20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be used as an indicator of the intensity and persistence of symptoms and their effect on a claimant’s ability to work.

Hudson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-25(c)(2)

Social Security regulations provide for the consideration of objective medical evidence as “a useful indicator to assist [the agency] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... If the alleged error in evaluating plaintiff’s subjective complaints were the only error asserted, it would not provide a sufficient basis to remand this case.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) through (3) permit an ALJ to consider consistency with objective medical evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole basis for discounting testimony.

Anderson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-07(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. A lack of objective medical evidence may not form the ALJ’s sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Tammy S. v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:17-cv-01562-HZ, 2018 WL 5924505, at *4 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2018) (citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998)). When coupled with other permissible reasons, inconsistencies between a claimant’s allegations and objective medical evidence may be used to discount a claimant’s testimony. Tatyana K. v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-cv-01816-AC, 2019 WL 464965, at *4 (D. Or. Feb. 6, 2019) (citing Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2004)). ... The ALJ did not err in discounting claimant’s subjective system testimony based on objective medical evidence. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”).

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

Alto v. Saul · filed 2021-06-15(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair, 885 F.2d at 601. However, the medical evidence is a relevant 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). Here, the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s claims of “significant pain and functional limitations” during the relevant adjudicatory period; however, the ALJ also set out the medical evidence contradicting Plaintiff’s claims of disabling limitations.

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

Rodriguez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-12(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). ... 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, along with the other reasons offered, to discount Plaintiff’s symptoms complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, but permits discounting allegations that are inconsistent with the available evidence.

Stodgel v. Saul · filed 2021-07-19(c)(2)

“According to the regulations, the ALJ ‘will not rej ect [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of his pain or other symptoms or about the effect [the claimant’s] symptoms have on his ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.’” Lewis, 858 F.3d at 866 (quoting 20 CPLR. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2)). The ALJ, therefore, is required to make a finding regarding a claimant’s credibility and should specifically refer to the evidence supporting that finding. Hammond v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). Plaintiff alleges the ALJ applied an improper standard evaluating Plaintiff's subjective complaints, rendering the decision unsupported by substantial evidence. However, Plaintiff cannot rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove that his mental impairments prevent him from working a full eight-hour day. While at the second step, a claimant’s allegations about their symptoms “may not be discredited solely because they are not substantiated by objective evidence” an ALJ is not required to accept the allegations “to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence, including objective evidence of the underlying impairment, and the extent to which that impairment can reasonably be expected to cause the [symptom] alleged.” Craig v Charter 76 F.3d 585, 593 (4th Cir.1996). ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in evaluating Plaintiff's subjective complaints and thus is not a basis for remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity and disabling effects, but subjective testimony cannot be rejected solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Pieper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-29(c)(2)

Secondly, as summarized above, the ALJ provided a detailed discussion of the results of Plaintiff’s multiple mental status examinations from 2006 to 2009 (AR 24–25) and subsequently concluded that they “showed some deficits in her mental functioning, but not to the extent that it was disabling.” AR 27. Plaintiff does not specifically take issue with the accuracy of the ALJ’s objective recitation of those examination results, or the ALJ’s conclusion as to what those examinations showed on balance. Although subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

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

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-03(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 testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). The ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. The ALJ did not show that Plaintiff failed to follow a prescribed course of treatment or that his symptoms improved with treatment. The subjective symptom testimony cannot be rejected by the ALJ solely because of lack of support in the medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. Thus, the ALJ’s reasoning for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony because of purported lack of support in the medical evidence is not clear and convincing.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires a claimant’s symptom statements to be evaluated in relation to objective medical evidence when assessing their alleged severity.

Shepherd v. SSA · filed 2021-08-17(c)(4)

The ALJ also discussed the paucity of objective findings to support such extreme limitations (Tr. 101). Indeed, as noted above, examinations by Dr. Gilbert consistently showed spasm, tenderness, and decreased range of neck motion, but no findings of abnormal gait, strength, reflexes, or sensation (Tr. 872, 874, 876, 878, 879, 881). Dr. Fowler consistently found Plaintiff had no abnormalities, at all, in her examinations. (Tr. 979, 983, 986, 989, 994). And Ms. Deaton consistently found Plaintiff had full range of motion, intact sensation and reflexes, normal muscle strength, and normal gait (Tr. 601, 607, 609, 612, 619, 625, 630, 635, 637). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence”); Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 543 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he record is replete with medical evidence that Cruse’s symptoms were not as severe as she suggested.”). Because the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is supported Because the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ’s decision should be affirmed.

Section 404.1529(c) does not permit an ALJ to discount alleged pain based on normal physical examinations when the claimant’s small-fiber neuropathy, central pain syndrome, and fibromyalgia ordinarily produce normal objective findings.

Riopelle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-22(c)

Title 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, *3 (March 16, 2016) describe a two-part process for evaluating an individual’s subjective statements about symptoms, including pain. ... It was not proper, however, for the ALJ to rely on normal physical examination findings to discount plaintiff’s subjective allegations of pain and debilitating limitations because of the nature of her small fiber neuropathy, central pain syndrome, and fibromyalgia impairments. As Dr. Ward explained, a person with a central pain syndrome can have a completely normal physical exam in terms of range of motion and muscle strength because the primary issue is a sensory problem (Tr. 3560) and the disease process “is happening within her nerve fibers.” (Tr. 3565). ... Thus, the ALJ erred in discounting plaintiff’s credibility by focusing on the lack of objective evidence in the record, i.e., normal gait, coordination, and physical exams, as evidence that plaintiff’s “impairments [were] not as debilitating as she alleged[.]” (Tr. 1959).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires examination of objective medical evidence but forbids disregarding subjective symptom evidence solely because objective evidence does not substantiate the alleged degree of impairment-related symptoms.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-14(c)(2)

Although the objective medical evidence must be examined as part of this process, the ALJ may not disregard a claimant’s subjective symptom evidence ... “solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars relying solely on absent objective support, while subsection (c)(4) requires comparing pain statements with objective evidence and other record evidence.

Centeno v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-24(c)(2), (c)(4)

Centeno correctly states that the Administration’s own regulations prohibit an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of pain or the effect those symptoms have on a claimant’s ability to work “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(2) (emphasis). But the ALJ did not do that here. The regulations also provide that when determining the extent to which pain affects a claimant’s capacity to perform basic work activities, an ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s statements in relation to the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(4). The ALJ did just that.

