20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

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

Nowak v. Saul · filed 2021-04-06(a)

ALJs faced with assessing the severity of subjective symptoms are not bound to take the claimant’s statements at face value. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“[S]tatements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled.”) Instead, ALJs have several tools in their toolkit.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider medical evidence, daily activities, pain or other symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Sibio-Sanchez v. Saul · filed 2021-07-13(c)

When assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, his level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. ... Here, the ALJ provided a host of legitimate reasons for discounting Rachel’s subjective symptom allegations, including objective medical evidence, Rachel’s admitted daily activities, her level of pain, her medication, and her course of treatment.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of the available evidence when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and work-related effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Tallman v. Saul · filed 2021-09-07(c)(1)-(2)

The ALJ properly considered her physicians’ medical opinions, the conservative medical treatment she received, and the objective clinical findings.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors such as daily activities, activities that aggravate pain, and treatment when evaluating symptoms.

Yonka v. Social Security · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

The ALJ also considered other factors as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), including that Plaintiff was able to cook and perform household chores with taking breaks, that certain activities aggravate back pain including climbing stairs.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of reported symptoms using medical and other evidence to assess how they affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Dalberth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-12

The ALJ must employ a two-step analysis to evaluate a plaintiff’s reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... A review of the record and the ALJ’s decision indicates the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of relevant factors, including daily activities, when evaluating the limiting effects of symptoms.

Dimas v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-18(c)(3)

Mr. Dimas takes no real issue with any of these statements other than alleging that his daily activities were misconstrued by the ALJ, but the question is whether the ALJ’s findings regarding those daily activities were supported by substantial evidence. Having reviewed the record, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) lists factors for evaluating symptoms, and those factors remained the same when SSR 16-3p replaced SSR 96-7p.

Snider-Short v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-10-19(c)(3)

This is unsurprising because both SSR 96-7p and SSR 16-3p explain how the SSA evaluates symptoms in disability claims and are in essence an explanation of how the SSA applies 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and § 416.929 (“How we evaluate symptoms, including pain”), and the factors listed are the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and § 416.929(c)(3) and were identical both before and after March 27, 2017. ... The ALJ’s statements that he applied the factors from SSR 96-7p rather than those from SSR 16-3p is error in form only, not in substance.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant factors when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2021-10-26(c)(2)-(3)

An ALJ must consider all relevant factors when evaluating a Plaintiff’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)-(3), 416.929(c)(2)-(3). The ALJ did so in this case.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms against the medical and other evidence when assessing their limiting effects.

Wynne v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-10

Although Plaintiff alleged her impairments prevented her from using her hands and fingers for repetitive actions, lifting up to 10 pounds, and occasionally lifting or carrying articles like docket files, ledgers, and small tools, the ALJ evaluated her allegations in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and § 416.929 and gave adequate reasons for rejecting them.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, alongside the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Tyndall v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-15(a)

The ALJ is required to consider all of claimant’s “symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [those] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, pain and other symptoms, treatment, and measures used for relief when evaluating symptoms.

COPE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2021-11-18(c)(3)

At stage two of the Social Security Rule 16-3p analysis, the ALJ considers the claimant's alleged symptoms in light of the claimant's daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment other than medication for relief of pain; and other measures taken to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider the available evidence, including the claimant’s statements, when assessing how symptoms affect the ability to work.

SHEPHERD v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-02-15(c)

Thus, the second part of the test requires the AL] to consider all available evidence, including Plaintiff's statements about her pain, in order to evaluate “the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain, and the extent to which it affects her ability to work.”

Section 404.1529(a) directs the ALJ to evaluate symptoms against objective medical evidence and other evidence, including the claimant’s daily activities.

Kramer v. Saul · filed 2022-02-16(a)

Assuming such a medical underpinning exists, the ALJ then will evaluate whether the claimant’s symptoms reasonably can be accepted as consistent with (1) objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings and (2) other evidence such as previous statements by the claimant, treating and non-treating sources, and other individuals “about [the claimant’s] medical history, diagnosis, prescribed treatment, daily activities, efforts to work,” and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, to the extent they are consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Kowalski v. Saul · filed 2022-02-22(a)

As discussed supra, in determining whether the claimant is disabled, the ALJ must “consider all [of the 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); ... Applying this standard to the present record, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s physical RFC determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms, including those related to a nonsevere impairment, when assessing their limiting effects.

Crowell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-23

As such, the ALJ did not err because she found plaintiff had a severe impairment and considered all of plaintiff's symptoms, including those related to CFS, in subsequent portions of her decision.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether a medical impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assess how those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Lafountain v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-24

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). ... In light of the substantial deference owed to the ALJ’s determination on this issue, the court finds no error in the evaluation of plaintiff’s subjective symptoms that would warrant remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider factors including pain, medication effects, and treatment when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Oppito v. Saul · filed 2022-02-28(c)(3)

It also does not address Plaintiff’s symptoms under the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529 requires adjudicators to consider a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and assess their consistency with medical and other evidence.

Williams v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-10(c)

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ who discounts a claimant’s reported symptoms to explain which evidence conflicts with the allegations and why.

Pulkrabek v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-10

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 September 30, 2020, when this case was decided. ... In a case such as this where the ALJ has so appropriately summarized the record evidence, both that supporting Plaintiff’s allegations and that tending to detract from the allegations, she must explain the evidence she found inconsistent with the allegations and why the inconsistencies led her to discount the allegations.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider relevant medical and treatment evidence when evaluating symptoms, although the ALJ need not discuss every listed factor.

