20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as a relevant factor when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms.

Joanie Graves v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-21(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) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the symptoms and severity of an impairment.

Buckley v. Saul · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3)(i)

In addition to the medical evidence, the ALJ is to consider the claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the symptoms and severity of an impairment. Id. at 871 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ who relies on daily activities to consider how frequently and to what degree the claimant’s symptoms prevent or substantially limit those activities and the claimant’s ability to work.

Mahaffey v. Saul · filed 2021-02-22(a)

Here, the ALJ erred in simply listing Plaintiff’s daily activities that occurred when he felt well. The ALJ did not address or consider how often the daily activities were substantially limited, or did not occur, when Plaintiff suffered from symptoms caused by his serious mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). On remand, if the ALJ chooses to rely on Plaintiff’s daily activities, the ALJ must consider the frequency and degree to which those activities either do not occur, or are substantially limited, by Plaintiff’s significant mental impairments. Additionally, the ALJ shall consider Plaintiff’s statements about his inability to work due to his mental health symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Shelp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(c)(3)(i)

Plaintiff reported that on some days, she took care of her 8-year-old daughter, which supports a finding of greater mental functionality than Plaintiff claims she has. Tr. at 26, 1411, 1465, 1506. Apparently, Plaintiff had the mental wherewithal to travel for vacations to Florida and West Virginia, take a cruise, and attend her brother’s wedding and a funeral in New York City. Tr. at 26, 56-57, 93, 1430, 1436, 1437, 1444-45. It was permissible for the ALJ to consider Plaintiff’s daily life in assessing her RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; see Cruz v. Colvin, 278 F. Supp. 3d 694, 699 (W.D.N.Y. 2017); Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider the number and type of a claimant’s daily activities when assessing residual functional capacity and subjective symptom complaints.

BYERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-09(a), (c)(3)(i)

Plaintiff goes on to criticize ALJ Pustizzi’s consideration of Plaintiff’s daily activities. Plaintiff’s Brief, ECF No. 13, pp. 30–31. However, a claimant’s activities of daily living are but one relevant factor that an ALJ may consider in making an RFC determination and assessing a claimant’s subjective complaints. Cunningham v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 507 F. App’x 111, 118 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is appropriate for an ALJ to consider the number and type of activities in which a claimant engages when assessing his or her residual functional capacity. . . and was permitted to consider them to evaluate the credibility of [the claimant’s] subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms.”) (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(3)(i), 416.929(a), (c)(3)(i). Here, the ALJ’s decision reflects careful consideration of Plaintiff’s daily life activities. R. 552.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating the consistency of disability allegations, even if those activities are not extensive enough by themselves to disprove disability.

Lugo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s daily activities. Tr. 24, 27. 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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)); Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (claimant’s abilities to watch television, read, drive, and do household chores supported ALJ’s finding that his testimony was not fully credible). The ALJ observed that Plaintiff completed household tasks, went grocery shopping with her husband, and drove around town. Tr. 24, 27, 57–59, 475, 479. Plaintiff also told Dr. Santarpia that she acted as a primary caregiver for her teenage son. Tr. 473, 475. Plaintiff suggests that her limited activities did not prove she could work full-time. See ECF No. 8-1 at 28–29. However, Plaintiff’s activities were only one part of the ALJ’s evaluation, and although Plaintiff’s activities may not have been extensive enough to disprove disability, her ability to complete simple, non-strenuous tasks was relevant in evaluating her allegations.

Section 404.1529 treats a claimant’s qualifications on daily activities as symptom statements that must be assessed for consistency with the record, requiring consideration of both the type and extent of the activities without compelling acceptance of every qualification.

Prudich v. Saul · filed 2021-03-11(c)(3)(i)

When ALJs analyze whether claimants’ activities are inconsistent with their subjective complaints, ALJs must consider claimants’ qualifying statements about their activities. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 99 (4th Cir. 2020); Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018); Brown v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 263 (4th Cir. 2017). But ALJs are obviously not bound by every qualifying statement. Linkous v. Astrue, No. 4:10CV16, 2011 WL 652534, at *10 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:10CV16, 2011 WL 642958 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2011). By regulation, ALJs are to accept claimants’ statements only to the extent that they are consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529SSR (“We will then determine the extent to which your alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how your symptoms affect your ability to work.”); see also SSR 16-3p (“We will consider an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, and we will evaluate whether the statements are consistent with objective medical evidence and the other evidence.”). Because qualifying statements are essentially symptoms, ALJs assess qualifying statements for consistency with the record in the same way they assess claimants’ other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... In short, the ALJ proficiently accounted for both the type of activities and their extent, giving adequate consideration to plaintiff’s qualifying statements. ... The ALJ’s explanation here appropriately incorporated plaintiff’s activities into a sufficiently comprehensive explanation that is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to use daily activities to assess symptom intensity and persistence without treating those activities as proof that the claimant can perform full-time work.

Schwegel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(c)(3)(i)

In the second step, the ALJ considers whether the record as a whole supports the claimed intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In doing so, the ALJ may look to the claimant’s reported activities, including from non-medical sources such as family and friends, and the treatment he received and may find the claimant’s daily activities demonstrate functioning that suggests the plaintiff is not as limited as his testimony might suggest. See Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 510-11 (7th Cir. 2019); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. ... Plaintiff next claims the ALJ improperly equated his performance of his daily activities and the ability to work a full-time job. However, he did not make this equivalence; he simply found that plaintiff’s daily activities did “not document or support any extreme daily limitations from any of his physical health conditions.” (Tr. 49.) In other words, the ALJ used plaintiff’s daily activities to assess the intensity and persistence of his symptoms, not as a basis for finding he could perform full-time work. See Burmester, 920 F.3d at 510.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, together with the medical and other evidence, when evaluating the alleged severity and functional effects of symptoms.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ further found that the alleged severity and functional effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms were not entirely consistent with the evidence of Plaintiff’s activities and abilities. (Id. at 26); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p, 81 Fed. Reg. 14166 at 14169. As the ALJ noted, the record reflects that Plaintiff is active in her church and is able to prepare meals, care for her husband and child, care for her dogs, play on her tablet, drive a car, go out alone, and shop in stores for food and clothing. (Doc. 9 at 27, 177-84). The record also reflects that Plaintiff is able to bathe, dress, and feed herself, brush her hair and teeth, sweep, vacuum, do laundry, and walk a half mile before needing to rest. (Id. at 182, 263). ... In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the reasons provided by the ALJ for finding Plaintiff’s allegations of pain and other symptoms not entirely consistent with the record as a whole are supported by substantial record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of limited daily activities as one factor in evaluating subjective symptoms when the ALJ does not rely on those activities alone and also considers medical and treatment evidence.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)(i)

While the Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living are limited and the ALJ failed to explicitly articulate all the limitations, the ALJ is not prohibited from considering daily activities as one factor in the subjective symptom evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987). The ALJ quoted the record when he stated that Plaintiff “[knows] how to manage money and pay bills online,” (Tr. at 21, 23 (citing Tr. at 921-22)), “[performs] personal care without assistance,” (id. (citing Tr. at 45, 192-99, 921-22)), washes dishes, (id. (citing Tr. at 44)), and prepares simple meals, (id. (citing Tr. at 192-99, 921)). Nor did the ALJ rely on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living as the sole support for his subjective symptom evaluation. He also expressly considered Plaintiff’s imaging findings, objective findings from physical examinations, and routine and conservative medical treatment. (Id. at 21-23). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in his subjective symptom determination and this determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities, but an ALJ must explain how the cited activities undermine the claimant’s allegations, especially when they are short, limited, nonvigorous, or unrelated to the alleged impairments.

Crooker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-18(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ’s third and final reason, while grounded in evidence (Doc. 22 (citing Exhibit 5E)), falls short of supporting the credibility determination. The ALJ points to the Claimant’s stated ability to “take care of her pets, drive, shop in stores, and manage finances” as evidence that the Claimant is not as limited as she alleges to be. (Id.). While the ALJ may consider a claimant’s activities of daily living when assessing the claimant’s allegations concerning the limiting effects of their impairments, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), courts have “found reversible error when an ALJ detracts from a [c]laimant’s credibility based on daily living activities that have no relationship with a claimant’s alleged impairments, especially if such activities are of a short duration, limited, and not vigorous.” Dees v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:17-cv-1052-Orl-41GJK, 2018 WL 1720937, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2018) (citing authority) report and recommendation adopted by, 2018 WL 1705644 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2018). Here, it is not clear from the ALJ’s decision how the activities she highlights undermines the Claimant’s allegations, especially considering the short duration of many of these activities. Absent some explanation how the activities identified by the ALJ undermines the Claimant’s allegations, the Court finds the ALJ’s reliance on the enumerated activities is insufficient to support her credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to compare subjective complaints with the claimant’s reported daily activities when evaluating the limiting effects of impairments.

Beavers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)(i)

That assessment appropriately implements regulatory guidance that an ALJ should consider the consistency of a claimant’s subjective complaints with the claimant’s reported daily activities, and the record supplements the ALJ’s conclusion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (stating that an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the limiting effects of his impairments).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between alleged limitations and daily activities as one factor in the overall evaluation of subjective symptoms.

Bedunah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)(i)

Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ considered the inconsistency between plaintiff’s alleged limitations and his ability to perform various daily activities as one factor in the overall analysis of his subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include: (i) Your daily activities . . .”). In short, the ALJ did not make unsupported assumptions and findings with respect to plaintiff’s daily activities. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating symptoms to compare a claimant’s alleged limitations with her reported daily activities.