Section 404.1529 permits objective evidence to be considered alongside a claimant’s subjective experience of pain.

Carrero-Chavez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18

The ALJ also appropriately considered Ms. Carrero-Chavez’s reported symptoms in light of this available medical information (or lack thereof), as well as medical opinions and prior administrative findings. Id. at 21–26 (Soc. Sec. Admin. Decision at 3–8 (June 12, 2020)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (objective evidence is properly considered alongside a claimant’s subjective experience of pain).

Section 404.1529 permits objective evidence as one symptom factor but prohibits relying on it alone.

(SS) Keigley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-23(c)(2)-(3)

Minimal objective evidence is a factor which may be relied upon in discrediting a claimant’s testimony, although it may not be the only factor.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) permit objective evidence to be considered with other evidence when evaluating alleged symptom severity.

Dabulskis v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)–(3)

The ALJ reasonably determined that objective medical evidence did not substantiate plaintiff’s allegations regarding the severity and intensity of her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects without making it conclusive.

Pence v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-02(c)(2)

However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects without making it conclusive.

Weiss v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-19(c)(2)

However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a useful indicator of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Fay v. Saul · filed 2022-05-26(c)(2)

Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on [the claimant’s] ability to work.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) permits consideration of daily activities, objective findings, medication, and other treatment, but objective evidence may not be effectively required to prove symptom intensity and limiting effects.

Oliver v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-27(c)(2)-(3)

As noted above, in evaluating the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). The ALJ may also consider objective medical evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), as well as type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication, and treatment, other than medication, among other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Thus, while a plaintiff may rely exclusively on subjective evidence in proving this second part of the test, where objective medical evidence exists, the ALJ may consider it so long as objective evidence is not ... “effectively required.” Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95 (quoting Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 564-65 (4th Cir. 2006)).

Section 404.1529 directs adjudicators to consider all symptoms and determine how far they are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Rivera-Cruzada v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-11

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate, are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Id.) The regulations define “objective evidence” to include medical signs shown by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.

Section 404.1529 requires adjudicators to consider all symptoms and determine the extent to which they reasonably accord with objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-01

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate, are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The regulations define “objective evidence” to include medical signs shown by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.

At the second step under Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4), the agency must consider medical and nonmedical evidence and evaluate symptom statements against the rest of the evidence for inconsistencies and conflicts.

Tincher v. O'Malley · filed 2022-08-10(c)(3)-(4)

At step two, the SSA begins with the objective medical evidence, but does not rely solely on it because “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5. The agency must “carefully consider” all record evidence from “medical sources or nonmedical sources,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and it “evaluate[s] [the applicant’s] statements,” including “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of her symptoms, “in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence” to determine whether she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms and the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Bell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-24

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate, 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.

The regulation permits reliance on subjective evidence but also requires consideration of objective medical evidence and other relevant factors when evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Chandler v. Saul · filed 2022-09-20(c)

In other words, under the appropriate circumstances, an ALJ may choose to rely exclusively on a claimant’s subjective symptom reports to find disabling symptoms; however, Arakas does not compel ALJs to consider only subjective evidence, as such a requirement would conflict with the regulations, which plainly require ALJs to consider a variety of factors, including objective medical evidence, in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (directing ALJs to assess a claimant’s medical history, medical signs and laboratory findings, daily activities, testimony about nature and location of pain, medication and other treatment used to alleviate pain, along with medical opinions from examining and non-examining sources).

Section 404.1529(c) does not require objective evidence of pain itself or its intensity, and symptom allegations may not be rejected solely for lacking objective substantiation but may be rejected to the extent they conflict with available evidence.

Parker v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(c)

However, while “a claimant’s allegations about her pain may not be discredited solely because they are not substantiated by objective evidence of the pain itself or its severity, they need not be accepted to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence, including objective evidence of the underlying impairment, and the extent to which that impairment can be reasonably be expected to cause the pain the claimant alleges she suffers.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595.

Objective medical evidence remains relevant under § 404.1529(c)(2) although it cannot be the sole ground for rejection.

(SS) Cooper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-14(c)(2)

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

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

Mikasi v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-26(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529 requires allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence.

CHIARAVALLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-10-26

The claimant’s “allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be supported by objective medical evidence.” Salles, 229 Fed. Appx. at 146 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529).

Under § 404.1529(c)(2), absence of corroborating objective medical evidence cannot by itself justify rejecting a claimant's symptom testimony.

Goddard v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-22(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits disregarding symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Peters v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-29(c)(2)

Because “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques,” ALJs must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. S.S.R. 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Craig, 76 F.3d at 595.

At the second step under § 404.1529(c), a claimant need not provide objective evidence of alleged symptoms or their intensity and may rely entirely on subjective evidence, though inconsistencies with other evidence remain relevant.

Ford v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-05(c)(2)-(3)

Objective evidence of the claimant’s alleged symptoms or their intensity is not required at the second step; instead, the claimant may rely entirely on subjective evidence. ... While the ALJ is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective evidence to the extent it is inconsistent with other evidence in the record, the ALJ must consider all of the available evidence and cannot discredit the plaintiff’s subjective evidence simply because it is not confirmed by objective medical evidence. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 595 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)–(3), 416.929(c)(2)–(3)).

At the second step under § 404.1529(c), objective evidence of alleged symptoms is not required and the ALJ must consider the entire record, including subjective statements.

Towles v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2023-12-28(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.’” Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). The second step does not require objective evidence. ... Rather, the ALJ “must consider the entire case record, including the claimant’s subjective statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms—even if objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) forbids rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them, while still permitting objective evidence to inform the assessment.

Strand v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-29(c)(2)

Indeed, an ALJ may 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 evidence does not substantiate [his] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). That does not mean, however, that the ALJ cannot consider the medical evidence in assessing a claimant’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective testimony solely for lack of full objective corroboration, though medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-29(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits objective medical evidence to be considered for consistency with symptom testimony, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole reason for discounting testimony.

Denny v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-02(c)(1)-(3)

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

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

(SS) Page v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-30(c)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide additional reasons for discounting the testimony.

