’s statements, finding that his “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms” (Tr. 26). Upon review of the entire record, however, the ALJ found several pieces of record evidence that refute Plaintiff’s statements. For example, MRI results showed only mild spinal abnormalities, treating physicians noted medication treatments with reported improvements in Plaintiff’s symptomatology, and various examination notes indicated Plaintiff had normal tone and motor strength, normal gait and station, and full range of motion in his extremities (Tr. 26–28).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms but does not require the ALJ to discuss how every factor supports the determination.

Meyer v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-25(c)

The relevant factors include: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions; (6) the claimant’s work history; and (7) the absence of objective medical evidence supporting the claimant’s complaints. Id. at 1065–66; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While an ALJ must consider these factors, she need not discuss how each factor supports her determination.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms and evaluate conflicts between those statements and other record evidence.

Hoxie v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-26(c)

Furthermore, the ALJ is required to consider Michelle H.’s statements about her symptoms and evaluate whether there are any conflicts between those statements and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ therefore did not err by considering the symptoms that Michelle H. reported to her treating physicians, which were included in her treatment notes. How to weigh that evidence, to the extent it contradicts with other evidence in the record, is a matter within the ALJ’s purview.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ, after finding a medically determinable impairment, to assess the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms based on the entire record and explain why claimed functional limitations are not credited.

DOLS v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-27(c)

Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the AL] must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. ... Overall, as instructed by the regulations, the AL] considered the entire case record and explained the reasons for deviating from Plaintiffs statements regarding the impact of her lymphedema on her ability to work, and specifically concluded that the evidence did not provide a credible basis for a limitation requiting that Plaintiff elevate her leg to waist level. (Tt. at 26.)

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: first determining whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluating their intensity, persistence, and effect on the ability to work from the entire record without rejecting them solely for lack of objective corroboration.

GREENE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-30(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.E.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. At this step, objective evidence is mot requited to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4-5. ... Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. Id. at *5. ... Here, the AL] included Plaintiffs migraines among her severe impairments, crafted the RFC to account for her credibly established limitations, and explained the omission of additional limitations in accordance with the regulations and relevant case law, including Arakas. Substantial evidence therefore supports this AL}’s determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

ROUSE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-30(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. ... Because (1) the most recent objective evidence corroborates Plaintiffs testimony of greater limitations, but that evidence was not reviewed by the state agency consultants on whom the AL] relied, and (2) the reasons cited by the AL] to discount Plaintiffs allegations ptove significantly flawed, and (3) the failure to obtain any medical review or consultative examination regarding Plaintiffs knee tmpairment left the ALJ to formulate her own lay opinion, the Court cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the AL]’s decision as written.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and effects on the ability to work using the entire record without rejecting them solely for lack of objective support.

WILLIAMS v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-30(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant's symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impaitment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. At this step, objective evidence is mot requited to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4-5. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. at *4. Thus, the AL] must consider the entire case recotd and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. Id. at *5.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms using the entire record, the specified symptom-related factors, and inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the evidence.

FIGLIUOLO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-30(c)

As part of an RFC analysis, an ALJ must determine the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In making this assessment, the ALJ must examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record. ... The ALJ will additionally consider daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). The ALJ will also examine inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the evidence presented. ... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the ALJ’s mental RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ provided a sufficient explanation for the RFC determination.

Section 404.1529 retains the Luna three-step framework for evaluating alleged symptoms, and an ALJ must give clearly articulated, evidence-supported reasons for discounting symptoms that cannot be measured objectively, such as fatigue.

Sprouse v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-10-02(c)(3)

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on May 3, 2023, when this case was decided. ... Symptoms such as fatigue and pain, particularly, are subjective and cannot be measured by objective tests. Therefore, inconsistencies between the record evidence and other allegations of symptoms may be sufficient to discount all plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms. But, in this case the ALJ simply has not provided specific reasons, supported by record evidence, and clearly articulated to demonstrate a basis to discount Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-part symptom analysis: the ALJ must first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assess their intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects using all available evidence.