Potter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not properly consider her symptoms as required by SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Plaintiff’s Brief (ECF No. 11, PageID.1352). ... Here, the ALJ considered plaintiff’s allegations and noted “that the claimant had described activities that were not limited to the extent one would expect, given her complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations.” PageID.53. In reaching this determination, the ALJ compared plaintiff’s statements regarding her symptoms with plaintiff’s statements regarding her daily activities. ... Based on this record, the Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff “had described activities that were not limited to the extent one would expect, given her complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations.” PageID.53. Accordingly, this claim of error is denied.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ relying on daily activities to develop and discuss their rigor and the claimant’s limitations in performing them and to address both supporting and conflicting evidence.

Ewen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(c)(3)

Mr. Ewen’s stated activities and appearance at his hearing do not demonstrate that he is not disabled, and it was legal error to fail to evaluate and discuss the rigor of Mr. Ewen’s daily activities if they were to form the basis for rejecting Mr. Ewen’s stated subjective limitations. See Archambault v. Astrue, 09 Civ. 6363, 2010 WL 5829378 *30 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2010) (“The ALJ also remarked . . . plaintiff’s reported activities of daily living, which included self-care, childcare duties, a few household chores, and some pastimes, indicate that ‘he is not debilitated.’. . . As the ALJ failed to discuss the rigor of plaintiff’s daily activities and presumed that those activities demonstrated a lack of disability, she committed legal error” (citations omitted)), adopted by, 2011 WL 649665 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2011). On remand, the ALJ must engage the required analysis for determining the credibility of a claimant’s symptoms and their limiting effects as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) and in doing so must address the supporting, as well as conflicting evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ evaluating daily activities to consider the extent and qualifications of those activities and explain how they demonstrate an ability to persist through an eight-hour workday.

Phillip v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c)(3)(i)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). ... Again, the ALJ did not build an accurate and logical bridge from this evidence to his conclusion that Plaintiff could perform sedentary work beginning October 17, 2016. “A claimant’s inability to sustain full-time work due to pain and other symptoms is often consistent with her ability to carry out daily activities.” Arakas, 983 F.3d at 101. “An ALJ may not consider the type of activities a claimant can perform without also considering the extent to which she can perform them.” Woods, 888 F.3d at 694 (citing Brown, 873 F.3d at 263). Plaintiff testified that, while riding the bus, he got up and used the bathroom frequently so he could stretch his legs (R. at 64). ... The ALJ should explain on remand how Plaintiff’s activities show that he could persist through an eight-hour workday and sustain a full-time job. See Arakas, 983 F.3d at 100. Because “meaningful review is frustrated when an ALJ goes straight from listing evidence to stating a conclusion,” the Court remands this case under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Thomas v. Berryhill, 916 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2019) (citing Woods, 888 F.3d at 694).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing disability allegations, and difficulties performing those activities do not make them irrelevant to demonstrated functional capacity.

Renowden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-24(c)(3)(i)

Although a claimant “need not be an invalid” to be disabled under the Social Security Act, Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted), an ALJ may properly consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing his claims, Torina, 2019 WL 2325078, at *6 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)). ... The ALJ acknowledged that some activities cause difficulties for Plaintiff, which is consistent with the record. Tr. 24, 50–54, 67–69, 71, 77, 498, 564, 707, 890. Those difficulties do not render Plaintiff’s substantial daily activities irrelevant in the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility. Despite those difficulties, Plaintiff’s activities demonstrate some capacity to function despite his impairments. Further, it is irrelevant that Plaintiff’s daily activities prior to his onset date were more substantial. The ALJ found that Plaintiff impairments impacted his abilities, but merely relied upon his daily activities, among other evidence, to conclude that Plaintiff is capable of performing a range of light work. The Court finds no error in this determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) permits daily activities to inform symptom severity and medical-opinion weight, but the ALJ must consider their extent and explain how they undermine the opinion.

Diggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-26(c)(3)–(4)

Moreover, the ALJ did not explain how Sam’s daily living activities, which showed that Sam could perform work on a “regular and continuing basis,” undermined Dr. Caprise’s opinion. Of course, “an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in assessing the severity of a claimant’s symptoms such as pain” or “in weighing opinions of medical experts.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)–(4). But the ALJ’s decision merely listed the activities Sam completes on a daily basis, without acknowledging the extent of Sam’s activities. It noted that Sam retains some capacity “to care for personal hygiene needs, prepare sandwiches and small meals, wash laundry, care for some household chores, drive, shop for groceries and personal items, handle his finances, read, watch television, talk on the phone, visit with friends when they come by, attend church, and maintain appointments.” R. 29. Moreover, in using Sam’s daily activities to limit the weight given to Dr. Caprise’s opinion, the ALJ summarily concluded that Sam’s activities were not “entirely congruent with . . . [Sam’s] stated ongoing capabilities.” R. 31. ... In failing to explain how Sam’s daily activities undermined Dr. Caprise’s opinion, the ALJ did not build a logical bridge from the evidence in the record to her conclusion. See Monroe, 826 F.3d at 189. ... Because the ALJ failed to explain her conclusion that Sam’s testimony undermined Dr. Caprise’s, the Court is unable to undertake meaningful review.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities together with other evidence when evaluating symptom limitations even if those activities alone do not establish an ability to perform full-time work.

Bunn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)(i)

Bunn argues the ALJ inappropriately considered the extent of her daily activities in determining whether to credit her subjective complaints, as her limited activities do not indicate the ability to perform work on a consistent basis. The court disagrees. While Bunn’s daily activities would not in and of themselves equate to the ability to perform full-time work, the ALJ did not consider these activities in a vacuum. Instead, when combined with the other evidence of record, the ALJ concluded the activities undermined Bunn’s subjective complaints. That determination found support both in applicable law and in the record evidence. See Majkut v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 660, 663 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Although a claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not necessarily disqualify the claimant from disability . . ., that does not mean it is improper for the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities at all.”) (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (stating that an ALJ should consider a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the limiting effects of her impairments). Based on the foregoing, the court concludes the ALJ appropriately considered Bunn’s complaints of subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of symptom testimony about pain and workplace limitations, and limited volunteer activity does not undermine that testimony when it requires constant supervision and is neither substantial nor transferable to work.

Hamilton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-23(a)

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to identify specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements regarding pain and workplace limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... The ALJ found Plaintiff’s ability to volunteer to be inconsistent with the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms. Tr. 28. The ALJ found that Plaintiff was able to perform simple, routine tasks consistent with the RFC. Tr. 27. In making this finding, the ALJ failed to consider the actual tasks Plaintiff was doing or the conditions in which the tasks were ... completed. The record as whole shows that Plaintiff is unable to participate in these volunteer activities without constant supervision and, even then, for only one or two days a week for a few hours at a time. While her desire to help others is admirable, Plaintiff’s participation in volunteer work neither equates to a substantial portion of her days nor consists of functions transferable to a work setting. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007). Based on the above, Plaintiff’s statements regarding her symptoms are consistent with her activities. The ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) generally requires an ALJ assessing credibility to consider the claimant’s daily activities.

Stover v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

“An ALJ not only is permitted to consider a claimant’s level of daily activities in assessing [her] credibility, but is generally required to do so.” Kyle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:12-cv-748, 2013 WL 5925777, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (3)). Here the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s daily activities––taking care of animals, preparing her own meals, doing household chores, driving and shopping alone––were inconsistent with the extreme limitation opined by Dr. Haggenjos. (Tr. 20). ... This inconsistency, coupled with the contradictory medical record evidence discussed above, undermines Plaintiff’s disability claim and constitutes “good reason” for affording Dr. Haggenjos’ opinion “little weight.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes daily activities relevant to symptom intensity and persistence; although not conclusive of residual functional capacity, their breadth may undermine alleged limitations.

Seelbinder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-07(c)(3)(i)

Indeed, the regulations expressly identify “daily activities” as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... Furthermore, the ALJ did not impermissibly equate the ability to parent with the ability to perform substantial gainful employment. In fact, the ALJ stated that “activities of daily living are not conclusive of an individual’s residual functional capacity, the breadth of the [Plaintiff's] activities suggest that he is capable of sustained work activity within the above residual functional capacity.” Tr. 26. The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's ability to care for his children as one example of his activities of daily living, which the ALJ determined to be inconsistent with Plaintiff's alleged limitations due to symptoms of his impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes daily activities relevant to assessing alleged symptoms, and non-work activities may show greater functional capacity than a claimant alleges.

Beach v. Saul · filed 2021-04-12(c)(3)(i)

Substantial record evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that “the claimant can sustain a greater capacity than she described at the hearing.” Daily activities are relevant to assessing a claimant’s allegations of symptoms, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), and the ALJ noted that Beach was remodeling her home, performing household chores, and caring for her sick father and 26 Great Dane puppies. The ALJ did not err in finding these “non-work activities . . . are inconsistent with the degree of impairment [she] alleges.” See Valentine v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 685, 693 (9th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up); see also Berry, 622 F.3d at 1235 (noting that “activities” supported finding “a higher degree of functionality” than that asserted by a claimant).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities, but the ALJ must account for how the claimant actually performs them and explain how they contradict alleged limitations or translate to competitive work.