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

Teschner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-18(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity but prohibits discounting subjective testimony solely because objective evidence does not support it.

Garcia v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-23(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars discounting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not corroborate it, while allowing lack of support as one factor.

Becker v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-11(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s testimony on the severity of the symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 343, 345, (9th Cir. 1991); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may consider the lack of objective medical evidence corroborating a claimant’s subjective testimony as a factor in his credibility analysis.

At the second step under § 404.1529, a claimant may rely exclusively on subjective evidence, and lack of objective corroboration alone cannot justify discrediting symptoms.

Williams v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-20(c)(2)

Because “disability benefits can be awarded on the sole basis of an objective impairment and derivative subjective pain,” a claimant may “rely exclusively on subjective evidence” at the second step. Id. (quoting Arakas, 983 F.3d at 96). Thus, “an ALJ applies the incorrect legal standard in discrediting complaints ‘based on [a] lack of objective evidence corroborating them.’”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars discrediting symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not support it.

Riddle v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-29(c)(2)

An ALJ also may not discredit a claimant’s testimony about her symptoms “solely because there is no objective medical evidence supporting it.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence that conflicts with symptom testimony to support discounting it.

Fisher v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-24(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective medical evidence to corroborate subjective complaints because allegations alone cannot establish disability.

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-25(a)

Instead, the record must reflect objective medical evidence corroborating a claimant’s subjective complaints. Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 F. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting subjective testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it, while keeping medical evidence relevant.

(SS) C.v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-29(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-30(c)(2)

The fact that a claimant’s testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and of itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits consideration of consistency with objective medical evidence but prohibits using lack of objective support as the sole basis to discount testimony.

Ahumada v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-04(c)(1)-(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits consideration of objective-evidence consistency but bars using lack of objective evidence as the sole basis to discount testimony.

Romero v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-23(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant's subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *1 (Oct. 25, 2017). A lack of objective medical evidence, however, may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant's testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits conflicting objective medical evidence to support discounting symptom testimony.

Kolibaba v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-13(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective testimony solely for lack of objective corroboration while keeping medical evidence relevant.

(SS) Mcabee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-15(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c) makes the assessment of a claimant’s subjective symptoms depend in part on the medical evidence, so that assessment should be revisited when the medical evidence is reviewed anew.

Tukia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-17(c)

However, the Court already has concluded that the ALJ committed harmful error and the medical evidence should be reviewed anew. In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source showing an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or other symptoms; subjective complaints alone cannot establish disability.

Armstrong-Castrodale v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-24(a)

Plaintiff’s hearing testimony concerning her subjective complaints are not enough to establish a disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). “There must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. The Court concludes that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s testimony.

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

Brokaw v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-26(c)(1)-(3)

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

Section 404.1529 provides that subjective complaints alone do not establish disability without corroborating objective medical evidence.

Chevalier v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-18

Moreover, while Plaintiff cites extensively to Mr. Kaelin’s complaints of hand symptoms, (Pltf.’s Obj. at 3-4), “subjective complaints alone are not a basis for an award of disability insurance benefits in the absence of corroborating objective medical evidence,” Mauro v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 746 Fed. App’x 83, 84 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). Indeed, Mr. Kaelin’s complaints of discomfort and weakness do not establish that he was unable to use his hands throughout the relevant period, because, as MJ Reznik discussed, Dr. Chin did not list findings of decreased strength prior to surgery, and another doctor found intact grip strength in April 2021, and Dr. Chin still found 20 pound-grip strength in Mr. Kaelin’s right hand in the weeks following his surgery.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ evaluating fibromyalgia symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, but the ALJ may not rely solely on objective findings consistent with fibromyalgia to discount alleged limitations.

Santiago v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-29(c)(2)

The Social Security Administration’s guidance on evaluating fibromyalgia, see SSR 12-2P, limits only the evidence used to diagnose the disease as a medically determinable impairment (step two in the five-step analysis). It does not limit the evidence an ALJ can consider in evaluating the severity of fibromyalgia for purposes of determining a residual functioning capacity. Further, the Social Security Administration's guidance on how to evaluate pain (fibromyalgia’s chief symptom) directs ALJs to consider the very symptoms that the ALJ considered here. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[E]vidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption ... is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms.”). ... While the ALJ may consider objective evidence, he may not reject the limiting effects of fibromyalgia solely based on objective evidence. ... While it was not error for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence, it was error to rely on it as the sole basis for discounting Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia tenderness exams and reports of further limitations because the cited evidence is not inconsistent with fibromyalgia limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(4) bars an ALJ from discounting a claimant’s symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate it, but permits considering the lack of objective evidence together with the claimant’s activities and treatment.

Renfrow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-29(c)(2)-(4)

Again, an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s testimony solely because it is not substantiated by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 16-3p; Adaire v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir. 2015). However, an ALJ may consider the lack of objective evidence in conjunction with other factors, such as the claimant’s activity levels and the treatment she received to alleviate the pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(4); Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 519 (7th Cir. 2009); SSR 12-2p (stating “if objective medical evidence does not substantiate the person's statements about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of symptoms, we consider all of the evidence in the case record, including the person's daily activities, medications or other treatments the person uses, or has used, to alleviate symptoms; the nature and frequency of the person's attempts to obtain medical treatment for symptoms; and statements by other people about the person's symptoms”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but lack of objective corroboration cannot alone justify rejecting subjective symptom testimony.

(SS) Trede v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-21(c)(2)

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... Thus, the objective evidence did in significant part support, rather than detract from, Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms. Here, the ALJ’s suggestion to the contrary is difficult to square with the ALJ’s own discussion of the objective evidence in question, objective evidence which in any case would not be a sufficient standalone reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

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

Culps v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-13(c)(2)

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); 416.929(c)(2). However, 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. Id. ... The ALJ adequately cited to objective medical evidence that did not support the level of limitation Plaintiff claimed. ... The ALJ concluded that based on these findings, Plaintiff’s activities, and his prior work activity at Jewel Apple and Safeway, Plaintiff had the physical capacity to perform work. ... The Court finds this explanation a reasonable interpretation of the record and concludes the ALJ’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(b) permits an ALJ to discount a claimant’s symptom statements when medical signs or laboratory findings do not support them.