Church v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-15(a), (c)(1)-(3)

A claimant’s statements about her symptoms will not alone establish that she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Rather, the ALJ must evaluate the symptoms using a two-part analysis. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. ... Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the individual’s symptoms and determine the extent to which they limit her ability to perform work-related activities. ... In short, consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, SSR 16-3p, and SSR 19-4p, the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiffs impairment-related symptoms, but reasonably concluded that they were not consistent with the evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects using all relevant evidence rather than rejecting the claimant’s statements solely for lack of objective medical support.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-06(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3)

A two-step inquiry applies to symptom evaluation. The ALJ first determines if the record contains objective medical evidence of an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms. ... Step two of symptom evaluation shifts to the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. The ALJ must consider the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities. ... An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. ... As described above, the ALJ thoroughly discussed plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the objective evidence, medication, treatment, and daily activities in her symptom-severity analysis. Therefore, her symptom-severity analysis is supported by substantial evidence and supports the RFC finding in this case.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed evidentiary sources and factors when evaluating the severity and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but does not require the ALJ to identify which factors ultimately led to the RFC determination.

Carter v. SSA · filed 2024-12-10(c)(3)

The Court is unpersuaded by Carter’s argument. Carter misreads what the second step of SSR 16-3p and § 404.1529(c)(3) required from the ALJ. No provision in those authorities required the ALJ to identify which of the § 404.1529(c)(3) factors ultimately led to the RFC determination. Rather, those authorities merely required the ALJ to consider a variety of evidentiary sources and factors to determine whether the severity of Carter’s symptoms limited his ability to work. SSR 16-3p, at *3; § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of alleged symptoms: the ALJ determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s capacity for work using the record evidence and relevant symptom factors.

Harding v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-07(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, an ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 573 Fed. App’x 540, 542 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2014); Massey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2011 WL 383254 at * 3 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... After careful consideration, I agree with the Commissioner that the ALJ complied with the regulations in his analysis of Mr. Harding’s subjective descriptions of his pain and limitations and that the ALJ’s conclusions with respect to those descriptions is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: the adjudicator first determines whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then assesses the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the record as a whole rather than rejecting the claimant’s statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Davenport v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-07(a), (c)(2)-(3)

A two-step inquiry applies to symptom evaluation. The ALJ first determines if the record contains objective medical evidence of an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 475-76 (6th Cir. 2003). Step two of symptom evaluation shifts to the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. The ALJ must consider the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) and (c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. ... An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and assesses the symptoms’ limiting effects for consistency with the medical and other evidence.

Olsen v. King · filed 2025-01-08(a)

The ALJ found that although Mr. O.’s impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, Mr. O.’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” This analysis reflects the correct legal standard for evaluating a claimant’s self-reported symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to compare a claimant’s symptoms with the objective and other evidence and assess their intensity, persistence, and work-limiting effects, but does not require express discussion of every subsection (c)(3) factor.

Snook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-16(c)(3)

Section 404.1529 sets out the two-part test used by an ALJ when considering all symptoms. First, the ALJ considers all a claimant’s “symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The ALJ then evaluates the “intensity and persistence of [claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain” to determine “the extent to which [claimant’s] symptoms limits [their] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The Commissioner correctly notes that the “ALJ is not required to discuss all [20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)] factors in each case.” (ECF 13 at 17). Although the ALJ summarized Plaintiff's self-described limitations and did not specifically mention all the factors Plaintiff described, that does not support a finding of no substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms to consider all available evidence, including whether the symptoms are reasonably consistent with the medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence.

Valois v. Colvin · filed 2025-01-21(a)

The ALJ considers “all of the available evidence” when “evaluating the intensity and persistence of [the alleged] symptoms,” including whether the “pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Here, the ALJ noted several reasons to discount Valois’s testimony regarding the extent of his pain and symptoms. For example, Valois’s providers often described his pain symptoms as “persistent but controlled,” and Valois regularly engaged in exercise and was able to do minor cleaning around the house. As for his mental impairments, the ALJ noted that Valois experienced “significant symptom improvement” and suffered from only two documented panic attacks. While Valois asserts that the ALJ relied on boilerplate language, we disagree.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically demonstrable impairment could reasonably produce the claimant’s symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

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

Indeed, both the regulation and SSR 16-3p require that the ALJ consider all symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record. First, the ALJ must determine whether there is an impairment that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptom(s). Second, once the ALJ identified that physical impairment, the ALJ is charged with evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s work-related activities. Where statements regarding the intensity, persistence or functionally limiting effects of the symptom is not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the undersigned must consider other evidence in the record to determine if the claimant’s symptoms limit the ability to do work-related activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could reasonably cause the claimant’s symptoms and then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s capacity for work.

Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-06(c)(1)

First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... After a careful review, the Court finds that the ALJ complied with agency regulations in evaluating Ms. Ruiz Delgado’s subjective statements about the symptoms and limiting effect of her conditions and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination of Ms. Ruiz Delgado’s RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s asserted symptoms: first determining whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce them, then assessing whether their alleged extent is consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.

Van Nort v. Colvin · filed 2025-02-19(a), (b)

“The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation that considers whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assesses their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects without rejecting the claimant’s statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-25(a), (c)(2)-(3)

A two-step inquiry applies to symptom evaluation. The ALJ first determines if the record contains objective medical evidence of an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 475-76 (6th Cir. 2003). Step two of symptom evaluation shifts to the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. The ALJ must consider the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) and (c); SSR16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. ... An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. ... The ALJ reasonably considered plaintiff’s use of Remeron as one factor in assessing plaintiff’s subjective mental symptoms, and the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and consideration of evidence such as daily activities, medication, treatment, and measures used for relief.

Weyerman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-25(c)(1)-(3)

When a claimant alleges disabling symptoms, the ALJ follows a two-step process for evaluating those symptoms. “We determine whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment (MDI) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms” and, “[w]e evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *3-4 (Oct. 25, 2017). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1) and (2); 416.929(c)(1) and (2). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ evaluated plaintiff’s symptoms under the two-step process and addressed plaintiff’s subjective complaints in detail.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of reported symptoms: the claimant must have a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce them, and their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects must then be assessed against the entire record and relevant regulatory factors.

Kozlowski v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-26(b), (c), (c)(3)

The Social Security Rulings and Regulations provide a framework for evaluating the severity of a claimant’s reported symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16–3p. Thus, the ALJ must follow a two-step process: first, the ALJ must determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the symptoms alleged; and second, the ALJ must evaluate the alleged symptoms considering the entire administrative record. SSR 16-3p. Symptoms such as pain or fatigue will be considered to affect a claimant’s ability to perform work activities only if medical signs or laboratory findings establish the presence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated when considered in light of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p. ... Given the objective evidence in the record undermining the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the severity of her impairments, the ALJ properly considered Kozlowski’s symptoms but ultimately found that she was not as limited as she alleged.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the claimant’s symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects based on the entire record.

Vugdalic v. King · filed 2025-03-05(b)–(c)

An ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s self-reported symptoms using a two-step process. ... First, she “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” ... Second, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities.” ... The ALJ followed the two-step process set forth above, finding Ms. V.’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, but that Ms. V.’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record evidence.

Section 404.1529 uses the three-step Luna framework as the proper standard for evaluating a claimant’s allegations of symptoms.

Mitchell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-02-27

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on December 5, 2023, when this case was decided.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s self-reported symptoms using a two-step process.

King v. Dudek · filed 2025-02-28(b), (c)

An ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s self-reported symptoms using a two-step process.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that symptom statements alone do not establish disability; the Commissioner considers objective medical evidence of an impairment capable of producing the symptoms together with all other evidence.

Metting v. O'Malley · filed 2025-01-10(a)

It states that while the Commissioner considers all of a claimant’s statements about symptoms and how they affect their activities of daily living and ability to work, statements about “pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [Plaintiff] is disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Instead, “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source” showing that Plaintiff has a medical impairment which could produce the pain or symptoms is considered along with all the other evidence. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, work-related limitations, and consistency with the entire record.

Meadors v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-12

An ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms is governed by Social Security Ruling 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, which mandate a two-step process for evaluating an individual’s symptoms. At the first step, the ALJ must “determine whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms.” SSR 16-3 at *3. The ALJ must base this determination upon objective medical evidence. Id. At the second step, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms … and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3 at *9. As part of this analysis, the ALJ must decide whether an individual’s symptoms and accompanying limitations are consistent with the evidence of record. Id. at *8.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms to consider inconsistencies and the enumerated symptom evidence, including measures used to relieve pain.