Lekah v. Saul · filed 2021-04-19(c)(3)(i)

The Court finds the ALJ neglected to adequately explain how Plaintiff’s ability to perform his daily activities undermined his allegations of disability. ... The ALJ failed to properly articulate her reasoning for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective statements. ... Simply listing Plaintiff’s activities of daily living (particular these meager ones), without more, is not sufficient to contradict his allegations of disability. ... On remand, the ALJ should more fully analyze Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and whether they are in fact inconsistent with his disability claim, taking care to explain how his daily activities truly (or not) equates to the ability to perform work at a level necessary for competitive employment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to use daily activities to assess the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms but not to equate those activities with an ability to work full time.

Singh v. Saul · filed 2021-04-19(c)(3)(i)

The applicable regulations authorize ALJs to consider a claimant’s daily activities as a factor in evaluating subjective symptom statements. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583, 592 (7th Cir. 2020). Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit has instructed that a review of daily activities “is an important part” of “assessing whether a claimant is exaggerating the effects of her impairments.” Green v. Saul, 781 Fed. Appx. 522, 526-27 (7th Cir. 2019). Although an ALJ may not equate daily activities with the ability to perform full-time work, see Beardsley, 758 F.3d at 838-39, that is not what the ALJ did here. ... The court thus finds no error in the ALJ’s consideration of Harbhjan’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion.

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-05-26(c)(3)(i)

Also, as noted by the ALJ, Ms. Williams’ daily activities undermined Dr. Lachman’s opinion, as Ms. Williams stated that she was able to leave home and shop in stores, attend church three nights a week, sing in the church choir, and practice for choir every Wednesday after bible study. (R. 272–78, 1280). Moreover, Ms. Williams indicated that she could manage her personal care with some difficulties but without reminders or encouragement, prepare meals, change, read, watch television every day, spend time with others, attend church functions, finish what she started, follow written instructions, and get along with others. (Id.). ... However, to the extent that Ms. Williams’ argues that an ALJ cannot use a claimant’s daily activities to discount a treating physician’s opinion, she is incorrect. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Accordingly, it was proper for the ALJ to consider Ms. Williams’ daily activities when evaluating Dr. Lachman’s opinion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to consider daily activities as one factor relevant to subjective pain allegations, but participation in activities for short durations does not itself disqualify a claimant from disability.

Douglas v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-05-28(c)(3)(i)

A claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), but it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider daily activities relevant to a claimant’s subjective pain allegations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... A reasonable person could also agree that evidence of Douglas’s daily activities discredited her subjective pain testimony. As recounted in the ALJ’s hearing decision, Douglas testified at the ALJ hearing that no medications work for her migraines and that her fibromyalgia “causes allover pain, weakness, and fatigue.” R. 1585. She also said that “[i]t hurts to sit back against a seat, and she has difficulty sleeping at night, because she can only lie down for so long.” Id. And Douglas stated that she can only walk 3 minutes, stand 2 minutes, sit 10 to 15 minutes, and lift items that are 5 pounds or less. Id. It was reasonable for the ALJ to conclude that Douglas’s daily life activities, which included helping her pregnant sister-in-law, playing with dogs, engaging in a moderate activity level, taking care of her roommate, and often lifting 10 pounds and sometimes lifting 20 pounds at Farmers Furniture, discredited her subjective pain testimony. R. 1587–88. In sum, the ALJ properly pointed to Douglas’s daily activities as one of several factors that supported her disability determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes a claimant’s daily activities relevant when evaluating the functional effects of symptoms and formulating residual functional capacity.

Dean v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-02(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also reasoned that Plaintiff’s daily activities - shopping, attending church and bible study, washing dishes, dusting, and cleaning counters - were inconsistent with her reports of disabling pain. Tr. at 22-23 (citing to Tr. at 38, 42-43, 221-23, 544, 549); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (noting that daily activities are a relevant factor in determining a claimant’s RFC); Rivera v. Harris, 623 F.2d 212, 216 (2d Cir. 1980) (finding that the claimant’s ability to perform daily activities, such as cooking and shopping, supported the ALJ’s conclusion that she could perform sedentary work despite pain, even where the claimant testified she needed to perform activities slowly and with a rest break). ... Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that the ALJ appropriately considered and accommodated Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) instructs an ALJ to consider daily activities and permits their use to test the claimed extent of functional limitations, although the ALJ should not equate daily activities with an ability to work.

POULIN v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-07(c)(3)(i)

The Seventh Circuit has "criticized ALJs for equating activities of daily living with an ability to work." Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 508 (7th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). However, an ALJ is not only permitted but instructed to consider daily activities. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)). The ALJ may properly use activities of daily living to demonstrate that the claimant's testimony—or here, Linda P.'s counsel's presentation of her case at the hearing—was undermined about the extent of her exertional limitations. Loveless, 810 F.3d at 508; Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 369 (7th Cir. 2013).

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

Howard, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-09(c)(3)(i)

In addition to his work activity, the ALJ also relied on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living to conclude that he could do sedentary work. Tr. 17. 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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i))). Plaintiff engaged in childcare of his three children, prepared simple meals, cleaned, did laundry, visited with friends and family, shopped, used a computer and smart phone, handled his finances, drove, and used public transportation. Tr.17, 35-37, 376, 380, 382.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities, but those activities do not support rejecting symptom testimony without evidence that they contradict the testimony or show an ability to sustain work activity.

Platek v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-22(c)(3)(i)

Although Social Security regulations permit an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s subjective symptoms, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), the Ninth Circuit has “repeatedly warned that ALJs must be especially cautious in concluding that daily activities are inconsistent with testimony about pain . . . .” ... The ALJ did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living contradict his symptom testimony. ... Accordingly, the supposed inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s daily activities and his symptom testimony do not satisfy the requirement of a clear, convincing, and specific reason to discredit Plaintiff’s testimony regarding pain-related impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider daily activities when assessing subjective pain complaints and permits caregiving responsibilities to show a level of activity inconsistent with claimed incapacitation.

Volk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)(i)

The Court understands the ALJ’s point to be that, at certain times of the day, Plaintiff was the only adult at home with a one-year-old child, two dogs, and a cat, during which times she acted as the “primary care provider.” Tr. 28. That is a reasonable interpretation of Plaintiff’s testimony, Tr. 48, 53, and the ALJ was obliged to consider Plaintiff’s daily activities in assessing her subjective complaints of pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). The ALJ could reasonably conclude that Plaintiff’s role as the sole caretaker (at times) suggested a degree of responsibility and activity inconsistent with her claim that she was in constant, “emergency-room” level pain and could not engage in even basic tasks of self- and home-care. See Smead v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 13-CV-185, 2014 WL 2967601, at *9-10 (D. Vt. July 1, 2014) (ALJ could reasonably reject claimant’s claim that she was “close to bedridden during the alleged disability period,” given that, inter alia, she undertook “caretaking responsibilities for her paraplegic brother”); see also Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (ALJ reasonably relied in part on claimant’s ability “to care for his one-year-old child” to discount claimant’s subjective complaints of pain).

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

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-29(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff's allegations of limitations from his headaches, seizures, or his musculoskeletal complaints, were undermined by his high-functioning activities of daily living. Tr. 12, 17. 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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)). In particular, the ALJ noted evidence in the record establishing that Plaintiff has a relatively active lifestyle, including leading a youth group and serving as a trustee at his church. Tr. 17, 1072. Plaintiff also admitted to doing “hard physical work at the church every day,” including helping to lift heavy objects. Tr.17, 653, 1072. He also reported “exercising sporadically” and walking every day. Tr. 17, 1072, 1117. He shopped (Tr. 296) and prepared simple meals (Tr. 297); he also reported going to the bar, to the movies, and to the mall but “not often because of [his] job” (Tr. 298). Thus, the ALJ appropriately found that Plaintiff’s wide range of daily activities are consistent with an ability to do light work. Tr. 14.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating the severity and limiting effects of alleged symptoms.

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-01(c)(3)(i)

To further evaluate the severity and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s PTSD and mental health symptoms, the ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s daily activities in relation to these alleged effects and chronic symptoms. (R. 12). The Eleventh Circuit has held that in regard to evaluating step four of the analysis, “[t]he regulations do not… prevent the ALJ from considering daily activities.” Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Despite the alleged severity of the impairment, Plaintiff still had the ability to take care of his children, go shopping, and attend doctor’s appointments in person. (R. 23, 43-48, 50, 54, 73-76, 870, 875, 1605). The record evidence about these activities undercuts his argument that he was incapable of being around people. Plaintiff argues that substantial evidence does not support a finding that he does not meet the Listing 12.15 requirement of Part A. But, his daily activities (as well as documentation on his outlook, demeanor, and appearance) indicate otherwise. The record does not show marked limitations in his ability to interact with others and to adapt or manage himself. (Pl.’s Br. 19-20); see 20 C.F.R. §404.1525.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of symptom factors including pain characteristics, functional effects, and daily activities; daily activities may expose inconsistencies in testimony but cannot merely be equated with the ability to work full time.

Poff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to look at a variety of factors in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including the nature and intensity of pain, the effects of his pain on his ability to function, and daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... Daily activities are a proper factor for an ALJ to consider, though, and when those activities are not consistent with a claimant’s testimony about his limitations, an ALJ can take that into account. Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 368 (7th Cir. 2013). ... The ALJ may mention daily activities so long as she does not equate them with the ability to work full time, and the ALJ did not do so here. Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 368 (7th Cir. 2013). ... The ALJ did not err in analyzing Mr. Poff’s subjective symptoms or in discussing his daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities but requires recognition that activities performed with significant limitations do not necessarily demonstrate an ability to work full-time.