Boulter v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-17(b)

However, the ALJ was within his authority to discount plaintiffs symptom statements and formulate an RFC without reference to these conditions, given the lack of evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (regarding the need for medical signs or lab findings supporting a claimant’s symptom statements); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545 (noting an RFC is based on the medical and other evidence in the record); Snyder v. Saul, 840 F. App’x 641, 643 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) (“[T]he ALJ was entitled to weigh all of the evidence and make an RFC finding that corresponds with the record as a whole.”).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s subjective reports of pain or other symptoms cannot establish disability without objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.

Bechard v. Colvin · filed 2025-01-03(a)

And while Bechard emphasizes her subjective reports of pain and other symptoms, the Social Security Administration’s regulations are clear that such subjective reports “will not alone establish that [she is] disabled,” as “[t]here must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that . . . would lead to a conclusion [she is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[An ALJ] is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question; he may exercise discretion in weighing the credibility of the claimant’s testimony in light of the other evidence in the record.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity, but a claimant’s statements about symptoms and their effects may not be rejected solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-14(c)(2)

An ALJ considers objective medical evidence as: ... 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. ... ALJ O’Leary weighed the evidence in the record and determined that Plaintiff’s statements regarding intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical records. In the opinion of the undersigned, ALJ O’Leary did not err in determining Plaintiff’s RFC and concluding that Plaintiff was not disabled under the Social Security regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s symptom testimony and objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity of the claimant’s symptoms.

Salisbury v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2)

The ALJ identified several such convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. She noted “significant inconsistencies” between portions of Salisbury’s testimony and the objective medical evidence, such as multiple examinations where Salisbury demonstrated fully intact attention and memory, and treatment notes through 2020 reflecting “relatively good day-to-day functioning.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prevents an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, but permits the ALJ to find those statements inconsistent with other record evidence.

YOUNCE v. DUDEK · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2)

Under Social Security Rule ("SSR") 16-3p, the ALJ must first determine whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3. Then, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms and determine the extent to which they limit her ability to perform work-related activities. Id. at *3–4. When assessing a claimant's subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ considers several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant's daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5–8. ... As the Magistrate Judge explained, the ALJ did not solely rely on objective medical evidence. Rather, much of his analysis focused on inconsistencies in Cleo's own statements. ... Moreover, the ALJ found that Cleo's subjective statements were not consistent with the clinical exam findings and objective medical evidence. While subjective evidence need not be confirmed by diagnostic tests or other objective medical evidence, it cannot clash with evidence in the record. The ALJ clearly articulated his reasons for finding that the subjective statements are inconsistent with objective medical evidence and clinical exam findings. ... The Court cannot conclude that the ALJ was "patently wrong" to find that Cleo's subjective statements were inconsistent with the record. Accordingly, Cleo's objection to the R&R's subjective statement analysis is overruled.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) prohibits substituting a claimant’s allegations of pain or other symptoms for missing or deficient medical signs or laboratory findings to elevate an impairment to listing-level severity.

Salisbury v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2025-04-11(d)(3)

Dr. Geneve’s reliance on Salisbury’s subjective reports, untethered to objective medical findings, cannot carry the day. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3) (stating that the Commission “will not substitute [the claimant’s] allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment”).

Objective medical evidence remains relevant when evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms, although subjective testimony may not be rejected solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Valladares v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-17(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to be considered in assessing symptom severity but prohibits rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements solely because that evidence does not substantiate them.

Decker v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-06(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider a lack of corroborating objective medical evidence when assessing symptom severity, but forbids rejecting subjective pain testimony solely on that basis.

Jackson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-06(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) permits an ALJ to consider whether subjective symptom testimony is consistent with objective medical evidence, but the absence of objective support cannot alone justify discounting that testimony.

Steele v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-04(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. The lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Tammy S. v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:17-cv-01562-HZ, 2018 WL 5924505, at *4 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2018) (citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he Commissioner may not discredit [a] claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence.”)). However, “[w]hen objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony.” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 498 (9th Cir. 2022) (emphasis in original).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider their consistency with objective medical evidence, including statements made to physicians.

ARNOLD v. DUDEK · filed 2025-06-23(c)(2)

The ALJ can, and in fact must, consider consistency with objective medical evidence, including statements made to physicians, in evaluating a claimant’s subjective testimony about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). The Court finds that the ALJ adequately explained her decision, as established by the evidence, for including or discounting certain alleged limitations or subjective symptoms and complaints of Amold. The ALJ properly evaluated that evidence and the record as a whole in reaching the conclusion that Arnold was able to perform a range of light work and, therefore, was not disabled.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an ALJ from rejecting symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate it; additional reasons supported by substantial evidence are required.

(SS) Harriss v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-26(c)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Rather, where a plaintiff’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide additional reasons for discounting the testimony. ... Because, at most, the ALJ properly found that the objective medical evidence does not fully support Plaintiff’s symptomology testimony, this finding alone is not a sufficient reason to support the ALJ’s overall credibility determination; instead, the ALJ must provide additional reasons to discount Plaintiff’s testimony that is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) allows an ALJ to compare subjective symptom testimony with objective medical evidence, but the cited evidence must actually be inconsistent with the claimant’s account.

Morford v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-21(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7–8. The lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. ... However, these inconsistencies are either mischaracterized or unrelated to plaintiff’s testimony regarding his neuropathy. Id. Therefore, this was not a clear and convincing reason to reject plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a relevant, but not exclusive, factor in evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Cochell v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-28(c)(2)

However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). Additionally, an ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in the record and may not point to only those portions of the records that bolster the ALJ’s findings. See, e.g., Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). ... On this record the ALJ’s conclusion that objective findings did not provide strong support for Plaintiff’s allegations is not supported by substantial evidence. Without further analysis, this was not a clear and convincing reason to discount her symptom claims. Additionally, the ALJ failed to discuss relevant evidence and selectively presented evidence in a manner that minimized Plaintiff’s impairments and/or subjective complaints, resulting in mischaracterization of the record.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms.

Ferguson v. Secretary of HHS · filed 1996-02-02(b)

The Social Security Act requires, however, that a plaintiffs statements concerning pain be corroborated by objective medical evidence of an impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective evidence when evaluating symptoms, but the ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements solely because objective evidence is lacking.