Townsend v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-13(c)(3), (c)(4)

At the second step, the ALJ considers “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). In undertaking this inquiry, the ALJ should consider “statements from the individual, medical sources, and any other sources that might have information about the claimant’s symptoms, including agency personnel,” as well as: (1) the claimant’s activities of daily living; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) any precipitating or aggravating factors; (4) the type dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7–8 (2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4), 416.929(c)(3), (4). ... Although the court finds the ALJ did not err in concluding the treating and consultative providers failed to record specific observations that would support some of the functional limitations Plaintiff alleges, the court cannot ignore that the ALJ minimized provider observations supporting the severity of Plaintiff’s pain. ... Without “a thorough discussion and analysis of the objective medical and other evidence, including the individual’s complaints of pain and other symptoms and the adjudicator’s personal observations, if appropriate; . . . a resolution of any inconsistencies in the evidence as a whole; and . . . a logical explanation of the effects of symptoms, including pain, on the individual’s ability to work,” the ALJ’s RFC assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms using subjective statements and other evidence, including the claimant’s daily activities and treatment, and to accept alleged limitations to the extent they are reasonably consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.

Klahr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-14(a), (c)(3), (c)(4)

When crafting a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must follow a two-step sequential process to determine whether a claimant’s symptoms can be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence. First, the ALJ must determine whether there are underlying medically determinable mental or physical impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or symptoms. Second, if there are underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a). The ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms by considering subjective statements about symptoms and pain, as well as any description medical sources and other nonmedical sources provide about how these symptoms affect a claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... See id. § 404.1529(c)(3). Thus, as Mr. K contends, two of the factors to consider are daily activities and treatment. ... Accordingly, a claimant’s alleged symptoms are determined to diminish their capacity to work “to extent that [the claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). So long as the ALJ gives specific reasons supported by the record, the Court will not overturn this determination unless it is “patently wrong.” See Deborah M. v. Saul, 994 F.3d 785, 789 (7th Cir. 2021).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which their alleged effects are consistent with objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Hernandez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-24(a)

In making an RFC determination, the ALJ considers evidence of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Here, the ALJ heard Hernandez’s testimony and description of her work activities after the alleged onset date of disability, assessed her subjective complaints and symptoms, and considered the objective medical evidence. He then determined that her symptoms were not as serious as she claimed, and he provided a reasoned basis for the RFC finding and conclusion that Hernandez was not disabled.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate specified symptom-related factors against the other evidence and any conflicts with the claimant’s statements.

Reyes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)-(4)

The Regulations provide that an ALJ “will” consider the following factors related to symptoms such as pain: (i) [The claimant’s] daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, [the claimant] receive[s] or ha[s] received for relief of [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures [the claimant] use[s] or ha[s] used to relieve [his or her] pain or other symptoms . . .; and (vii) Other factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii); see Raper v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 89 F.4th 1261, 1277 (11th Cir. 2024). The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

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

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-03(c)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ satisfied her responsibility to “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [Plaintiff’s] symptoms . . . [to] determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2017); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms against the entire case record and permits consideration of medical evidence, medical opinions, and daily activities.

Paolucci v. O'Malley · filed 2025-04-07(c)

During the second step of this assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated considering the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p. This includes, but is not limited to, medical signs and laboratory findings; diagnoses; medical opinions provided by treating or examining sources and other medical sources; and information regarding the claimant’s symptoms and how they affect his or her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p. ... This evidence included medical treatment notes, medical opinion evidence, and Paolucci’s reported activities of daily living, all of which an ALJ is permitted to consider when assessing a claimant’s credibility. Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s assessment of Paolucci’s symptoms was adequately explained, and as such, supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ, after identifying a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on the claimant’s ability to work.

Walker v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-07(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ first considers whether there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to product the claimant’s pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017). Once the impairment is found, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the claimant’s ability to do work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3. ... Because the ALJ adequately and thoroughly explained the persuasiveness or lack thereof that he assigned to Terry’s statements, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in evaluating and discounting such statements.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c) require an ALJ first to identify an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms and then to assess their intensity, persistence, and effects on the claimant's ability to work from the entire record without rejecting them solely for lack of objective corroboration.