Shank v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07(c)(3)(i)

Social Security regulations provide that, along with medical evidence, activities of daily living are taken into account in evaluating an applicant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. However, an ALJ must recognize the critical difference between activities of daily living and working full-time. Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2012). An individual’s “ability to perform daily activities, especially if they can be done only with significant limitations, does not necessarily translate into an ability to work full-time.” Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 639 (7th Cir. 2013). ... The ALJ failed to consider how Plaintiff needed reminders in completing daily activities and how he was limited in his ability to complete them. Plaintiff completed limited daily activities with multiple reminders and help from his family. The ALJ erred by finding that Plaintiff’s ability to complete these activities meant he could complete the full-time work as described in the RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities but requires an accurate assessment of how the claimant performs them, including necessary breaks and resulting pain, rather than reliance on an isolated activity in the abstract.

Stroh v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-14(c)(3)(i)

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). ... A single incident of Plaintiff using a weed whacker is not sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff’s symptom claims as inconsistent with his activities. Further, Plaintiff testified that he would not have been capable of weed whacking for four consecutive hours, and that he took several breaks. Tr. 73. Plaintiff indicated he was sore after the work, Tr. 411, and he testified that he could “barely walk” when he was done, Tr. 76. The ALJ failed to consider the breaks Plaintiff took while weed whacking, and the pain it caused. Additionally, when the medical expert was questioned about Plaintiff’s ability to weed whack on one occasion, the expert testified he did not believe weed whacking was inconsistent with the inability to ambulate effectively, as it does not require significant exertion in terms of the gait, rather it requires shuffling slightly while weed whacking, and you can take breaks. Tr. 48-49. The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living were inconsistent with his symptom claims is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires daily activities to be evaluated in context, so a single activity does not undermine symptom allegations when the claimant performed it with repeated breaks and significant resulting pain.

Robert v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-14(c)(3)(i)

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. ... A single incident of Plaintiff using a weed whacker is not sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff’s symptom claims as inconsistent with his activities. Further, Plaintiff testified that he would not have been capable of weed whacking for four consecutive hours, and that he took several breaks. Tr. 73. Plaintiff indicated he was sore after the work, Tr. 411, and he testified that he could “barely walk” when he was done, Tr. 76. The ALJ failed to consider the breaks Plaintiff took while weed whacking, and the pain it caused.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes a claimant’s daily activities a valid consideration when evaluating whether alleged symptoms are as severe as claimed.

Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-16(c)(3)(i)

For example, the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s daily activities (Tr. 19). These included doing household chores, taking care of her personal needs, visiting friends and family, caring for a friend who was undergoing chemotherapy, and playing golf (Tr. 19). Such activities tended to show that Plaintiff’s symptoms were not as extreme as alleged. This was a valid consideration. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (“Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include: (i) Your daily activities”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the second-stage symptom evaluation to consider the entire record, including qualifying limits on daily activities, and forbids disregarding symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

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

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ must follow a two-step evaluation process. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *2 (Mar. 16, 2016); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... In sum, the two-step process requires the ALJ to consider the entire case record, and must “not disregard [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin, 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). ... In sum, I find that the ALJ selectively cited evidence from the record and did not acknowledge the Plaintiff’s qualifying statements about the limited extent to which she could perform her daily activities. By so doing, the ALJ improperly discredited Plaintiff’s statements, thereby ignoring subjective evidence at step two of the evaluation process. Thus, consistent with Arakas and Woods, I cannot conclude that the ALJ built an “accurate and logical bridge” between all of the evidence and his conclusion that she was able to perform light work and was not disabled. Remand is required.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to use daily activities to assess whether alleged symptoms and limitations are exaggerated without equating those activities to an ability to work.

Lindstrom v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-21(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s daily activities in the credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); 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”). ... Plaintiff contends the ALJ erred by equating sporadic, limited household activities with the ability to work. Doc. 20 at 17. But the ALJ did not find that Plaintiff’s activities showed an ability to work. Instead, she found that Plaintiff’s “activities of daily living are not nearly as limited as one would expect given her complaints of disabling symptoms and limitations.” Tr. 1593. The ALJ did not err in this regard.

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

Meyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-21(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s extensive activities. Tr. 19-20, 26. As noted above, an ALJ may properly consider a claimant’s daily activities as a factor in assessing a claim of disability. 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.). “Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.” Ewing, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)); see also Poupore, 566 F.3d at 307. The record shows that Plaintiff went fishing, cooked, cleaned, did laundry, went shopping, attended concerts and festivals, rode a dirt bike, did dishes, and vacuumed. Tr. 412-15, 627, 631, 721. The ALJ properly found that the foregoing activities are inconsistent with the physical and social limitations alleged and provide further support for the ALJ’s physical RFC finding.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to indicate how pain affects functioning and work ability when they are not merely sporadic or transitory.

Miller v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-07-26(c)(3)(i)

Miller further argues that the ALJ erroneously relied on Miller’s minor household activities as evidence of her ability to perform full-time, sustained work activity. In assessing Miller’s testimony, the ALJ noted that Miller could perform matters of personal care, do laundry, and babysit a one-year-old child. While we have recognized that “sporadic or transitory activity does not disprove disability” and that a claimant must not be “excluded from all forms of human and social activity,” Miller’s activities here are not “sporadic,” but rather are appropriately indicative of how her pain affects her daily activities and ability to work. See Smith v. Califano, 637 F.2d 968, 971-972 (3d Cir. 1981); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). We agree with the District Court that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when assessing symptom testimony, and activities incompatible with the alleged severity may support rejecting that testimony.

Youngberg v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-26(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ first noted that Plaintiff’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms conflicted with her reports of daily activities. (Id. 19.) The ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in assessing his symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Activities that are incompatible with the severity of alleged symptoms can support an ALJ’s rejection of a claimant’s testimony. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014). ... In his evaluation of Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ reasonably inferred from her extensive and regular activities that she was less physically limited than she claimed. This conclusion served as a legally sufficient reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony. Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1165. Because the ALJ’s analysis was rational, he did not err by rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities as one factor in evaluating subjective complaints, even though brief participation does not itself disqualify a claimant, and does not require recitation of every reported limitation when the activities are fairly described and other evidence supports the assessment.

Berry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ may consider the claimant’s daily activities as one factor in evaluating subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); Majkut v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 660, 663 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Although a claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not necessarily disqualify the claimant from disability, that does not mean it is improper for the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities at all.”). ... In summary, Berry fails to establish the ALJ’s discussion of her daily living activities renders improper his assessment of her subjective complaints of pain and fatigue. Although the ALJ did not recite each limitation Berry included in her Function Report, he accurately summarized the relevant portions of her subsequent hearing testimony and fairly represented the pertinent statements in her Function Report. ... Furthermore, as the Commissioner highlights, the evidence regarding Berry’s daily living activities did not constitute the sole justification for the ALJ’s adverse credibility determination. As elaborated previously, the ALJ buttressed his determination with a detailed discussion of medical evidence undermining the conclusion Berry sustains disabling pain and fatigue. Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision rests upon substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities when assessing subjective symptoms, but requires an explanation of perceived inconsistencies and does not permit equating limited daily activities with workplace demands.

Buckhalter v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-10(c)(3)(i)

“[A]n ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing credibility ... but ALJs must explain perceived inconsistencies between a claimant’s activities and the medical evidence.” Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 812 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2007); Stewart v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 679, 684 (7th Cir. 2009); Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 755 (7th Cir. 2004); Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 2001)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ALJs must not equate daily living activities “with the rigorous demands of the workplace.” Alvarado v. Colvin, 836 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2012); Spiva v. Astrue, 628 F.3d 346, 352 (7th Cir. 2010)). ... While the ALJ was permitted to consider plaintiff’s daily activities in order to assess her credibility, it is unclear how these brief, restricted activities are either internally inconsistent or undercut Elaine B.’s allegations of pain and limited mobility. See Thomas v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 953, 961 (7th Cir. 2016). On remand, the ALJ should explain how he sees these activities as inconsistent with one another and with the medical record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities without placing undue weight on them or ignoring the claimant’s qualifications about the limited manner in which they are performed.

Narvaez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)(i)

The law warns against improperly conflating activities of daily living with the ability to perform activities associated with full-time work. Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2012). An ALJ must consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing subjective symptom allegations according to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) so long as he doesn’t place “undue weight” on a claimant’s household activities in assessing the claimant’s ability to perform a job outside the home. Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 680 (7th Cir. 2008). ... However, in analyzing Ms. Narvaez’s physical impairments and subjective symptoms in the RFC analysis, the ALJ erred in relying on Ms. Narvaez’s daily activities by ignoring the difficulties she experiences when performing these basic activities. Craft, 539 F.3d at 680 (finding error when the “ALJ ignored [the claimant’s] qualifications as to how [s]he carried out” daily activities).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities as one factor in evaluating symptoms, without requiring a factor-by-factor discussion.

Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)(i)

Relevant factors to be considered in evaluating symptoms are listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). “It is well established that the ALJ is not required to discuss every factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.” Pratt v. Commissioner, No. 1:12-cv-1084, 2014 WL 1577525, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2014) (collecting cases); see also Carsten v. Commissioner, No. 15-14379, 2017 WL 957455, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2017). ... The ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s daily activities as one factor in determining the residual functional capacity (RFC). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (“Factors relevant to your symptoms such as pain, which we consider include: (i) Your daily activities”). ... Furthermore, the ALJ did not evaluate plaintiff’s subjective complaints solely on the basis of her daily activities. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities but does not allow an ALJ to penalize attempts at normal life or infer work capacity without evidence that the activities occupy a substantial part of the day and involve functions transferable to a work setting.