Seaward v. Saul · filed 2022-02-09(c)

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

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the full record when evaluating symptoms and prohibits discrediting a claimant’s statements solely because objective medical evidence is lacking.

Hill v. Saul · filed 2022-03-24(c)

In any case, the ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective statements. ... The ALJ then proceeded to consider Carla H.’s allegations in concert with the other evidence in the record, including Carla H.’s statements about her symptoms over time, her daily activities, her work history, her treatment history, the opinion evidence, and the objective evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prevents an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Zamora v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)

However, the Commissioner’s own regulations and the case law of this Circuit make it clear that a lack of corroborative medical evidence–while a relevant factor–is not itself a sufficient basis to discount a claimant’s subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting subjective symptom testimony solely because it lacks support in objective medical evidence, while permitting consideration of contradictions with the medical record.

Cano v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-13(c)(2)

To the extent that the ALJ committed error, such error was harmless because although absence of substantiation in the medical record is an insufficient basis to reject ... testimony, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), “‘[c]ontradiction with the medical record is a sufficient basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective testimony.’” Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 ... F.4th 489, 499 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008)).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical evidence of an underlying condition that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Ritter v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-15(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. ... This Court finds no reversible error in the ALJ’s assessment.

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical evidence of an underlying condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Brown v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-26(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. ... The ALJ’s credibility assessment will necessarily need to be revisited on remand.

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical evidence of an underlying condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Ocasio v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-15(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 symptomatology alleged.

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms; symptoms alone cannot establish disability.

Weather v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-27(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. ... This Court finds that the ALJ’s credibility assessment was supported by substantial evidence.

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

Gossett v. Chater · filed 1996-10-18(c)(2)

The second prong of this standard outlined by the ALJ was expressly rejected by the Seventh Circuit in Pope, 998 F.2d at 486, in favor of the standard outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), which expressly provides that “we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statement.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not allow an ALJ to reject a claimant’s symptom reports solely because objective medical evidence does not support them.

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

A lack of objective evidence to support subjective symptoms is not, on its own, enough to dismiss a claimant’s reports about his daily activities.

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

Brenn v. Saul · filed 2021-04-27(c)(2)

However, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s testimony solely on the basis that the claimant’s reported symptoms suggest more impairment than shown by objective medical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Because the court already rejected the ALJ’s other reasons to discredit Plaintiff’s testimony, the severity of Plaintiff’s symptoms compared to the mild to moderate abnormalities found in his imaging results is not a clear and convincing reason on its own to reject Plaintiff’s subjective pain testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably produce a claimant’s reported symptoms.

Lynn v. Schweiker · filed 1983-03-09

The Defendant points to regulations that suggest that a claimant’s testimony will not be found. credible unless medical signs or findings show that there is a medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. 45 Fed. Reg. 55, 589 (1980) (to be codified as 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). Yet, the records do describe a medical condition that might reasonably produce such symptoms: the Plaintiff, after all, suffered a serious injury causing spinal damage and underwent major surgery involving the fusion and grafting of bone.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) recognizes that symptoms can indicate greater impairment than objective medical evidence alone shows.

McMurtry v. Astrue · filed 2010-10-27(c)(3)

“[S]ymptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Symptoms alone cannot establish a medically determinable impairment; the evaluation must account for objective medical evidence supporting the impairment.

Flory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(b)

Social Security rules and regulations provide that symptoms alone cannot establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment (MDI). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). ... This evidence contradicts the ALJ’s finding that no objective medical abnormalities supported Plaintiff’s neck pain complaints and the cervicalgia diagnosis. Therefore, the ALJ’s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s account of pain solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate it.

Langston v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-03(c)(2)

But the ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity or persistence of her pain or its effect on her ability to work solely because the medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant's reported limitations solely for lack of supporting objective medical evidence.

HARRIS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-08-21(c)(2)

While "objective medical evidence is a useful indicator," an ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to discount a claimant's testimony about his limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider objective evidence when evaluating symptoms, but bars rejecting a claimant’s statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Irizarry-Lebron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(c)(2)

However, I note that an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

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

Margaret FELISKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1994-07-07(c)(2)

These alternatives fit with SSA regulations, as the regulations explicitly declare that “we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Although the ALJ purports to perform an “overall evaluation of the relevant written evidence,” his opinion explicitly finds only the content of the medical record insufficient to support Felisky’s claims. The SSA regulations clearly state that that is not the end of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Instead, the SSA declares it looks to several other factors. The ALJ, however, did not discuss those factors and how they relate to the evidence in this case.

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

Wright v. SSA · filed 2000-10-13(c)(1)

Then, if such an impairment exists, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms so that the ALJ can determine how the claimant’s symptoms limit his or her capacity for work.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors in totality when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Scott v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-14(c)

To evaluate the “intensity and persistence” of Plaintiffs alleged impairment, sections 404.1529(c), 416.929(c) enumerate the factors that the ALJ is to consider in totality.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to assess the persistence and intensity of a claimant's pain and the extent to which it limits the claimant's ability to work after finding an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-18(c)(1)

Having made that initial 'linding, the ALJ was then required to “assess[] the persistence and intensity of the claiinant’s pain as well as the extent to which it impairs [his] ability to work.” Bazler, 353 F.3d at 1004 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(0)(1), 416.929(c)(1)). ... Like Magistrate Judge Robinson, l disagree. The ALJ fulfilled the duty to provide “specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record.” Batler, 353 F.3d at 1005. ... The ALJ’s analysis and discussion of the “specific reasons for the finding on credibility,” reasons that were “supported by the evidence i~n the case record,” is sufficient under the standard of review applicable here. Butler, 353 F.3d at 1005.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms when medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce them, so the ALJ can determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Mitchell v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-21(c)(1)

“Where the medical signs or laboratory findings show that [a claimant has] a medically determinable impairment or impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that the ALJ can determine how [the claimant’s] symptoms limit [her] capacity for work.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and consider specified evidence and factors in determining how those symptoms limit work capacity.

Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(c)

Where a claimant satisfies this “pain standard,” the Regulations dictate that the ALJ then assess the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); see also Social Security Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (S.S.A., Oct. 25, 2017) (applicable as of Mar. 28, 2016). Factors relevant to this evaluation include the objective medical evidence; evidence of factors that precipitate or aggravate the claimant’s symptoms; medications and treatments available to alleviate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication used to relieve pain or other symptoms; how the symptoms affect the claimant’s daily activities; and the claimant’s past work history. Id.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom frequency and intensity, medication dosage and side effects, treatment, aggravating factors, and resulting functional restrictions.

Alar v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(c)

An ALJ’s analysis should consider the claimant’s daily activities; the frequency and intensity of his symptoms; the dosage and side effects of medications; non- medication treatment; factors that aggravate the condition; and functional restrictions that result from or are used to treat the claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, but that duty does not require speculation about their impact.

Bilotta v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12(c)

The ALJ has a duty to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). However, that duty does not extend to conjecture as to the impact of claimant’s symptoms. Rather, the claimant has the burden of furnishing evidence supporting the existence of a condition and the effect of such a condition on his ability to work on a sustained basis. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(a), 404.1545(a)(3); see also Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200, 1203 (4th Cir. 1995).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom frequency and intensity, medication dosage and side effects, treatment, aggravating factors, and resulting or treatment-related functional restrictions.

Lopez v. Saul · filed 2020-01-17(c)

Once an ALJ determines that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms that can reasonably be expected to stem from it. ... An ALJ’s analysis should consider the claimant’s daily activities; the frequency and intensity of his symptoms; the dosage and side effects of medications; non-medication treatment; factors that aggravate the condition; and functional restrictions that result from or are used to treat the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of the listed factors and all record evidence when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Savare v. Saul · filed 2020-02-24(c)

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

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms, considering their consistency with objective and other evidence and relevant factors such as daily activities, pain, and treatment.

Blackwell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-27(c)

If the claimant has a condition that could reasonably produce the symptoms she alleges, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” , 858 F.3d at 866 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). ... The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s allegations as to the limitations her impairments imposed, but reasonably concluded her allegations were not fully supported by the record based on some her statements and self-reported abilities, imaging results, objective findings, her medical providers’ impressions, and her ADLs.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptoms by determining whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them and assessing their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against objective and other evidence.

Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-06(a), (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)

Thus, before evaluating a claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ must first determine whether the claimant has presented “objective medical evidence” of an “impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). Next, the ALJ evaluates the alleged “intensity and persistence” of the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). Since pain and symptoms “are subjective and difficult to quantify,” a claimant’s pain and symptoms will only be determined to diminish a claimant’s work capacity to the extent that they can be “reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” Id. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(3). However, a claimant’s testimony “cannot be rejected solely because the objective medical evidence does not support the severity of her impairment.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 959. ... Similarly, here the ALJ erred by failing to provide specific, clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Claimant’s testimony about her pain symptoms and her level of limitation.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms in light of all evidence and to address inconsistencies when determining how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Magid v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(c)(1), (c)(4)

Where, as here, “the record shows that the claimant has a medically-determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.” Strickland v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 516 F. App’x 829, 831 (11th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). In doing so, the ALJ should “examine the claimant’s statements regarding [his] symptoms in relation to all other evidence and consider whether there are any inconsistencies or conflicts between those statements and the record.” Id. at 832 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)). “If the ALJ decides not to credit the claimant’s testimony as to her subjective symptoms, the ALJ must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so or the record must be obvious as to the credibility finding.”

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ, after finding an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence and determine how they limit work capacity.

Lynch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(c)(1)

First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.”

Once the threshold pain standard is satisfied, § 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Moncrief v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-11(c)

If the first part of the pain standard is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and their effect on his ability to work.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate the persistence and intensity of pain separately from the physical impairment and explain whether alleged pain requires work-related restrictions.

Lawton v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-11(a)

While these functional limitations clearly take into account Plaintiff’s inability to use his right arm, it is less clear whether the ALJ considered the alleged persistent nature and intensity of the pain associated with the physical limitation, in addition to limitations corresponding to the physical impairment itself. For example, the ALJ did not otherwise consider whether Plaintiff’s complaints of pain should result in Plaintiff being off task for any extended period of time or needing to take breaks.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ, after finding an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence and determine how they limit work capacity.

Barnwell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-12(c)(1)

If the record shows that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms, such as pain, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms so that she can determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Sections 404.1529(c) and (d) require an ALJ, after finding an impairment that could reasonably produce symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence and their effect on the ability to work.

Parker v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-29(c), (d)

If objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of a claimant’s alleged symptoms but the claimant establishes an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his alleged symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms and their effect on the ability to work.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ, after identifying an impairment reasonably capable of producing symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence and determine how they limit work activities.

Harsha v. Saul · filed 2022-06-02(c)

Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual's symptoms is established, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the individual's ability to perform work-related activities.

Section 404.1529(c) evaluates the intensity and persistence of symptoms the claimant actually experienced, not symptoms that are merely common to a diagnosed condition.

Arnett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-06(c)

While Plaintiff cites symptoms common to people with traumatic brain injury to support her claim ... those symptoms are irrelevant to the extent Plaintiff did not experience them herself. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (“[W]e must . . . evaluate the intensity and persistence of your symptoms so that we can determine how your symptoms limit your capacity to work.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the ALJ, after finding an impairment that could reasonably produce symptoms, to assess their intensity and persistence and resulting work limitations using objective evidence and statements from the claimant and medical sources.

Morgan v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-27(c)(1)

If the record shows the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [their] symptoms,” the ALJ must assess the “intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work” in light of the objective medical evidence and statements by the claimant and their doctors. See Costigan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 603 F. App’x 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)).

Section 404.1529(c)-(d) requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence after an impairment capable of producing the symptoms is established.

Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-06(c), (d)

If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the claimant’s alleged symptoms, but the claimant shows that her medically determined impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine whether the claimant’s alleged symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), (d); SSR 16-3p; Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225–26.

Once medical signs or findings establish an impairment capable of causing symptoms, Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of their intensity and persistence to determine work-capacity limits.

Morefield v. Saul · filed 2022-09-19(a), (c)(1)

In addition, he must “consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). “When the medical signs or laboratory findings show that [the claimant has] a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [her] symptoms, such as pain, [the ALJ] must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [her] symptoms limit [her] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms and, after an impairment capable of producing them is established, evaluation of intensity and persistence to determine work limits.