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

First, while the ALJ is not required to consider every factor outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), ALJ Adkins’s review is almost exclusively limited to an analysis of Plaintiff’s daily activities. By focusing almost exclusively on his daily activities, the ALJ ignored objective evidence and clinical findings supporting Plaintiff’s complaints as well as evidence related to the lengthy and frequent course of medical treatment or the nature and extent of that treatment.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements about symptoms using relevant evidence, including their frequency, intensity, treatment, and functional effects.

Nail v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-21

The factors to be considered in evaluating a claimant’s statements, however, remain the same. See id. at *13 (“Our regulations on evaluating symptoms are unchanged.”). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of factors such as daily activities, the nature of symptoms, medication, and treatment when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

St Clair v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)

Next, Plaintiff outlines the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), noting instances where such factors were apparent in the record. ... But, again, such a reiteration was unnecessary; the ALJ considered these factors in his decision.

Section 404.1529 governs how an ALJ evaluates reported symptoms and their limiting effects in light of the record.

McCullough v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-21

Overall, the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s reported symptoms and complaints in a manner consistent with relevant SSA policies and regulations, including SSR 16-3p, 2017 2017 WL 5180304 (SSA Oct. 25, 2017), and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider relevant factors, including daily activities, medication, and treatment, when evaluating how symptoms limit a claimant’s ability to work.

Rifanburg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)

When evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms before and after the closed period, the ALJ considered the evidence defined in the factors set forth under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) through (c)(3)(vii).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms in light of the medical evidence and other evidence, including daily activities.

Steinmetz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(c)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) and § 416.929(a) govern the ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain. ... The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider factors including daily activities, treatment, and medication when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Covington v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-08-09(c)(3)

Under step two, the ALJ must consider objective medical evidence and other evidence including medical sources, non-medical sources, and the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s subjective pain analysis.

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

Kenworthy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-09(a)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about their symptoms, including pain, and how these symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The ALJ did not err in considering Plaintiff’s work history as part of the overall analysis of her subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529 directs the ALJ to evaluate reported pain in light of objective medical evidence and descriptions of how symptoms affect the claimant.

Ward v. Saul · filed 2022-08-23

To determine if a claimant is disabled, the ALJ considers symptoms of her pain, the extent to which her symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence, including statements of her pain, and descriptions from medical sources about how symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Accordingly, after reviewing the record, there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding ... regarding Plaintiff’s pain, and Plaintiff’s allegation that the ALJ erred in his assessment thereof, lacks merit.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms, including pain, in light of objective medical and other evidence, and permits an ALJ to discount claimed symptoms for reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Hamilton-Hoge v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, when evaluating disability, the SSA will “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.” ... For the above reasons and for the other reasons discussed in the Commissioner’s brief, the Court finds that the ALJ conducted an adequate evaluation of Plaintiff’s claimed symptoms, considered relevant factors, and gave good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for partially discounting those symptoms.

Section 404.1529 calls for determining whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms, then assessing their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Henry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-11-01

When evaluating a claimant’s allegations of pain, the ALJ uses a two-step process: (1) the ALJ first determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms; and (2) the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the pain symptoms and determines the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work. ... These steps are consistent with the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (How we evaluate symptoms, including pain). ... Here, the ALJ followed this two-step process, finding that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.”

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to consider inconsistencies with objective medical and other evidence when assessing how symptoms affect a claimant’s capacity to work.

Ross v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-28(c)

The ALJ performed the subjective symptom evaluation appropriately considering whether statements about symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, and if they are inconsistent, such statements are less likely to reduce capacity to perform work related activities. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s reported symptoms in light of the medical and other evidence when assessing functional capacity.

Penrod v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-23

Here, when formulating Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s symptoms and the extent to which those symptoms were consistent with the objective medical evidence, medical opinions and the prior administrative medical findings.

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

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-28(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider “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, including [the claimant’s] history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by [the claimant’s] medical sources or other persons about how [her] symptoms affect [her].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

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

MASON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-01-18(b)

In accordance with the two-step analysis prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) and SSR 16-3p, the ALJ first found that Mason’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably have been expected to cause the symptoms alleged. ... Without discussing the medical record in more detail, therefore, it is clear that substantial evidence supported the ALJ in finding that Ms. Mason’s subjective representations were not entirely consistent with the medical record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-23(c)(3)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s decision supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms in light of medical and other relevant evidence.

Fluker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

This Court finds the ALJ’s opinion unsupported by substantial evidence because he did not clearly evaluate all the evidence of Plaintiff’s leg swelling or explain his rejection of a limitation on sharps. The ALJ based his rejection of Plaintiff’s testimony about his leg swelling, at least in part, on a confusing citation to the record.

Section 404.1529 governs evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms under the three-step framework described in Luna.

Hockett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-02-23

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 June 2, 2021, when this case was decided.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs ALJs to consider factors including daily activities, aggravating factors, medication, and other treatment when assessing symptom testimony.

Stover v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-01(c)(3)

The factors relevant to any ALJ’s assessment of symptom testimony are a claimant’s daily activities; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication a claimant takes to alleviate symptoms; and treatments received (other than medications) to alleviate symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms and their limiting effects in light of the medical and other evidence.

Moore v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-01

Only in light of this analysis did the ALJ hold that Plaintiff’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not wholly consistent with the record. This was an adequate evaluation under the regulations and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 governs how the agency evaluates a claimant’s symptoms in a disability claim.

Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-10

Furthermore, this Court is finds the ALJ carefully considered Plaintiff’s symptoms in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which sets forth the process for evaluating symptoms, and SSR 16-3p, which sets forth the process for evaluating symptoms in disability claims.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to address a claimant’s reported symptoms when assessing residual functional capacity.