Charles v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)(i)

Although Social Security regulations permit an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s subjective symptoms, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that a “disability claimant[] should not be penalized for attempting to lead [a] normal [life] in the face of [his] limitations.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1016. ... When “a claimant is able to spend a substantial part of his day engaged in pursuits involving the performance of physical functions that are transferable to a work setting, a specific finding as to this fact may be sufficient to discredit an allegation of disabling excess pain.” Fair, 885 F.2d at 603 (emphasis added). But that is not the case here. ... The ALJ did not cite any evidence that Plaintiff performs the described activities more than periodically and for more than brief periods of time. And there is no indication that the described activities establish Plaintiff’s ability to sustain the activity required in a work setting. Accordingly, the supposed inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s daily activities and his symptom testimony do not satisfy the requirement of a clear, convincing, and specific reason to discredit Plaintiff’s testimony.

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

Lamphier-Deuel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(c)(3)(i)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ properly evaluated all the relevant evidence, including the opinion evidence, and substantial evidence supports the RFC. The ALJ found that Plaintiff could perform a full range of work at all exertional levels. Tr. 21. This finding is consistent with the records showing Plaintiff had mostly benign physical examination findings, a normal gait and full strength. Tr. 701, 724, 789-90. It is also consistent with Plaintiff’s activities, which included going on walks, geocaching,2 and hiking. Tr. 269. 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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. ... 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities, including significant household and community activities inconsistent with alleged disabling pain.

Durham v. Saul · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)(i)

In this case, because Plaintiff’s activities are more significant than light housework or visiting friends, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s daily activities when evaluating his alleged impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of daily activities, requires attention to qualifying statements about those activities, and accepts such qualifications only to the extent they are consistent with the record, without requiring explicit discussion of every detail.

Jesse v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-22(c)

As to the category of daily activities, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has phrased the consideration of this factor in the permissive: “In evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms, ALJs may consider the claimant’s daily activities.” Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 99 (4th Cir. 2020). When determining whether a claimant’s activities are inconsistent with her subjective complaints, an ALJ must consider any qualifying statements about such daily activities. Id.; Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018); Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 263 (4th Cir. 2017). But ALJs obviously are not bound by every qualifying statement. Linkous v. Astrue, No. 4:10CV16, 2011 WL 652534, at *10 (E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2011), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:10CV16, 2011 WL 642958 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2011). By regulation, an ALJ is to accept a claimant’s qualifying statements only to the extent that they are consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“We will then determine the extent to which your alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how your symptoms affect your ability to work.”); see also SSR 16-3p (“We will consider an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, and we will evaluate whether the statements are consistent with objective medical evidence and the other evidence.”). Because qualifying statements are essentially symptoms, ALJs assess qualifying statements for consistency with the record in the same way they assess claimants’ other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Plaintiff’s description of her symptoms painted one picture, and record as a whole arguably painted a quite different one. The ALJ reasonably resolved the conflict and explained how she did so. Plaintiff concedes that there is no required format for the ALJ’s analysis, but plaintiff insists on something more than what was done. The only concrete criticism that plaintiff provides, however, is that the ALJ did not go into enough detail about her daily activities. An explicit discussion of those activities was not required.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires careful consideration of daily activities and permits using them to assess symptom intensity and persistence without equating household activities to full-time work or assigning them undue weight.

Harris v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-24(c)(3)(i)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ considers all the available evidence as well as the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of his pain or other symptoms; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) other treatment; and (6) any other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. See § 404.1529(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p. ... Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ improperly evaluated his activities of daily living. While an ALJ must consider the claimant’s daily activities as one of the factors in evaluating intensity and persistence of pain, “this must be done with care.” Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 639 (7th Cir. 2013). An ALJ cannot place “undue weight on a claimant’s household activities in assessing the claimant’s ability to hold a job outside the home.” Mendez v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 360, 362–63 (7th Cir. 2006). Here, the ALJ did not equate Plaintiff’s ability to perform certain activities of daily living with an ability to work full time. Instead, he used his reported activities to assess the credibility of his statements concerning the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of his symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires evaluating daily activities with their limitations and does not permit isolated, limited activities to establish that pain or other impairments are no longer disabling.

Patel v. Social Security · filed 2021-09-24(c)(3)(i)

Like the analysis of the treating physicians, the ALJ was required to address specific factors when determining the credibility of Patel’s subjective statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)(i)-(vii); Meadors v. Astrue, 370 Fed.Appx. 179, 183-84 (2d Cir. 2010). Valet v. Astrue, No. 10-CV-3282, 2012 WL 194970 *22 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2012) (remanding where the ALJ “considered some, but not all of the mandatory” factors for considering subjective statements). ... Further, the ALJ selectively discussed Patel’s testimony. This too was improper. See Smith, 687 F. Supp. at 904. Though Patel reported that she drove locally, she also stated that she needed help bathing, that she could get dressed by herself “slowly,” and that her family did all the household chores. R. at 133. Most of her family visits included 10-minute walks or visits at her home. R. at 165, 173. These limited activities do now show that Patel was no longer disabled.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints when they are inconsistent with the claimant’s daily activities.

Walp v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints when they are inconsistent with his activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Massanari, 261 F.3d at 857.

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

Wimble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-03(c)(3)(i)

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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)). ... Based on the foregoing, the ALJ reasonably determined that Plaintiff’s described limitations were not consistent with his activities of daily living or the “extremely conservative” treatment he sought for his conditions. Tr. 24.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities when evaluating subjective pain testimony, even though short-duration activities do not themselves disqualify a claimant from disability.

Champion v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-11-24(c)(3)(i)

A claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), but it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider daily activities relevant to a claimant’s subjective pain allegations. See 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... So even though Champion qualified her level of activity, it was still appropriate for the ALJ to consider her daily activities when assessing her subjective testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating whether disability allegations are consistent with the record as a whole.

Abuhamra v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-10(c)(3)(i)

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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)); Lamorey v. Barnhart, 158 F. App’x 361, 363 (2d Cir. 2006) (summary order) (holding consideration of daily activities appropriate in determining capacity for basic work activities).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when determining whether alleged pain is disabling.

Buckman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(c)(3)(i)

A claimant’s level of daily activity is a factor which the administrative law judge may consider in determining the extent to which pain is of disabling severity.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating symptom severity.

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

With respect to daily activities, the ALJ cited to Plaintiff’s testimony that he is able to do dishes, vacuum, and shop for groceries. (Tr. 65-66). Additionally, two records dated in March and May 2017 included a report that Plaintiff had been swimming at the YMCA. (Tr. 22, 394, 460). Plaintiff does not quibble with the ALJ’s references to his activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Warner v. Com’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.2d at 392.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities that are inconsistent with alleged symptom limitations.

(SS) Watson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-11(c)(3)(i)

Second, plaintiff’s daily activities demonstrate his subjective testimony regarding symptoms is not supported. AR 452, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (ALJ may consider daily activities); Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112 (ALJ may consider “whether the claimant engages in daily activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider reported daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom limitations.

Akers v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)(i)

Further, the Court holds that the ALJ properly considered Akers’s reported activities of daily living (having a driver’s license, living alone, shopping, personal hygiene, and financial acumen) and found they supported a determination of not disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i);1 Milam v. Colvin, 794 F.3d 978, 984 (8th Cir. 2015).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities when evaluating the consistency of disability allegations with the record as a whole.

Wilcox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)(i)

The 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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(1) & 416.929(c)(3)(1); Tasha W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2021 WL 2952867, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. July 14, 2021).

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

Sterling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

The 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.

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

Aquino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-04(c)(3)(i)

Plaintiff’s activities of daily living also supported the ALJ’s RFC determination. 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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)); Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (claimant’s abilities to watch television, read, drive, and do household chores supported ALJ’s finding that his testimony was not fully credible).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of daily activities but requires attention to the claimant’s limitations in performing them.

Seefeldt v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-29(c)(3)

While the ALJ can consider daily activities, he cannot disregard a plaintiff’s limitations in performing the activities. Meuser v. Colvin, 848 F.3d 905, 913 (7th Cir. 2016).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) expressly permits ALJs to consider daily activities when evaluating symptoms.

ALVAREZ v. SAUL · filed 2022-06-10(c)(3)(i)

First, federal regulations expressly state that ALJs may consider “daily activities[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to be considered for consistency with disability allegations.

Hauser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-10(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also properly considered Plaintiff’s activities of daily, noting that Plaintiff’s claims of disabling symptoms and limitations were undermined by his daily activities and hobbies. Tr. 16. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Although daily activities may be considered when evaluating symptoms, an ALJ must account for how the claimant performs them and may not equate a few limited tasks with an ability to work full time.

Kramer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-05(c)(3)

The ALJ may take activities of daily living into account when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. However, the ALJ must recognize the difference between the ability to complete activities of daily living and the ability to work full-time. ... Here, the ALJ failed to consider the manner in which Alexis K. performed daily activities and improperly relied on her ability to perform a few small tasks in finding that her symptoms were less limiting than she alleged.

An ALJ may discount symptom testimony when it is inconsistent with the claimant’s daily activities.

Bowen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3)(i)

The first reason that the ALJ discounted Bowen’s testimony was that the record showed that Bowen engaged in activities demonstrating that she functioned better than her testimony alleged. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (permitting an ALJ to discount a claimant’s symptom testimony when inconsistent with the claimant’s “daily activities”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities when assessing subjective pain allegations, even though short-duration daily activities do not themselves disqualify a claimant from disability.