Davis v. Saul · filed 2022-09-26(a), (c)(1)

In addition, he must “consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). “When the medical signs or laboratory findings show that [the claimant has] a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [her] symptoms, such as pain, [the ALJ] must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [her] symptoms limit [her] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ, after finding an impairment that could reasonably produce pain, to evaluate the symptoms' intensity and persistence and determine their work-related limitations.

Roden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-11(c)(1)

Furthermore, “[w]hen a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce pain, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how it limits the capacity for work.” Myers, 2021 WL 4025993, at *9 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). Here, the ALJ acknowledged this standard.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence to determine work limits.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2023-02-15(c)(1)

When the medical signs or laboratory findings show that [the Claimant has] a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [his] symptoms, such as pain, [the ALJ] must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the Claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [his] symptoms limit [his] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of the entire record and the germane subsection (c)(3) factors, and it bars rejecting symptom allegations solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate their alleged degree.

Tuttle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-20(c)(2), (c)(3)

In addition, the ALJ uses the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) to evaluate the individual’s statements: ... The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, only those germane to the alleged symptoms. ... Similarly, the ALJ may not reject an individual’s statements about his symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged but must carefully consider other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); see also SSR 16-3p, at *6.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) and (c)(3) require evaluation of pain’s intensity, persistence, and work-related limitations using all available evidence and the listed symptom factors, including daily activities and treatment.

Becirovic v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-21(c)(1), (c)(3)

When the medical signs or laboratory findings show that you have a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce your symptoms, such as pain, we must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of your symptoms so that we can determine how your symptoms limit your capacity for work. In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements from you, your treating or nontreating source, or other persons about how your symptoms affect you. ... Thus, the ALJ considered the evidence with respect to pain and based his finding on the overall medical evidence, activities of daily living, and the history of minimal or conservative treatment after surgery.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ who finds a claimant’s symptom statements inconsistent with the evidence to give specific reasons that substantial evidence supports.

Freel v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-10-28(c)

When an ALJ concludes a claimant’s statement about the frequency, intensity, or limiting effects of a symptom is not consistent with objective or other evidence he is required to articulate specific reasons explaining why, and substantial evidence must support those reasons.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ, after finding that medically determinable impairments could reasonably produce a claimant’s symptoms, to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence and determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity to work.

Stingley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-07(c)(1)

Having found that Claimant has medically determinable impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce his symptoms, the ALJ was next required to “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [his] symptoms” and “determine how [his] symptoms limit [his] capacity to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); see SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2, 3 (setting forth the “two-step process” for evaluating symptoms in making disability determinations and explaining that “once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms is established,” ALJ must proceed to “evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes daily activities and treatment received relevant factors in evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Rich v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)

The factors the ALJ considered in assessing Plaintiff's credibility were appropriate, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing factors considered in evaluating intensity and persistence of symptoms to include daily activities and treatment received), and adequately supported the ALJ’s finding that the evidence in the record did not support Plaintiff's statements about the severity of her symptoms and limitations. Moreover, Plaintiff fails to provide any citations or well-reasoned argument to contradict the ALJ's credibility assessment. The Court therefore concludes that the ALJ's analysis of Plaintiff's credibility utilized the correct legal standards and is supported by substantial evidence.

When a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce alleged symptoms, Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate their intensity and persistence using objective findings, treatment history, and daily activities to determine work-related limits.

Finley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-01(c)

Further, when presented with evidence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *3–4, 7–8 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 404.1545(a)(3). ... Here, the ALJ found Mr. Finley’s characterization of his IBS symptoms, specifically the frequency of bathroom visits, undermined by the “generally mild objective findings from physical examinations, his medical treatment history and activities of daily living.” (Doc. 18-2 at 20, 52–53); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3).

When an impairment could cause alleged symptoms, the ALJ evaluates the symptoms’ intensity and persistence to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Graley v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2016-04-21(c)(1)

But context matters. The ALJ acknowledged Graley’s impairments both at step two and in determining whether those impairments could cause his symptoms. She then made the criticized statement while rejecting Graley’s intensity-and-persistence testimony for want of evidentiary support.

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

Falardo-Weller v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-19(c)

If so, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity and persistence” of those symptoms to determine how, if at all, they limit the claimant’s capacity for work. Id. § 404.1529(c). ... As a result, and particularly given the material factual errors underlying what little analysis the ALJ did provide, we cannot find that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms from a medically determinable impairment to determine their work-related limitations.

Vaughn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(a)

Second, once the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms is established, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they impose work-related functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to consider all available evidence when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Norton v. Saul · filed 2021-04-28(c)(1)

When considering the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms, an ALJ must consider all available evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); SSR 16- 3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at **5–8. ... At the second step, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s allegations regarding her symptoms, most notably pain, by evaluating the available evidence and applying the relevant factors.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider daily activities and other factors when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Ksiazkiewicz v. Saul · filed 2022-08-05(c)(3)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of pain and other symptoms, the ALJ should consider various factors including: the claimant's daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications; treatment other than medication; and other measures the claimant uses to address the pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms from a medically determinable impairment to determine how they limit work capacity.

Appling v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-23(c)(1)

If such an impairment is found, the ALJ must next evaluate the “intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms [to] determine how [the] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

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

Pyron v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-09-20(c)

In forming the residual functional capacity, the ALJ properly described and applied the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard. ... If the first part of the pain standard is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of a claimant’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.

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

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-20(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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4.

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

Kon · filed 2026-02-02(c)(1)

The ALJ fully considered the record in her evaluation of the “intensity and persistence” of Plaintiffs symptoms and whether they “limit [her] capacity for work,” and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff was not disabled as of the date last insured. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Under § 404.1529(b), finding that an impairment could reasonably produce alleged symptoms is distinct from evaluating the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Amiel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-22(b)

The finding that an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms does not involve a finding on the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of the symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(b). For that finding, the ALJ considers all available evidence, including medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

At the first step of Section 404.1529’s symptom analysis, a claimant need show only that the impairment could reasonably cause some degree of the alleged symptom, not the alleged severity.

Riddle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-09

When doing so, “the claimant need not show that [his or] her impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the severity of the symptom [he or] she has alleged; [he or] she need only show that it could reasonably have caused some degree of the symptom.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996).