Ferguson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-21

Additionally, the court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s reported symptoms, including those symptoms arising from fibromyalgia. The RFC assessment must address the claimant’s reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of daily activities, pain, aggravating factors, medication effects, and functional restrictions when evaluating symptoms.

Heimbuck v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

Such evaluation includes consideration of “(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); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7. ... The ALJ also considered the statements Plaintiff and his wife made about his limitations in light of other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s symptoms using the relevant evidence and factors; the ALJ need not discuss factors that are not relevant.

Simpson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-30(c)(3)

The procedure for evaluating symptoms is provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, and further explained in SSR 16-3p. ... An ALJ need not discuss non-relevant factors, see Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2013), and the ALJ’s decision addresses all relevant SSR 16-3p factors – including daily activities, reports of symptoms, aggravating factors, medications, non-medication treatment, and other evidence regarding functional limitations – and addresses all pertinent sources of evidence, including plaintiff’s statements, objective medical evidence, and opinion evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of a claimant’s reported symptoms against the medical evidence and the record as a whole.

Kirkhart v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-06

Prior to this statement, and consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s requirements, the ALJ recognized her obligation to assess Kirkhart’s symptoms based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and SSR 16- 3p. ... The Court finds that the ALJ appropriately discounted Kirkhart’s subjective complaints based on the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider daily activities, medication effects, treatment, and other relevant factors.

Giles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-24(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2019). ... Substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s subjective complaint determination and thus the RFC assessment.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step assessment of a claimant’s symptoms.

McCrae v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-17

First, the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff's symptoms in accordance with the two- step process required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to assess how much a claimant’s symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work after the claimant establishes an underlying condition capable of causing them.

Robinson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-08-23(a)

If a claimant satisfies this test, the inquiry shifts to whether and to what extent the claimant’s symptoms limit his capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Having reviewed the entire record, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination.

Section 404.1529 governs how an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Parks v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-23

Taken together, this Court finds the reasons the ALJ gave for her symptom findings were not consistent with the evidence or clearly articulated.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity and work effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Worsham v. SSA · filed 2023-08-28(c)(1)

However, social security regulations explicitly provide that the Commissioner “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his or her pain] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have on [his or her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [such] statements.” § 404.1529(c)(1). Here, it is not clear from the ALJ’s decision that she considered, even impliedly, Worsham’s alleged symptoms and the objective medical evidence supporting or contradicting the purported severity of such symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) calls for consideration of factors such as daily activities, pain, medication, treatment, and functional limits when evaluating symptoms.

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-30(c)

The agency policy statement sets forth seven factors that the ALJ should consider: 1.) daily activities; 2.) location, duration, frequency and intensity of pain/symptoms; 3.) factors precipitating or aggravating the symptoms; 4.) type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of mediation; 5.) non-medication treatments; 6.) non-treatment measures used to alleviate pain; and 7.) any other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 16-3p(2)(d), Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p: Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P, 2016 WL 1119029 (S.S.A. Mar. 16, 2016); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence when evaluating symptoms; the ALJ cannot discount symptoms based on a mischaracterization of the medical record.

ACEVEDO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-09-13(c)(3)

In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. ... Here, the ALJ’s reliance on this mischaracterization of the objective medical evidence permeates the decision and cannot be separated from his reasoning in discounting Plaintiff’s subjective statements and, ultimately, the RFC determination.

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to assess reported symptoms against the medical evidence, treatment history, and daily activities.

Mills v. SSA · filed 2023-11-21

The ALJ properly evaluated these complaints and determined that they were not entirely consistent with the objective medical evidence, including Mills’ very limited medical treatment and his reported activities and abilities.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms in light of the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Myers v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-12

In making her factual findings with respect to Myers's RFC, the ALJ was required to evaluate all of Myers's symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and Social Security Ruling 96-4p, and to assess the weight of the opinion evidence of record under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927, and Social Security Rulings 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-6p, and 06-3p. ... The ALJ reasonably evaluated the physical limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider all presented evidence, including the claimant’s prior work record.

Morales v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-22(c)(3)

When assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must “consider all of the evidence presented, including information about prior work record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Absent any stated connection between Plaintiff’s specific testimony and the relevant medical evidence, the Court is precluded from concluding ALJ Schum appropriately evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for the ALJ to consider factors such as daily activities, medication, treatment, and the intensity of symptoms when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Hattan v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-04(c)(3)

As part of the symptom analysis, the ALJ should consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), including: (i) daily activities; ... and (vii) any other factors concerning functional limitations.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of relevant evidence when evaluating a claimant’s pain and other symptoms.

Cowan v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-05(c)

Accordingly, the ALJ’s discussion did not adequately explain why the ALJ found the plaintiff's alleged standing and walking limitations inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms when assessing residual functional capacity and evaluate how those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work.

Daniels v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-11(a), (d)(4)

The ALJ is required to consider Claimant’s subjective complaints, or symptoms1 in determining the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) & (d)(4). ... The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s consistency analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors for evaluating symptoms, including treatment efforts, daily activities, and medication effects.

Jackson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-25(c)(3)

Factors the ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include the claimant’s attempts to find relief and willingness to try any treatment prescribed; a claimant’s regular contact with a doctor; the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; the claimant’s daily activities; and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1167 (10th Cir. 2012); see also SSR 16-3p at *7 (listing similar factors); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3). ... The ALJ failed to contrast any of Plaintiff’s subjective statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her leg swelling with the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) calls for evaluating symptom complaints using relevant factors, including the nature of pain and the effectiveness of treatment.