Ellis v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)

A claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), but it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider daily activities relevant to a claimant’s subjective pain allegations. See 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to use a claimant’s daily activities when weighing symptom testimony.

Demarzio v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-11(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also properly relied on Plaintiff’s daily activities when discounting Plaintiff’s allegations. (AR at 16–17, 19–20.) 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284 (finding that the ALJ may consider the claimant’s daily activities when weighing a claimant’s symptom testimony).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows daily activities to show that symptoms are not as limiting as alleged, but activities are not dispositive and should be considered with the medical and other evidence.

Anglin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-12(c)(3)(i)

Although not dispositive, a plaintiff’s activities may show that their symptoms are not as limiting as alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49,465; Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210; Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987); Stacy v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 654 F. App’x 1005, 1011 (11th Cir. 2016). ... The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s activities but also thoroughly evaluated Anglin’s subjective allegations along with other objective evidence from the record, and substantial evidence supports her decision.

An ALJ assessing symptoms must consider the listed factors and may not reject allegations based on minimal daily activities without accounting for how the claimant actually performs them.

MARCUM v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-07-22(c)(3)

The ALJ must then consider the claimant's alleged symptoms in light of her daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant's symptoms; ... precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment other than medication for relief of pain; and other measures taken to relieve the symptoms. 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3). ... However, none of the activities cited by the ALJ support her determination that Claimant is able to maintain full-time employment in a competitive work environment, and therefore do not constitute adequate reasons to reject Claimant's subjective symptoms. ... The ALJ seemingly ignores these qualifications, and it is improper to do so.

An ALJ may consider daily activities, medication effectiveness, and nonmedication treatment together when evaluating symptom severity, including childcare as one activity among the full record.

Gregory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-22(c)(3)

In addition to medical evidence, an ALJ considers, among other things, the following factors in evaluating the severity of a claimant’s subjective symptoms: the claimant’s daily activities; the effectiveness of medication; and treatment other than medication. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). ... But the ALJ was certainly entitled to take this activity into account, which included feeding her two young children, changing diapers, and dressing them, as well as driving her stepchildren to and from school.

An ALJ may use daily activities to assess the credibility of symptom allegations when those activities are considered with the record as a whole rather than as standalone proof that the claimant is not disabled.

Krupilis v. Saul · filed 2022-07-25(c)(3)(i)

Rather, “the ALJ relied on these statements when determining whether [Krupilis’] assertions about [her] symptoms were credible, which is permissible under the regulations.” Id. (See also 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)). “Furthermore, the ALJ did not rely entirely on [Krupilis’] self-reported daily activities when evaluating [her] statements. The ALJ also relied heavily on a lack of support for the full extent of certain limitations in the treatment records.” Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires more than summarizing daily activities; the ALJ must explain whether the reported activities are consistent with the alleged symptoms and limitations.

Helrigel v. Saul · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ is required to evaluate a claimant’s activities of daily living. SSR 16-3p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i). In this case, however, the ALJ hardly mentioned Claimant’s daily activities, aside from noting that he was only able to shop at three o’clock in the morning to avoid spending time with others, and checked his locks six or seven times a day. (R.23). The law requires that an ALJ must do more than summarize a claimant’s activities. Instead, an ALJ must articulate whether or not they accept the reported activities as consistent with a claimant’s reported symptoms and limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to find extensive and varied daily activities inconsistent with a claimant’s subjective assessment of work limitations.

Honeycutt v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)(i)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Honeycutt’s extensive and varied daily activities were inconsistent with his subjective assessment of his work limitations. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities when assessing symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, and those activities also inform the RFC determination.

Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-29(c)(3)(i)

ALJs are also required to consider a plaintiff's “daily activities when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304 at *7-8). “These considerations, as well as evidence of Plaintiff's daily activities, inform the ALJ's RFC determination.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), (e)).

An ALJ may consider daily activities as evidence bearing on symptom severity without equating those activities with full-time work.

Mays v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-05(a), (c)(3)

Second, the ALJ reasonably found that plaintiff’s abilities to teach, shop, drive, and handle household finances were inconsistent with Sarah M.’s report of her symptoms. ... Plaintiff argues that her ability to complete these daily activities doesn’t mean that she could work on a full-time basis, [11] at 12, but the ALJ didn’t equate plaintiff’s activities with the work of a full-time job. See R. 21. Instead, following agency guidance, he considered what plaintiff said she was able to do and found that those statements cast doubt on the severity and limiting effects of her symptoms. See Jeske v. Saul, 955 F.3d 583, 592 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Alvarado v. Colvin, 836 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2016) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c)(3)).

Limited daily activities do not alone support discounting symptom allegations, and an ALJ must explain specific inconsistencies between the allegations and record evidence.

COOPER v.KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-08-08(c)(3)

Further, the ALJ does not point out the inconsistencies he claims exist between Claimant's subjective symptoms and the medical evidence (that he unilaterally interpreted). ... Indeed, without an appropriate review of the medical record, the only articulated rationale for the ALJ's rejection of Claimant's allegations are the facts that Claimant can generally perform limited activities of daily living. This is not sufficient grounds for discrediting her complaints. ... Remand is therefore necessary for the ALJ to properly consider Claimant's subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits discounting symptom testimony when it is inconsistent with the claimant’s daily activities.

Ireland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-10(c)(3)(i)

For example, as the ALJ noted, the record showed that Plaintiff engaged in activities demonstrating that the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were not as severe as her testimony alleged. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (permitting an ALJ to discount a claimant’s symptom testimony when inconsistent with the claimant’s “daily activities”); see also Morgan v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (confirming an ALJ decision that a claimant’s activities—preparing meals, doing chores, and caring for a friend’s child—contradicted his symptom testimony of concentration problems).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires the ALJ to evaluate daily activities and explain why they are inconsistent with the claimant’s description of symptoms.

Lee v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ is required to evaluate a claimant’s activities of daily living and explain why the claimant’s activities are inconsistent with her description of her symptoms. SSR 16-3p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Cullinan v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 2017).

An ALJ may consider the nature of daily activities when evaluating whether disability allegations are consistent with the record as a whole.

Day v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-19(c)(3)(i)

However, 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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)); Rusin, 726 F. App’x at 839 (finding no error where ALJ declined to afford controlling weight to treating physician’s opinion that was inconsistent with treatment notes, other medical opinion evidence, and reported activities).

Daily activities may be considered when evaluating the consistency of disability allegations with the record as a whole.

Wolfe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-19(c)(3)(i)

In addition to the opinion evidence and objective clinical findings, the ALJ also properly considered Plaintiff’s robust activities of daily living. Tr. 21. 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.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)); Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (claimant’s abilities to watch television, read, drive, and do household chores supported ALJ’s finding that his testimony was not fully credible).

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s reported activities when assessing mental limitations and symptom severity.

Plemmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-31(c)(3)(i)

In assessing Plaintiff’s mental limitations, the ALJ also considered her reports of activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Daily activity alone cannot establish nondisability, but an ALJ may consider it in evaluating symptom credibility.

Devine v. Saul · filed 2022-09-12(c)(3)(i)

While testimony concerning a claimant’s daily activity is not, on its own, sufficient evidence for a finding of “not disabled,” an ALJ may validly consider it in his credibility finding. ... Indeed, it is listed as the first factor relevant to determining a claimant’s symptoms in the regulation itself. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

An ALJ may consider daily activities when deciding how far subjective complaints reasonably accord with medical and other evidence.

Seyler v. Saul · filed 2022-09-27(a)

Further, the report addressed the plaintiff’s instant objections alleging that the ALJ placed too much weight on her ability to perform a wide range of daily activities, and found that the ALJ did not err in considering this evidence in determining the severity of the plaintiff’s symptoms. In short, as the report concludes, the ALJ properly considered the plaintiff’s subjective complaints to the extent that they could “reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence” in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(a), 416.929(a) (Doc. 20 at 20-23).

An ALJ may consider daily activities when evaluating the consistency of disability allegations with the record as a whole.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-28(c)(3)(i)

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.).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities alongside medical evidence when evaluating subjective symptom allegations.

Davis v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-12-02(c)(3)(i)

But social security regulations and Eleventh Circuit case law support consideration of daily activities when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); Majkut v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 660, 663 (11th Cir. 2010) (it is not improper for an ALJ to consider activities of daily living). ... The ALJ did not put undue weight on Plaintiff’s daily activities—he appropriately considered them along with other evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes daily activities relevant to an ALJ's assessment of a claimant's symptoms and limitations.

FETTERS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)(i)

Daily activities are relevant to an ALJ’s assessment of a claimant’s symptoms and limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ did not err in considering these activities and the Court finds no overreliance on this evidence in the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities, including substantial lifting and farm work, when assessing subjective pain allegations.

Kingsley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-10(c)(3)(i)

Although there is a difference between routine personal care and full-time work, daily activities are a factor that an ALJ can consider. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (directing consideration of daily activities when assessing subjective symptoms including pain). Here too, the activities that the ALJ discussed—heavy lifting and animal husbandry—involved more than minimal daily functions.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities when determining whether they are inconsistent with alleged symptom severity.

Anthony v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-12(c)(3)(i)

While a claimant is not required to be completely incapacitated to be found disabled, an ALJ may consider the Plaintiff’s daily activities to determine whether they are “inconsistent with the alleged symptoms.” See Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488–89 (9th Cir. 2015); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (permitting consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when weighing symptoms). ... A claimant’s daily activities serve as proper context to an ALJ’s credibility determinations, and the ALJ did not err in considering them here.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to compare daily activities with an alleged inability to work when evaluating symptom credibility.