Section 404.1529(b)’s first step requires objective medical evidence of an impairment reasonably expected to produce the symptoms before subjective complaints can establish their limiting effect, and the rule for fibromyalgia does not automatically extend to a painful knee replacement.

Packard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-14(b)

However, the Arakas decision requires “objective medical evidence of some condition that could produce the pain.” ... The ALJ found Dr. Fehring’s diagnosis of a painful TKA vague and inconsistent with his own treatment notes. Thus, the first step in the two-step process requiring “objective medical evidence present[ing] a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's alleged symptoms”, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3, was not met. Further, the claimant in Arakas suffered from fibromyalgia, a disease that the court stated “does not produce [objective] evidence.” ... This Court is unwilling to extend the Fourth Circuit’s finding of the subjective nature of fibromyalgia to this matter.

Section 404.1529(b)'s first step requires medical evidence only of an impairment reasonably capable of causing some degree of the alleged symptoms, not evidence corroborating their alleged severity.

Darcey v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-26(b)

First, the ALJ must determine whether or not there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82. “At this step, the medical evidence need not corroborate the severity of the alleged symptoms; the medical evidence need only establish that the impairment could reasonably be expected to cause some degree of the alleged symptoms.”

Section 404.1529(a)'s first step requires objective medical evidence of an impairment reasonably capable of producing the alleged symptoms before the ALJ evaluates their claimed severity.

Rose v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-02(a)

“First, the ALJ must determine whether [the claimant has presented] objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 covers subjective pain caused by mental impairments, including back pain.

Palmer v. Sullivan · filed 1991-07-23

Moreover, subjective claims of pain are not limited to claims of pain resulting from physiological impairments, but include symptoms such as back pain resulting from mental impairments.

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ to investigate whether a claimant’s pain and other symptoms stem from a mental impairment when medical findings do not substantiate a physical impairment capable of producing them.

Glenn G. LATHAM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Ap · filed 1994-11-02(b)

First, the ALJ did not consider the possibility that Latham’s pain and other symptoms might result from his mental condition. When medical findings do not substantiate the existence of physical impairments capable of producing alleged pain and other symptoms, the ALJ must investigate the possibility that a mental impairment is the basis of the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the consistency of subjective symptom complaints with the record.

Cruz · filed 2026-02-19(c)(3)(i)

Nor is there any merit to Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ’s analysis is flawed insofar as the ALJ relies on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits the Secretary to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating the severity of the claimant's symptoms.

Chevalier v. Shalala · filed 1994-12-05(c)(3)(i)

The Secretary may consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(a) permits the Commissioner to consider a claimant's statements about daily activities when evaluating symptoms and determining disability.

Winslow v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1998-02-05(a)

Further, statements regarding daily activities are evidence properly considered under the Commissioner's regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a); 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(a) permits the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, together with other relevant evidence, and requires assessing whether those activities are substantially consistent with the claimed disability.

Kent v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-12(a)

Evidence that a claimant engages in limited activities may be considered, along with other relevant evidence, in considering entitlement to benefits. ... Statements regarding daily activities are evidence properly considered under the Commissioner’s regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a); 416.929(a). In short, the ALJ should consider whether the plaintiffs daily activities are substantially consistent with the kind and extent of disability claimed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the severity of alleged nonexertional impairments.

Daniels v. Apfel · filed 2000-11-29(c)(3)(i)

Second, a claimant’s daily activities are properly considered when evaluating the severity of his alleged nonexertional impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing whether allegations of disabling pain are credible.

Ellington v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-06(c)(3)

In assessing whether or not a claimant’s allegation of disabling pain is credible, the ALJ should consider the claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows adjudicators to consider evidence of a claimant's daily activities when determining the degree of impairment.

Patoski v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-30(c)(3)(i)

Adjudicators are entitled to rely on evidence of daily activities to determine an individual's degree of impairment.

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

Christian v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-27(c)(3)

A claimant’s “daily activities” are among the factors that an ALJ is required to consider in addressing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Though a claimant cannot be considered capable of full-time work merely because he is not bedridden, it is proper for an ALJ to consider daily activities like Carl C.’s when evaluating whether a claimant’s symptoms are as disabling as alleged by a claimant. See Rahe v. Astrue, 840 F. Supp. 2d 1119, 1136 (N.D. Iowa) (“Although a claimant need not be bedridden before he can be determined to be disabled, Rahe’s daily activities can nonetheless be seen as inconsistent with her subjective complaints of a disabling impairment and may be considered in judging the credibility of complaints.”) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the ALJ to consider evidence about a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the credibility of symptom allegations.

Sinclair v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-22(c)(3)

The relevant regulations provide that, when analyzing the credibility of a plaintiff, the ALJ should consider evidence related to the plaintiff’s daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76. ... The ALJ did not err by considering the plaintiff’s reported activities and hobbies while analyzing the plaintiff’s credibility. ... In accordance with the relevant regulations and case law, the ALJ considered properly the plaintiff’s daily activities while analyzing her credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating subjective symptoms, and activities inconsistent with alleged symptoms may support discounting the claimant's credibility.

Manson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(c)(3)(i)

Activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms are proper grounds for questioning the credibility of subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities in assessing the nature and severity of symptoms.

Grenauer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-13(c)(3)(i)

Moreover, the ALJ also reasonably considered the record evidence reflecting Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (daily activities may be useful to assess nature and severity of claimant’s symptoms); Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2004) (“The administrative law judge justifiably considered [the claimant’s] ability to conduct daily life activities in the face of his claim of disabling pain.”).

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

McMillin v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-24(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may discredit a claimant’s testimony when she reports participation in everyday activities indicating capacities that are transferable to a work setting. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112-13; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats a claimant's daily activities as a relevant factor to consider when evaluating the claimant's symptoms.

Aguayo v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-10(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating whether alleged disability symptoms are consistent with the record as a whole.

Eagan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(c)(3)(i)

As the ALJ noted, the record also reflects that Plaintiff engaged in a wider range of daily activities than she professed. Tr. 588. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (An ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the consistency of allegations of disability with the record as a whole.); ... Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had the ability to arrange for both her medical appointments and her transportation; she managed her own money; and she indicated she had the capacity to do household chores. Id.