Torongeau v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-14(c)

Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection that the ALJ improperly considered the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c), and SSR 16-3p and reached cursory conclusions.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as daily activities, treatment, and medication when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Neel v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-20(c)(3)

In sum, the ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the objective evidence satisfies 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3), and SSR 16-3.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider relevant factors when reported symptoms suggest limitations greater than objective medical evidence shows.

Nguyen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-13(c)(3)

When the reported pain and other symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the ALJ will consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Because ALJ Wilkerson discussed the subjective and objective medical evidence at length, weighed Claimant’s testimony against the record evidence, and considered Claimant’s subjective complaints using the regulatory factors, the Court finds that ALJ Wilkerson’s evaluation of Claimant’s subjective complaints is supported by substantial evidence and complies with applicable regulations.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider the whole record when assessing how reported symptoms affect a claimant’s ability to work.

CROFT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-03-18(c)

In the present case, 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 symptoms on her ability to work.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider the full record when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms and their effect on her ability to work.

LANE v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-03-18(c)

In the present case, as instructed by the regulations, the ALJ considered the entire case record and explained the reasons for deviating from Plaintiffs statements regarding the impact of her symptoms on her ability to work.

Section 404.1529 governs an ALJ’s assessment of a claimant’s symptoms and largely mirrors the Polaski factors.

Littrell v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-21

Prior to this statement, and consistent with the Eighth Circuit’s requirements, the ALJ recognized his obligation to assess Littrell’s symptoms based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, and SSR 16- 3p. (Tr. 24.) ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s evaluation of Littrell’s subjective complaints “is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole,” which is sufficient to merit the deference of this Court.

Once an impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms is established, the ALJ must evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity to work.

Swanson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-25(c)(1)

Second, once such impairment(s) are established, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms so she can determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. Id. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically established impairment could cause the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s capacity to work.

Quantrille v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-25

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ uses a two-step process. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (regulation governing the evaluation of symptoms). ... Here, the ALJ’s opinion adequately accounted for Plaintiff’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms, including daily activities, treatment, and measures used to relieve pain.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)

In sum, the ALJ considered multiple relevant factors in the pain analysis in addition to the ones Plaintiff challenges, and the findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the evaluation of symptoms to consider daily activities, pain, treatment, and functional limitations.

Eaton v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-02(c)(3)

Rather, the ALJ considered the relevant evidence, including Paulette’s symptom statements, objective medical evidence, daily activities, pain, treatment, and functional limitations, see SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3), and supported his symptom assessment with substantial evidence, (A.R. 21-25).

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of the intensity and persistence of symptoms and their effect on a claimant’s ability to work.

Lipscomb v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-04-09(c)

If the first part of the pain standard is sa�sfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of Plain�ff’s alleged symptoms and their effect on his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225−26. ... The credibility determina�ons made by the ALJ are therefore supported by substan�al evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s reported symptoms and explain why the evidence does not support the claimed limitations.

Little v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-02(c)

The ALJ, though, barely mentioned Plaintiff’s fatigue after listing the symptom reports and diagnoses and never stated how or why he believed her repeated descriptions of those symptoms were inconsistent either with each other or with other evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of daily activities, treatment, and medication effects when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Moura v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-07(c)(3)

In sum, the ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the objective evidence satisfies 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and SSR 16-3.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record, including daily activities.

Tolbert v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-06(c)(2)-(3)

Then, provided no evidence of malingering exists, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s statements in the context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3). ... As such, the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons why the longitudinal record and objective medical evidence did not support the extent of the alleged symptoms. (Id. at 22-24.)

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom claims against the objective evidence and the record as a whole, including treatment and daily activities.

Treher v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-18(c)

The ALJ considered Ms. Treher’s statements and the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2),(4) (An ALJ must consider whether there are conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the objective medical evidence.) ... But the ALJ did not over-rely on these objective exam findings to discount Ms. Treher’s subjective symptom complaints and instead considered the entire longitudinal record.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate reported pain and other symptoms against the medical evidence and relevant factors, including daily activities.

Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-30

Nevertheless, based on the Court’s review, the Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c) calls for evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms using the claimant’s statements, medical evidence, work record, and other available evidence.

Harbst v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-30(c)

Consistent with SSR 16-3p and the regulations, the ALJ considered the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s symptoms and determined the extent they limited her ability to perform work following the two-step process identified by the Commissioner, where she first determined that Plaintiff suffered from several severe impairments and then analyzed whether the impairments would cause any work-related limitations by considering ... Plaintiff’s own statements, medical history, objective medical evidence, medical signs, and laboratory findings, prior work record, as well as the other evidence available in the record. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the ALJ here applied proper legal standards and her RFC determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate how a claimant’s symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work.

King v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-06

Given these considerations, regardless of whether nausea and vomiting are symptoms or impairments, the ALJ’s failure to explicitly address them and their impact on Plaintiff’s functional abilities and potential off-task time at work constitutes a harmful error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of specified factors when evaluating symptoms, but the ALJ need not discuss each factor individually if the decision makes clear they were considered.

Niston v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-16(c)(3)

Although the ALJ is not required to enumerate and discuss each factor in evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ’s decision must be “sufficiently specific to make clear that the regulatory factors were considered.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of symptoms using the available evidence, including the claimant’s statements.

LOCKLEAR v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-30(c)

Thus, the second part of the test requires the AL] to consider all available evidence, including Plaintiffs statements about his pain, in order to evaluate “the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain, and the extent to which it affects [his] ability to work.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. ... Thus, the AL]’s substantial reliance on what appeats to be a misstatement or typographical error in a single medical record undermines the analysis and reasoning supporting the AL]’s ultimate determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms against the medical and other evidence.