BARHAM v. DUDEK · filed 2025-04-10(b) and (c)

Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the AL] must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. At this step, objective evidence is mot required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4-5. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. at *4. Thus, the ALJ must consider the entite case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. Id. at *5. ... The Court finds that, by discussing and relying on all the above evidence, the ALJ provided “a logical explanation of how [he] weighed the record evidence and arrived at [his] RFC findings.” Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2019). ... In doing so, the ALJ met the “narrative discussion requirements” set out in SSR 96-8p by explaining how the evidence was resolved, and finding that Plaintiffs symptoms, including the symptoms related to hypoglycemia, were not as frequent, intense, persistent, or limiting as Plaintiff alleged.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the relevant evidence but does not require the ALJ to analyze every listed factor.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-28(c)

To evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms,” the ALJ considers medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Other relevant evidence includes: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain; any measures used to relieve pain; and “[o]ther factors concerning … functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). “The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, but should show that he considered the relevant evidence.” Hatcher v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-1123, 2019 WL 1382288, at *15 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2019) (citing Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to assess whether statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other record evidence and to consider the regulation’s enumerated factors.

Hester v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-30(c)(3)

Generally speaking, an ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other record evidence. SSR 16-3P, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (Mar. 28, 2016). In making this determination, the ALJ should also consider several enumerated factors. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) & 416.929(c)(3)). ... Because the ALJ acknowledged and fully analyzed the facts, the Court will not upset his decision.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and functional limitations using objective medical evidence and the regulation’s other factors.

Harding v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-14(a), (c)(1)-(3)

“In assessing an individual’s credibility, the ALJ must first determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” ... Then “the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of the symptoms by considering objective medical evidence, as well as other factors found in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) and 416.929(c)(1)-(3).” ... While Plaintiff’s objection identifies other evidence in the record that would tend to support his preferred conclusions, the ALJ applied the correct legal standard, considered all the evidence including the evidence Plaintiff cites to in his objection, and concluded the greater weight of the evidence supported an adverse finding.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, consider whether the claimant’s statements are consistent with the evidence, and explain the rejection of claimed limitations well enough to permit judicial review.

Jurick v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-05-21(c)

In doing so, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s statements concerning the relevant factors, and their symptoms and limitations, are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record. ... Although the ALJ cited a reason for discounting a claimant’s symptoms that is “proper” under the regulations, he failed to articulate or support his reasoning. ... The ALJ did not discuss her statements at all, did not articulate what he concluded the frequency or intensity of Plaintiff’s migraine symptoms were while she was taking medications, did not articulate what evidence supported his conclusion, and did not articulate whether or how often those symptoms would cause Plaintiff to be absent from work. In the absence of any such discussion, the Court is unable to perform its review function. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to explain why Plaintiff’s testimony was rejected, or why this limitation was omitted from the RFC assessment, compels us to reverse the ALJ’s decision and remand this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms to consider medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, information from medical sources, and all other relevant record evidence.

Henson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-30

To evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms,” the ALJ must look to medical evidence, statements by the claimant, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence on the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016). ... Here, the ALJ acknowledged Henson’s testimony and other statements regarding her physical and mental symptoms and limitations. (Tr. 24.) The ALJ determined Henson’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. (Id.) However, the ALJ found her statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms were not entirely consistent with medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons set forth in the decision. (Id.)

Section 404.1529(c)(3) uses a two-step process to evaluate symptoms: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-17(c)(3)

A two-step process is used to evaluate an individual’s symptoms. (20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017), 2017 WL 5180304.) At step one, the ALJ determines whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. (Id.; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *3.) At step two, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms. (Id. at *4.) ... Here, proper legal standards were applied and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. The ALJ expressly followed the two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms. (Id.) At the second step, the ALJ properly considered Moore’s testimony concerning her impairments, as well as diagnostic imaging and medical treatment records, and determined Moore’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” (Id. at 23.)

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs an ALJ to discount the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms when the claimant’s statements are inconsistent with the objective medical and other evidence.

Short v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-18(c)(4)

If the claimant’s statements about their impairments are inconsistent with the objective medical and other evidence, the ALJ will find the claimant’s symptoms less likely to be disabling. Id. at *8; accord 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) (DIB), 416.929(c)(4) (SSI). ... However, after reviewing that evidence and the contrary evidence, the ALJ found those statements to be partially, but not wholly, consistent with the entirety of the record. (ECF 9-1 at 42, 43). Because this finding was supported by substantial evidence, the Court should not overturn it on review. Hardman, 820 F. 3d at 151.