Clancy v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider whether a claimant’s daily activities are inconsistent with plaintiff’s alleged inability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1162 (7th Cir. 2010). ... Here, the ALJ considered the qualifications plaintiff placed on her daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of activities when assessing the reliability of symptom allegations.

Banning v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s activities when evaluating the reliability of her symptom allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

An ALJ may consider daily activities alongside medical evidence when assessing a claimant’s symptoms and their severity.

Griffin v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s daily activities as a factor in assessing Dr. Vester’s opinion and Plaintiff’s subjective complaints with the other medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (an ALJ will consider a claimant’s daily activities when determining the symptoms and severity of an impairment).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony when the claimant's everyday activities demonstrate capacities transferable to a work setting or conflict with the alleged limitations.

Singleton v. Social Security · filed 2023-04-21(c)(3)(i)

Further, 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). Further, the inconsistency between a claimant’s alleged symptoms and her daily activities is sufficient to support a finding that a plaintiff was not entirely credible.

An ALJ may consider descriptions of daily activities when assessing symptom severity, but may not equate those activities with the ability to hold a full-time job.

Ganzer v. Saul · filed 2023-04-25(a), (c)(3)

“An ALJ may not equate activities of daily living with those of a full-time job. But an ALJ is not forbidden from considering statements about a claimant’s daily life. In fact, agency regulations instruct that, in an assessment of a claimant’s symptoms, the evidence considered includes descriptions of daily-living activities.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant's work activities together with daily activities when evaluating symptoms and functional capacity.

Thomas v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-26(c)(3)(i)

But the ALJ is allowed to consider work activities, along with daily activities when evaluating a Claimant’s symptoms and functional capabilities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1571; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, but the analysis must account for assistance and rest the claimant needs to perform those activities.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-18(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may properly consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). But here, the ALJ’s reference to Plaintiff’s testimony concerning her daily activities omitted the fact that Plaintiff’s nine-year old daughter assisted her with household tasks because of Plaintiff’s pain and swelling, and that Plaintiff required frequent and prolonged periods of rest because of fatigue.

Daily activities may be used to assess symptom intensity and persistence, and the ALJ need not explain how those activities translate into the ability to work when they are not used as direct proof of work capacity.

Henderson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-27(c)

Such daily activities “are fair game when assessing the intensity and persistence of a plaintiff’s symptoms.” Julie B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 578 F. Supp. 3d 345, 354 (N.D.N.Y. 2022). Thus, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s daily activities pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and he was not obligated to explain how they translated into her ability to do work.

An ALJ may consider daily activities and medical-source descriptions of how symptoms affect daily living and work when evaluating disability.

Daigle v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-12(a)

The ALJ properly considered such daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities in light of the limitations experienced while performing them and cautions against equating necessary childcare or flexible home activity with full-time work.

Jelderks v. Saul · filed 2023-07-21(c)(3)

Additionally, on remand the ALJ should take care not to equate Jeremy’s daily activities—including his ability to care for his child—with an ability to work full time. Any reliance on daily activities must be considered in light of the limitations Jeremy experiences when performing those activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities when evaluating subjective pain allegations, although short-duration activities do not themselves disqualify a claimant.

Myricks v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-07-31(c)(3)(i)

A claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), but it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider daily activities relevant to a claimant’s subjective pain allegations, see 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to weigh daily activities with medical and other evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms, provided the decision considers the record in balance and as a whole.

Gibbs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)

The ALJ did not err in considering and weighing Kenneth G.’s self-reported daily activities. When viewed in its entirety, the ALJ’s decision provided thorough consideration of Kenneth G.’s subjective symptoms in balance with the rest of the record.

Daily activities may be considered when evaluating symptoms, but limited tasks should not be overinterpreted as proof that the claimant can sustain full-time work.

Morillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-23(c)(3)(i)

Although ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time, competitive, remunerative work, the regulations expressly permit consideration of the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits the nature of daily activities, including travel and recreation, to inform whether alleged disabling limitations are consistent with the record as a whole.

Laurie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-23(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s four-day vacation to Las Vegas in June 2020 and his self-reported activities of daily living, including personal hygiene, shopping for necessities, and preparing simple meals. ... Notably, Plaintiff told his therapist that he went swimming during his trip to Las Vegas, and he planned to go camping with his cousins. ... The ALJ found that these activities, as well as the rest of the foregoing evidence, indicated that Plaintiff’s impairments were less limited than he had alleged. ... For all the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the entire record, including physical examination and other objective findings, Plaintiff’s testimony about his symptoms, his reported daily activities, and the opinions of consultative and treating medical sources., and the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities in symptom evaluation, and activities inconsistent with alleged limitations may support discounting testimony even when they do not establish transferable work skills.

Aseltine v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)q), 416.929(c)(3)(1). ... The ALJ reasonably contrasted Plaintiff's ability to work and walk “several miles” with his testimony that he was unable to work due to pain in his neck, lower back, shoulders, and right ankle.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits activities and socialization that conflict with alleged depression-related isolation to support an adverse symptom evaluation.

Jackson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-05(c)(3)

As the Commissioner correctly asserts, an ALJ must evaluate the consistency of a claimant’s statements with the objective medical evidence, as well as with the other evidence in the record, such as the claimant’s course of treatment and her activities. ... In assessing Plaintiff’s symptom testimony, the ALJ first pointed to inconsistencies between her testimony and activities and reports in the record. ... This level of activity and socialization was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony that she is so depressed most days that she can’t get out of bed. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s rejection on this basis is supported by substantial evidence.

Daily activities may be considered, but limited tasks should not be overinterpreted as evidence of an ability to sustain full-time work.

Flinton v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-11(c)(3)(i)

While ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time, competitive, remunerative work, the ALJ may consider the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits routine activities requiring self-care, transportation, finances, medical attendance, and family interaction to inform whether alleged mental limitations exceed an RFC for simple, reduced-contact work.

Houghwot v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-18(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also considered that Plaintiff’s reported daily activities were inconsistent with his allegations of disabling symptoms and limitations. ... As the ALJ observed, Plaintiff’s testimony and reports demonstrated that he was capable of cooking, shopping, caring for himself, and visiting his daughter; and he maintained good relationships with his family. ... Plaintiff was also able to take medical transportation; manage his finances; recount his health history; complete healthcare forms for treatment; and attend his medical appointments without issue. ... Based on the foregoing evidence, including treatments records showing normal examination findings and few complaints, as well as Plaintiff’s reported activities and conservative treatment, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff was limited to simple, reduced-contact work as outlined in the RFC was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires the RFC to address reported symptoms, and daily activities inconsistent with alleged limitations may support discounting symptom testimony.

Rogers v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-25(c)(3)(i)

The RFC assessment must address the claimant’s reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. ... Finally, the ALJ considered that Plaintiff’s daily activities were inconsistent with her allegations of disabling limitations (Tr. 27-28). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (an ALJ must consider a claimant’s activities).

Daily activities are a required but nondeterminative symptom factor, and an ALJ may compare them with alleged inability to work.

Martin v. SSA · filed 2023-09-28(c)(3)(i)

Although not determinative, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities and whether they are inconsistent with her stated ability to work, which is what the ALJ did in this case.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating allegations of disability.

McKenzie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-02(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ is clearly authorized to consider the plaintiff’s activities of daily living in evaluating allegations of disability. See Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to support discounting symptom testimony when the activities show transferable work skills or contradict the testimony.

Goss v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-28(c)(3)(i)

Activities of daily living can form the basis for an ALJ to discount a claimant’s testimony in two ways: (1) as evidence a claimant can work if the activities “meet the threshold for transferable work skills,” or (2) where the activities “contradict [a claimant’s] testimony.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007). The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities and permits the ALJ to discount symptom testimony when those activities conflict with the alleged limitations.

Jud v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-17(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ reasonably found several of plaintiff’s reported daily activities conflicted with his allegations about left knee pain and physical limitations. To discount a plaintiff’s testimony, an ALJ must cite daily activities that “meet the threshold for transferable work skills” or “contradict [a claimant’s] testimony.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 639. Although plaintiff argues the ALJ “appear[s] to fault the claimant for rehabbing and making some progress,” Pl. Br. at 18, ALJs must take daily activities into account when evaluating a plaintiff’s symptom allegations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). The ALJ reasonably identified evidence that plaintiff could do more than he alleged at the hearing when deciding to partially discount his symptom testimony. For example, the ALJ noted that plaintiff drove a stick shift, which required significant use of the bilateral lower extremities, which undermined his allegations of debilitating lower extremity impairments (Tr. 36, citing Tr. 633). Moreover, the ALJ found that plaintiff continued to spend time on his boat, exercised, and was able to walk half an hour daily and climb two hundred stairs three times per week after only four and a half months of physical therapy (Tr. 36, citing Tr. 787); see also Tr. 56 (Tr. 32, 34, citing Tr. 999). The ALJ also highlighted plaintiff’s part-time work in catering preparation during the relevant period, which was inconsistent with his allegations that he could not perform any work during the relevant period. Tr. 34, citing Tr. 112. Because the ALJ reasonably cited several activities that conflict with plaintiff’s allegations about the limitations caused by his knee and shoulder pain, this was another clear and convincing reason for the ALJ to rely upon to discount his testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes a claimant’s daily activities a relevant factor when evaluating the intensity and persistence of subjective symptoms.