Seppo v. Dudek · filed 2025-02-20(a)

The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s testimony and statements about his symptoms and found that while his impairments could be expected to cause such symptoms, Plaintiff’s claims about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms or self- described limitations.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider medical and nonmedical evidence about a claimant’s symptoms and permits objective medical evidence as a factor in assessing their limiting effects.

Spinazzola v. Social Security · filed 2025-08-15(c)

Sections 404.1529(c), 416.929(c) provide that an ALJ is required to “consider all of the available evidence from [the claimant’s] medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [the] symptoms affect [the claimant].” 20 ... C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... The ALJ applied the proper legal standards, analyzed the evidence, and articulated why she did not find Ms. Spinazzola’s subjective complaints consistent with the evidence. Thus, the ALJ properly evaluated Ms. Spinazzola’s subjective complaints, and remand is not required.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the claimant’s symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence using all available evidence, including daily activities.

Eggleston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-02(c)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant's subjective complaints, the Commissioner's regulations require ALJs to employ a two-step inquiry. ... “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a ‘medically determinable impairment[ ] that could reasonably be expected to produce’” her symptoms. Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). “Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms considering all of the available evidence; and, to the extent that the claimant's [subjective] contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” ... Here, it is clear from her opinion that the ALJ's adverse credibility determination rests on the inconsistency between the Plaintiff's testimony and the other evidence before her.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms, including pain, to determine how they limit a claimant’s capacity to work.

Whittle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-09-25(c)(1)

The ALJ is required to “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the plaintiff’s] symptoms[,]” including pain, in order to “determine how [the plaintiff’s] symptoms limit [the] capacity to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... Based on the review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiency explained how she considered Plaintiff’s symptoms and the relevant evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5–6. Remand is not warranted on this issue.

Section 404.1529(c) directs the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and limiting effects of symptoms using medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the claimant’s statements and response to treatment.

Finley v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-26(c)

When reviewing evidence other than objective medical evidence, the ALJ may consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the claimant’s symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medications; other treatment the claimant has received for symptom relief; and any other measures the claimant has used to relieve her symptoms. Id. at *18–19; see also §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... In sum, the ALJ’s decision to discredit Finley’s allegedly disabling symptoms is not patently wrong, as that decision is logically explained and supported by the record.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

McGhee v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-29

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, ALJs use the two-step analytical framework set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and described in SSR 16-3p. ... This represents an adequate analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medical impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Jimenez v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-29

The ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff’s subjective statements and her mother’s testimony in light of the medical and other evidence of record and articulated findings to support discounting the statements in light of the regulatory factors.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to assess whether a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with medical and other evidence.

Manriquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-30

In assessing credibility, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are reasonably consistent with the medical and other evidence of record. Id. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

An ALJ evaluates whether a claimant’s reported symptoms are consistent with the medical and other evidence when deciding how those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Koziol · filed 2025-10-27(a)

An ALJ must determine “the extent to which [a claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how [a claimant’s] symptoms affect [his or her] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The ALJ correctly applied the two-step inquiry here.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, information from medical sources, and other relevant evidence.

Davies · filed 2025-11-19(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ must look to medical evidence, statements by the claimant, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.

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

Head · filed 2026-02-10(c)

The ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, and other relevant evidence.

Stearnes · filed 2026-02-20(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. ... Simply put, Sternes hasn’t shown that the ALJ erred when she evaluated his reports of symptoms.

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

Bisignano · filed 2026-02-25

A symptom evaluation requires two steps: “[f]irst, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s alleged symptoms,” and then second, “the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms.” ... The ALJ did not require objective medical evidence; instead, she summarized Plaintiff’s years of treatment to show Plaintiff has reported to her doctors that her symptoms improve and are stable with medication and therapy.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms and their consistency with objective medical and other evidence.

GRIFFITH · filed 2026-02-27(a)

The foregoing demonstrates that the ALJ fully considered Plaintiff’s subjective concerns about her anxiety or stress contributing to frequent hypoglycemic episodes as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms, including their intensity, persistence, and effect on the ability to work.

Carver · filed 2026-03-23

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. ... This Court cannot conclude that the ALJ's evaluation of Plaintiff's symptoms or the functional limitations related thereto are supported by substantial evidence given the Decision's silence on her urinary incontinence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider other evidence, including daily activities, when evaluating symptoms that objective medical evidence does not substantiate.

Zeler · filed 2026-03-31(c)(3)

There is no mention or discussion here of, for example, Plaintiffs daily activities, and the required consideration of the credibility factors in § 404.1529(c)(8) 1s not evident from the ALJ’s decision. Remand is therefore required.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of a claimant's daily activities when evaluating subjective complaints about symptoms.

Johnson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-09-22(c)

Second, the ALJ properly discounted Johnson's subjective complaints in view of his "daily activities," see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and because the complaints contradicted the ALJ's personal observations and the objective medical evidence, see Tyra v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 896 F.2d 1024, 1030 (6th Cir.1990).

Section 404.1529(c) requires a complete credibility analysis to consider the claimant's allegations about how symptoms affect daily activities.

Eakin v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-30(c)

A complete credibility analysis accounts for the applicant’s allegations about how her symptoms affect her daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); S.S.R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186; Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir. 2011).

Section 404.1529 requires daily-activity evidence to be evaluated in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, without requiring objective verification.

Qualls v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-01(c)(3)(i) and (c)(4)

Indeed, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) does not require verification. The regulations simply state that such evidence will be evaluated “in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(e)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the intensity and persistence of pain symptoms.