An ALJ evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms must consider the medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, information from medical sources, and other relevant evidence, but need not analyze every listed factor if the decision shows consideration of the relevant evidence.

Tester-Kopec v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-25(c)

To evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms,” the ALJ considers medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Other relevant evidence includes: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain; any measures used to relieve pain; and “[o]ther factors concerning … functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). “The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, but should show that he considered the relevant evidence.” Hatcher v. Berryhill, No. 1:18-cv-1123, 2019 WL 1382288, at *15 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 27, 2019) (citing Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) uses a two-step symptom evaluation: the ALJ first asks whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms and then evaluates the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Firestone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)

A two-step process is used to evaluate an individual’s symptoms. (20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017), 2017 WL 5180304.) At step one, the ALJ determines whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. (Id.; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *3.) At step two, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms. (Id. at *4.) ... The ALJ properly followed the two-step process for evaluating Firestone’s symptoms. ... The ALJ considered the objective medical evidence, including diagnoses, examination results, medication effectiveness and lack of adverse side effects. (Id. at 101-102.)

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors and other evidence when evaluating symptoms, but does not require the ALJ to enumerate every factor or discuss every piece of evidence if the decision logically connects the evidence to the determination.

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

The plaintiff relies on Garza v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., to argue that if the ALJ considered the Section 404.1529(c)(3) factors, it was done so ambiguously. ... While the ALJ decision did not specifically enumerate the factors with the corresponding evidence, or “comment on every piece of evidence,” the decision certainly “build[s] an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the final determination” that “other evidence” was not entirely consistent with the medical evidence. ... For the reasons explained above, the Court overrules the plaintiffs objection because the ALJ decision did consider “other evidence” when reaching his decision that the “other evidence” was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) requires consideration of the listed symptom factors and inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the medical evidence when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Bajalia v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-16(c)(3)-(4)

This evaluation includes consideration of the following factors: “(i) the claimant’s daily activities; (ii) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (v) the claimant’s functional restrictions.” Vance v. Berryhill, 860 F.3d 1114, 1120 (8th Cir. 2017) (citing Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984)) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7. The ALJ also considers whether there are inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the medical evidence, only accepting those statements that can “reasonably be accepted as consistent” with the rest of the record in making its RFC determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms, including pain, and how far they are consistent with the objective medical evidence when assessing ability to work.

Palomino v. Barnhart · filed 2007-06-26

The ALJ specifically stated that in determining whether Plaintiff had the RFC to perform jobs that were available in significant numbers in the economy, he must consider all symptoms, including pain, and also the extent to which those symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence in the record. Additionally, the ALJ’s determinations of Plaintiffs ability to perform work were consistent with objective medical evidence in the record. To the extent that the ALJ made conclusions adverse to the allegations made by Plaintiff, he was justified in doing so.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s daily activities, treatment, medication, and other factors when evaluating symptoms.

Ali v. Colvin · filed 2017-02-21(c)(3)

Further, the ALJ considered the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) to reach his conclusion.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess claims of pain in light of the relevant symptom factors and make specific findings when discounting them.

Lemieux v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-30

I thus conclude that the ALJ’s credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence, and remand for the ALJ to make specific findings as to which claims of pain are incredible in light of the Avery factors.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms through an analysis of the relevant evidence; boilerplate language does not undermine an evaluation accompanied by a thorough analysis.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-19(c)

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ failed to analyze any of the relevant factors under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.945(c) as required by SSR 16-3p. Mot. 19-20. This Court disagrees for the reasons that follow. ... Therefore, in this Circuit, an ALJ’s use of boiler plate “is problematic only when it appears ‘in the absence of a more thorough analysis.’” Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1170 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hardman v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 676, 679 (10th Cir. 2004)). The ALJ performed just such an analysis in this case, as numerous record excerpts demonstrate.

Section 404.1529(a) requires evaluation of reported symptoms against objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Pickett v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(a)

The ALJ properly considered both objective and subjective factors when evaluating Nancy P.’s subjective claims of pain: He did not rely on any one factor, but rather considered a number of factors in reaching his conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to evaluate reported symptoms using daily activities and other record evidence; the ALJ need not discuss every factor individually if the reasons are tied to specific evidence.

Asberry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-09(c)(3)

But the ALJ, as required, gave clear and specific reasons that were specifically linked to the evidence in the record. ... This was sufficient as the ALJ need not make a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.”

Section 404.1529 requires analysis of treatment other than medication and other measures used to relieve pain or symptoms.

Craig v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-05-18

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

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ first to determine whether a medically established impairment could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Sullivan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-07(a), (b)

First, the ALJ must determine, based upon the objective medical evidence, whether the medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged . . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b); 416.929(a), (b).

Section 404.1529 calls for an ALJ to determine whether a medical impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence to assess work limitations.

Maynor v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-11

Here, the ALJ followed the steps outlined in the regulations and Ruling in accounting for Plaintiff’s lumbar-related symptoms.

Section 404.1529’s rules for evaluating symptoms remain unchanged by SSR 16-3p’s removal of the term “credibility” from the analysis.

Woods v. Saul · filed 2022-08-22

Social Security Ruling 16-3p eliminated the term “credibility” from the analysis of subjective complaints. However, the regulations remain unchanged; “Our regulations on evaluating symptoms are unchanged.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider symptoms, including pain, alongside objective medical and other evidence.

Whiteley v. Social Security · filed 2022-10-21

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; SSRs 96-4p, 96-7p. ... Because the opinions of non-treating or non-examining physicians may serve as substantial evidence when the opinions are consistent with independent clinical findings or other evidence in the record, the ALJ properly relied on the evaluations by Doctors Chahal and Arnow in evaluating Whiteley’s RFC.

Section 404.1529(b) requires the SSA to first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-01(b)

Consideration of a claimant’s symptoms therefore involves a two-step process, wherein the SSA first considers whether an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, such as pain.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms using medical evidence and the record as a whole.

Wheeler v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15

We further find that the ALJ’s symptom evaluation complied with the requirements prescribed by the Commissioner’s regulations and the law.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject statements about the intensity and persistence of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Savoy v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-22(c)(2)

Social Security regulations do not permit an ALJ to “reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [ ] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have on [a claimant’s] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his or her] statements.” ... In considering Plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistency, and limiting effects of his symptoms, the ALJ carefully explained how they were “inconsistent with the record prior to the established onset date,” utilizing objective evidence, in addition to Plaintiff’s own statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formalistic discussion of each symptom factor when the ALJ identifies sufficient record inconsistencies to explain the evaluation.

Campbell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-09-13(c)(3)

Plaintiff’s argument the ALJ did not cite any of the regulatory factors, suggesting the ALJ did not provide the substance of the required analysis, and that his reasons are not clearly articulated such that a subsequent reviewer might understand his evaluation is without merit. While the ALJ might have been more extensive in his analysis, as noted above he provided four inconsistencies upon which he relied in discounting Plaintiff’s allegations of symptoms. That is sufficient.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) permit an ALJ to consider a claimant's activities when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of reported symptoms.

BILBY v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3), (4)

As the ALJ explained, the nature and scope of his activities showed him to be more functional than he alleged. The ALJ was permitted to make this determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), (4).

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

Moumen v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-10-09(a)

The regulations require consideration of all symptoms and the extent to which such symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.

Section 404.1529 governs the evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements under the current symptom assessment standard.

Avila · filed 2026-01-27

The court notes as an initial matter that the ALJ properly cited and applied the current standard for assessing Marisela’s subjective symptom statements. (See A.R. 25-28 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p).)

Section 404.1529 governs how an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s symptoms and subjective symptom testimony.

Kropf · filed 2026-02-17

The court disagrees. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s analysis provides specific, clear and convincing reasons to discount plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of whether a medically established impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Wilbur D. HERBERT, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Etc., Appellee · filed 1986-02-04

The AU did not find that Herbert’s medically determined impairments could not be reasonably expected to produce Herbert’s symptoms. See 20 CFR § 404.1529; 42 USC § 423(d)(5).

Section 404.1529 requires subjective evidence of pain to receive at least some weight once an objective medical basis for pain is shown.

Glen W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1988-04-19

The legal standards for evaluating pain symptoms are contained in the Secretary’s regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (1986), and the Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-460, 98 Stat. 1794. ... Once an objective medical basis for the existence of pain has been shown, subjective evidence must be given at least some weight and cannot be disregarded or minimized into nonexistence.