Symonds v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-31(e)(3)(i)

The ALJ also indicated that Symonds’s testimony about the limiting effects of his symptoms was contradicted by his testimony that his daily activities included vacuuming, caring for his children, and helping his wife with the grocery shopping.5 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(e)(3)(i) (providing that the ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the intensity and persistence of pain symptoms).

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

Chambers v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-13(c)(3)(i)

When evaluating a claimant’s credibility, one of the factors the ALJ must review is the claimant’s daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (2011); SSR 96-7p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34483 (July 2, 1996).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptoms, but brief participation in daily activities does not necessarily disqualify the claimant from disability.

Davis-Grimplin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-02-25(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ may consider the claimant’s daily activities when evaluating her subjective symptoms, but a claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not necessarily disqualify her from a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); see Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997) (noting that the claimant’s successful completion of a six-minute treadmill exercise was not necessarily indicative of his ability to work, and that the fact that he did housework and went fishing was not inconsistent with the limitations recommended by his treating physicians).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to compare a claimant’s subjective complaints with the record evidence, including daily activities.

Gobis v. SSA · filed 2016-06-07(a)

Further, in assessing residual functional capacity, an ALJ considers, among other things, the claimant’s subjective complaints in comparison to the record evidence, including the claimant’s activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when assessing subjective complaints, but limited tasks should not be overread as proof of an ability to sustain full-time competitive work.

Lowery v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2025-01-15(c)(3)(i)

Although ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time, competitive, remunerative work, the applicable regulations expressly permit consideration of the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). A claimant’s “normal range of activities” may be relied upon as evidence that the claimant “retains a greater functional capacity than alleged.” Smoker v. Saul, No. 19-CV-1539 (AT) (JLC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80836, at *53 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020)(citation omitted).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical evidence that an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, while subsection (c)(2) bars rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them once an objective impairment is established.

Erlandson v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Health and Human Services · filed 1993-09-29(b), (c)(2)

Moreover, Social Security Administration regulations provide that "[a] physical or mental impairment must be established by medical evidence consisting of signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings, not only by your statement of symptoms," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1508, and that the medical impairment must be such as "could reasonably be expected to produce the ... symptoms alleged." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). ... Once the existence of an objective impairment is established, however, the Secretary may not reject the claimant's statements concerning the intensity or persistence of his symptoms or about the effect his symptoms have on his ability to work "solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his] statements." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); see Pope v. Shalala, No. 92-1084, slip op. at 13-20 (7th Cir. July 2, 1993) (adjudicator may not reject claimant's subjective complaints concerning the severity of her symptoms only because the available medical evidence does not fully corroborate the severity alleged); see also Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc ) (same). ... Moreover, once this conclusion was properly drawn, the ALJ was not required to consider Erlandson's testimony concerning the severity of his subjective symptoms, since that testimony by itself could not support a finding of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)-(3); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 404.1528(a), 404.1529(a)-(b); Pope, slip op. at 13-14 (evaluation of subjective claim of severity of symptoms is a two-step inquiry, which must begin with some objective medical evidence of an impairment); see also Marolf, 981 F.2d at 977-78; Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 345.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms against the objective and other evidence, considering inconsistencies and conflicts, and accepting alleged limitations only insofar as they are reasonably consistent with that evidence.

Serody v. Chater · filed 1995-09-14(c)(4)

We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence.... Your symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent that you alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant's symptoms, but the credibility determination cannot rest solely on the absence of objective evidence or on the claimant's demeanor during the hearing.

King v. Apfel · filed 1997-10-15(c)(2)

The ALJ found plaintiff's allegations of pain incredible, stating that this finding was not based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence nor his personal observations. (Tr. 24). While that properly recites the limitations on an ALJ's finding (20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Bishop v. Sullivan, 900 F.2d 1259 (8th Cir.1990)), the ALJ does appear to have given substantial weight to plaintiff's demeanor at the hearing ("He did not seem to be distracted by pain. Although offered the option to stand during the hearing or request a recess, [he] did not avail himself of this opportunity"). (Tr. 23, 25). ... This is not a proper basis for a lack of credibility finding and approaches the "sit and squirm" test strictly prohibited by this Circuit.

Section 404.1529(a) requires disability to be determined by considering whether the claimant’s symptoms are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence.

McCoy v. Chater · filed 1995-12-21(a)

Disability is to be determined after consideration of “the extent to which [a claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

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

Feild v. Apfel · filed 1998-12-31(c)(2)

However, the Commissioner will not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of her pain, or other symptoms or about the effect her symptoms have on her ability to work, solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate her statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529 requires subjective symptom complaints to be supported by objective medical evidence.

Davis v. Apfel · filed 2001-06-27

In his two paragraph report, Dr. Taylor merely repeats subject complaints, which must be supported by objective medical evidence.

Subsection (a) requires subjective complaints to be supported by some objective medical evidence.

Amadeo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-10-31(a)

However, subjective complaints must be supported by some objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms solely because available objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Smith v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-17(c)(2)

The ALJ’s analysis of claimant ’s allegations and her husband’s testimony in comparison with the medical evidence contradicts the “loose nexus” ruling in Luna and requires claimant to prove the severity of her pain and resulting limitations through medical test results alone. We have rejected this concept as contrary to applicable law. Id. at 165. “If objective medical evidence must establish that severe pain exists, subjective testimony serves no purpose at all.” Id. Agency regulation is in accord. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence, including medical signs and laboratory findings, showing an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or other symptoms; subjective reports alone do not establish disability.

Stone v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-27(a), (c)(2)

However, subjective reports will not alone establish a disability; objective medical evidence must also be present. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“... there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged....”). “Objective evidence” is defined as “evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, such as evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ to evaluate the severity of claimed symptoms against the objective medical evidence.

Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-06-03(c)(2)

A claimant’s statements about pain symptoms do not alone establish disability. The Act requires objective medical evidence showing the existence of an impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the claimed level of pain. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 1999). In evaluating symptoms including pain, the regulations provide that the ALJ consider a claimant’s daily activities; the type, dosage, and effectiveness of pain medication; the treatment, other than medication, received for relief of other symptoms; and any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms. Id. ... Here, the ALJ was aware of Lane’s complaints, but properly concluded that they were not completely credible because the objective medical evidence suggested exaggeration of pain symptoms and narcotic-seeking behavior. The objective medical evidence was inconsistent with the degree of pain and extent of limitation that Lane claimed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

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

King v. Barnhart · filed 2004-07-06(a)

Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate objective medical and other evidence when determining whether a claimant's subjective statements about an impairment are consistent with the record.

Berger v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-08(a), (d)(3)

The ALJ’s job was to assess Berger’s residual functional capacity by evaluating the “objective medical evidence and other evidence” to determine whether it was consistent with Berger’s subjective statements regarding his impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (d)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements solely because they are unsupported by available objective medical evidence.

Atwood v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-23(c)(2)

A claimant’s statements cannot be rejected solely because the testimony is viewed as unsubstantiated by the available objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, if the ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence, the court “may not engage in second-guessing.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms, but testimony may not be discredited solely because it lacks objective medical support.

White v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-24(c)(2)

An ALJ should not discredit testimony solely because it is not supported by objective medical evidence, though the medical evidence is relevant. SSR 96-7P, 1996 WL 374186, at *6 (July 2, 1996) (“[Ojbjective medical evidence ‘is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms and the effects those symptoms may have on the individual’s ability to function.” (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2))). Rather, an ALJ must consider the “entire case record and give specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s statements.”

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical evidence or findings showing that an underlying condition could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Niles v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-29(b)

A claimant must present medical evidence or findings that the existence of an underlying condition could reasonably be expected to produce the symptomatology alleged.

Section 404.1529 directs consideration of a claimant’s symptoms and whether they are reasonably consistent with objective medical and other evidence in the record.

Green v. Colvin · filed 2014-01-24

The court considers symptoms, the extent to which those symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(b) requires a claimant to provide medical evidence or findings showing an underlying condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms; subjective symptoms alone cannot establish disability.

Ortega v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-27(b)

However, subjective symptomatology by itself cannot be the basis for a finding of disability. A claimant must present medical evidence or findings that the existence of an underlying condition could reasonably be expected to produce the sympto-matology alleged. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(5)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), 416.929; SSR 96-7p.

Section 404.1529(b) provides that symptoms such as pain will not be found to affect a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment is present.

Brown v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-11(b)

Pain syndrome is not clearly diagnosed in the record, and pain by itself is a symptom, not an impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (“Your symptoms, such as pain . . . will not be found to affect your ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.”).

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

Lannon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-02-10(c)(2)

“[o]nce a claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment, an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires consideration of objective medical evidence when assessing the intensity and persistence of symptoms, but forbids rejecting symptom statements solely because that evidence does not substantiate them.

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

“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work. We must always attempt to obtain objective medical evidence and, when it is obtained, we will consider it in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. However, we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as a relevant factor, alongside other symptom information, in assessing symptom severity and disabling effects; it does not permit denying benefits solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms.

Rocha v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 (citing Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345-47 (9th Cir. 1991)); Fair, 885 F.2d at 601; Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pan or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be used as an indicator when assessing the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Carew v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)

“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2-3), 416.929(c)(2-3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the record and specified factors when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, while § 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant but insufficient by itself to reject symptom testimony.

Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(c), (c)(2)

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). The ALJ is instructed to “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s record,” “to determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities.” ... An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs or laboratory findings establishing a medically determinable impairment before a claimant's symptoms can be found to affect basic work activities.

Klieforth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-20(b)

See Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (upholding ALJ’s determination to discredit a source’s opinion because it was based primarily on subjective complaints unsupported by medical evidence); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (stating a claimant’s symptoms “will not be found to affect [the claimant’s] ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present”); ... for medical evidence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment and stating “under no circumstances may the existence of an impairment be established on the basis of symptoms alone”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence a relevant factor in evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain, but objective evidence alone cannot justify rejecting the claimant’s pain testimony.

Ramsey v. Saul · filed 2019-11-12(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence as a relevant factor in assessing symptom severity and disabling effects, but does not allow rejecting testimony solely for lack of objective support.

Rivard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-27(c)(2)

However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s symptom claims may not solely be based on the lack of supporting objective medical evidence. See Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346-47; Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered with other evidence in evaluating symptom severity and disabling effects, but does not permit symptom testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not support it.

Guillen v. Saul · filed 2019-12-02(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(a) provides that symptom testimony alone cannot establish disability and requires objective medical evidence to corroborate the claimed medical impairment.

Padilla v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-28(a)

Testimony about symptoms alone does not establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Objective medical evidence is required to corroborate assertions of medical impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits an ALJ from rejecting a claimant's symptom testimony solely because it is not substantiated by objective medical evidence, while permitting consideration of other factors.

Aldridge v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-11(c)(2)

The ALJ may rely on numerous factors when doing so but cannot discredit the claimant’s testimony solely because it was not substantiated by objective medical evidence. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to help assess the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and their effect on the ability to work, but it cannot alone justify rejecting the claimant’s statements.

Gillard v. Saul · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of her symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” those statements, the regulations recognize that objective medical evidence is “a useful indicator to assist [the Commissioner] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on [the claimant’s] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(2).

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

Anthony v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Mental status examinations are objective measures of an individual’s mental health.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the evaluation of symptom severity but does not allow an ALJ to reject a claimant's symptom statements solely because that evidence does not support them when an underlying impairment is established.

Mcdade v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-06(c)(2)

Plaintiff produced evidence of her underlying physical and mental impairments and, therefore, the ALJ may not discredit her statements about as to the severity of her symptoms on the basis that they were not supported by objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722; Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989).

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant’s statements alone cannot establish a physical impairment and permits an ALJ to discount allegations of disabling limitations when record evidence, including objective medical evidence, treatment records, and daily activities, fails to support them.

CHURCH v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-04-13(a), (c)(3)

Plaintiff’s statements and descriptions of his ailments were not sufficient alone to establish a physical impairment without supporting medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). An ALJ may discount a claimant’s allegations of disabling limitations when the ALJ finds that record evidence, including objective medical evidence, treatment records, statements about daily activities, or other relevant evidence, fails to support those allegations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Without additional supporting evidence in the record, ALJ O’Leary was permitted to find that Plaintiff’s EDS ailments did not significantly limit his ability to perform basic work activities. (Id.)

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity but does not allow subjective complaints to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-14(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s subjective symptom statements but says they cannot alone establish disability and must have support in the evidence.

Beck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-10(a)

Nor is it enough to prove a disability that a claimant states her own subjective view regarding her intensity of pain and her ability to work; while the regulations forbid outright rejection of a claimant’s own subjective assessments, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, in order for the assessment to be deemed credible, there must be some support in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a relevant factor, alongside information about the claimant’s symptoms, in assessing their severity and disabling effects.

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

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

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

Sanchez v. Saul · filed 2020-09-21(c)(2)

“[T]he Commissioner may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence.” ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (assuring claimants that an ALJ “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.”). ... Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s reliance on the medical record is not a specific, clear or convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony about her symptoms.

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

Marcum v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)(2)

To the extent the ALJ found them to be inconsistent with the objective evidence, the Eleventh Circuit has “emphatically rejected the notion that to be disabling subjective claims of pain must be supported by objective medical evidence or by clinical or laboratory findings.” Wiggins v. Schweiker, 679 F.2d 1387, 1390 (11th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (providing that ALJ “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his or her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his or her] symptoms have on [his or her] ability to work . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to reject symptom testimony when it conflicts with medical evidence, but not solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it.

Riccio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-09(c)(2)

An ALJ may reject a claimant’s symptom testimony based on contradiction by the medical evidence, but not on mere lack of support in the medical evidence. Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161 (“Contradiction with the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting a claimant’s subjective testimony.”); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)) (“subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence”). The evidence the ALJ cited did not contradict Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(4) prohibit rejecting symptom statements solely for lack of objective substantiation but require accepting alleged functional limitations only to the extent they are reasonably consistent with the objective and other evidence.

THORPE v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-02(c)(2), (c)(4)

‘The AL] should not reject a claimant’s statements “about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his] symptoms have on [his] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his] statements.” 20 C.F-.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Thus, “subjective evidence of pain intensity cannot be discounted solely based on objective medical findings.” Lewis v. Bertyhill, 858 F.3d 858, 866 (4th Cir. 2017); see also Arakas v. Commissioner, 983 F.3d 83, 96-97 (4th Cir. 2020). However, it is also undisputed that a plaintiffs “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish [his] capacity for basic work activities [only] to the extent that [his] alleged functional limitations and testrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... After a thorough review of the record, the Court finds no basis to disturb this conclusion.

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

Woods v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-08(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2).

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

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

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that the objective medical evidence is not consistent with Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling symptoms. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

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

Woertink v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

An ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective pain testimony only because the objective medical record did not fully corroborate the testimony. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722 (“Commissioner may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner will not “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). ... The ALJ here did exactly that, at least with regard to Plaintiff’s mental health symptom testimony. ... Because the ALJ offered no other valid reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony, his was legal error.

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

Danner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-23(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence in evaluating subjective symptoms but prohibits a negative finding based solely on the absence of objective substantiation.

Ferguson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). ... In crafting the RFC, the ALJ accounted for symptom testimony that was supported by the record. The ALJ’s finding regarding Plaintiff’s credibility and subjective symptom testimony was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)’s second step permits a claimant to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to establish symptom severity, persistence, and limiting effects and prohibits requiring objective corroboration even when other evidence is considered.

Collins v. Saul · filed 2021-04-12(c)

Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. ... Rather, the claimant is entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test above. Id. In other words, “disability claimants are entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms.” Id. at 98. “Thus, [the ALJ] ‘improperly increased [Plaintiff’s] burden of proof’ by effectively requiring [his] subjective descriptions of [his] symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence.” Id. at 96 (quoting Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 866 (4th Cir. 2017)). Moreover, to the extent that the ALJ considered other evidence, “ALJs apply an incorrect legal standard by requiring objective evidence of symptoms even when they also consider other evidence in the record.” Id. at 97. ... The Court remands this case to afford the ALJ the opportunity to do so.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered when assessing the severity and disabling effects of pain, but subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Packard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-19(c)(2)

“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... The ALJ could reasonably find that the largely unremarkable findings in the medical record were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. The ALJ’s credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record and viewed together provide clear and convincing reasons to support the credibility finding.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits lack of corroborating objective medical evidence to be considered as one factor in assessing symptom severity, but forbids rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully substantiate it.

Trzesniewski v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-21(c)(2)

An ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective pain testimony solely because the objective medical record did not fully corroborate the testimony. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722 (“Commissioner may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). The ALJ properly discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony based, in part, on the objective medical evidence.