Boose v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-18(c)(3)(i)

Activities of daily living are a necessary and proper factor for the ALJ to consider in a subjective symptom evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (listing daily activities as first relevant factor); see Grotts, 27 F.4th at 1279 (noting that activities of daily living are properly considered in subjective symptoms evaluation). Here, it was not unreasonable for the ALJ to conclude that Plaintiff ability to work part-time for DoorDash between April 2021 and June 2022, drive, shop, exercise, and do household chores, even where the ALJ specifically acknowledged Plaintiff’s reported need for assistance such as sometimes using a motorized cart for shopping, taking breaks, and the assistance of her daughter, when performing many of these tasks, was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reports that she suffered from constant back pain, which she rated at a 9/10, could only stand for 15 to 20 minutes, walk for 5 minutes, and sit for 30 to 40 minutes. R. 43, 48-50. Moreover, despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, the ALJ did not equate Plaintiff’s activities with “the ability to perform light work activities.” Pl.’s Br. at 12, Dkt. 15. The ALJ simply used Plaintiff’s activities to evaluate the severity of her alleged symptoms. Accordingly, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s activities of daily living was not patently wrong and does not warrant a remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes a claimant’s daily activities one of multiple factors considered when evaluating the intensity and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms.

CLARKE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-20(c)(3)(i)

The Court first notes that daily activities are one factor, of many, that an ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and limiting effects of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... Moreover, analysis of daily activities was just one factor of many in evaluating the claimant’s testimony. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff’s argument does not undermine the ALJ’s decision.

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

Janssen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

The ALJ’s consideration of these daily activities in weighing the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints was not improper. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the intensity and limiting effects of the claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Porter v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)(i)

Activities of daily living are a necessary and proper factor for the ALJ to consider in a subjective symptom evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (listing daily activities as first relevant factor); see Grotts, 27 F.4th at 1279 (noting that activities of daily living are properly considered in subjective symptoms evaluation). Here, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s ability to handle her finances, prepare daily meals, perform household chores, participate in childcare, read, and watch television, even accounting for Plaintiff’s reported need for assistance such as needing help with personal care, using a walker, cane, and brace, and needing to stop to rest after walking 50 feet, was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported intensity of pain, difficulty with concentration, and challenges getting along with others. R. 22, 24-25. Accordingly, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff's activities of daily living was not patently wrong.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements.

Bergstrom v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ failed to identify transferable work skills or inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s daily activities and symptom testimony, and therefore erred. ... Because the ALJ did not explain how occasional outings outside the home undermined Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, and overstated Plaintiff’s ability to “tend to activities of daily living,” the ALJ did not support the decision to discount Plaintiff’s testimony as inconsistent with her daily activities with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements.

Russell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-09(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... Other than summarizing plaintiff’s activities, the ALJ did not explain how the listed household chores or occasional ability to drive and shop undermined plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony about pancreatitis or showed any transferable work skill; the ALJ merely concluded that these activities were inconsistent with plaintiff’s allegations. Tr. 19-20. This was error.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(3)(i) allow an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Lathrop v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-10(a), (c)(3)(i)

In general, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in determining credibility. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(3)(i) (activities of daily living are relevant to the credibility determination); see also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s testimony based on the record of evidence, most notably Plaintiff’s statements indicating that she retained the ability to drive, prepare simple meals, shop in stores, and manage funds. A.R. 29; see also A.R. 299-301. ... The Court finds that ALJ’s findings regarding Plaintiff’s daily activities and work history are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s subjective statements about symptoms.

Rowe v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-22(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptom allegations, but activities performed with substantial limitations or assistance do not support discounting those allegations.

Palacios v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-10-22(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may reject symptom allegations that are inconsistent with a claimant’s ability to perform normal ADLs. Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499-500 (2022); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). There are two ways ADLs may support such rejection: (1) the ADLs contravene the claimant’s allegations of functional limitations; or (2) the ADLs “meet the threshold for transferrable work skills[.]” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007). ... The ALJ improperly relied on plaintiff’s ability to perform household chores and personal care. Although plaintiff’s function report does include household chores, shopping, and driving, plaintiff attested to needing assistance to complete most household tasks. Moreover, plaintiff described that she was limited in performing those tasks, and the record reflects that she consistently described these limitations to providers.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes a claimant’s daily activities relevant when evaluating the limiting effects of symptoms such as pain.

Ackerman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-25(c)(3)(i)

In addition, the ALJ considered plaintiff’s daily activities4: ... The degree of activity that she reported to providers contradicts the degree of limitation she described in her testimony at hearing. ... Based on this record, the ALJ adequately evaluated plaintiff’s migraine headaches and related limitations. ... 4 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include: (i) Your daily activities. . .”).

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

Davis v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-17(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements.

Walker v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-20(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the credibility of the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Pippel v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-23

Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ improperly relied on Plaintiff’s reported daily activities in determining that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence. An ALJ may properly consider a claimant’s daily activities in reaching a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Additionally, the ALJ supported the credibility determination, not only with Plaintiff’s reported daily activities, but with medical evidence from the record, including consistently normal physical examination results.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing the claimant’s subjective complaints, while cautioning against overinterpreting limited activities.

Perez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-30(c)(3)(i)

While ALJs must not overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited activities of daily living, the regulations permit consideration of the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating symptom allegations, but the ALJ must identify which activities conflict with which alleged limitations.

Espain v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-27(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may reject symptom allegations that are inconsistent with a claimant’s ability to perform normal ADLs. Smartt v. Kijakazi, 53 F.4th 489, 499-500 (2022); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ also failed to identify any activities that she performs that are inconsistent with her allegations, and failed to explain how any of the cited activities undermined her testimony. Because the ALJ did not explain “which daily activities conflicted with which part of [plaintiff's] testimony,” the ALJ erred.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(3)(i) permit an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s statements about symptom severity.

Magdalera v. Colvin · filed 2025-01-15(a), (c)(3)(i)

In general, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in determining credibility. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(3)(i) (activities of daily living are relevant to the credibility determination); see also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptom statements to consider the claimant’s daily activities, including the assistance needed to perform them.

Clark v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-22(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ erred by failing to address that plaintiff does not accomplish these activities of daily living alone.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as one factor when evaluating symptoms and determining residual functional capacity.

Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)(i)

The third alleged error contends that the ALJ improperly considered plaintiff’s daily activities. An ALJ properly considers a plaintiff’s daily activities as one factor in determining the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (“Factors relevant to your symptoms such as pain, which we consider include: (i) Your daily activities”). ... Based on the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s statements about disabling symptoms.

Holder v. Dudek · filed 2025-02-26(a), (c)(3)(i)

In general, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in determining credibility. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(3)(i)(activities of daily living are relevant to the credibility determination); see also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s findings regarding Plaintiff’s daily activities are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's activities of daily living as part of the subjective-symptom evaluation.

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

Activities of daily living are a necessary and proper factor for the ALJ to consider in a subjective symptom evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). In looking at the ALJ’s opinion as a whole, it is clear that the ALJ properly explained how she considered Plaintiff’s daily activities and pointed to record evidence that was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing subjective symptoms, but limited daily activities should not be equated with the ability to perform full-time work.

Linn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-03-17(c)(3)(i)

Social Security regulations permit an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when assessing subjective symptoms vis-à-vis the ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... Consistent with that legal guidance, the ALJ did not improperly equate Linn’s limited daily activities with the ability to perform full-time work activity. Rather, she properly assessed the consistency of Linn’s activities with his testimony about his limitations by concluding Linn’s activities were “not inconsistent with the above-stated residual functional capacity for a range of sedentary work.” (Tr. 48).

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

Soliday v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-20(c)(3)(i)

In fact, a claimant’s daily activities is one of the factors that the ALJ is required to consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms and limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Here, although the ALJ concluded that Soliday’s activities of daily living were inconsistent with her assertions, he also relied on the medical evidence, and the opinions of the state agency medical consultants when determining Soliday’s RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes daily activities a factor in evaluating the nature and severity of a claimant’s symptoms, but the mere performance of some daily activities does not by itself undermine the claimant’s symptom testimony.

Snyder v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-03-20(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider Plaintiff’s daily activities in order to make a credibility determination. See e.g., Diedrich v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 634, 648 (9th Cir. 2017); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (listing daily activities as a factor the ALJ considers in determining the nature and severity of claimant’s symptoms). However, “the mere fact that a plaintiff has carried on certain daily activities, such as grocery shopping, driving a car, or limited walking for exercise, does not in any way detract from [his] credibility as to [his] overall disability.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s activities when evaluating whether his symptoms are as limiting as alleged.

Lord v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-03-24(c)(3)(i)

Moreover, the ALJ’s consideration of Lord’s activities in evaluating his symptoms was not improper. Although not dispositive, a claimant’s activities may show that his symptoms are not as limiting as alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49,465; Dyer, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005); Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987); Stacy v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 654 F. App’x 1005, 1011 (11th Cir. 2016). While Lord points out that the strenuous hike noted in his medical records was an isolated incident that caused him to have to seek medical care, the care he sought was for cardiac symptoms, not neck or back pain. Thus, the ALJ’s consideration of that activity as evidence that Lord was not as limited as he suggests was not improper.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes a claimant’s daily activities a factor in evaluating the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms.

Merritt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-25(c)(3)(i)

Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify “daily activities” as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); see also Kimberly B. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:22-CV-350 (ATB), 2023 WL 3318488, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. May 9, 2023) (“Under the regulations, plaintiff’s daily activities are a factor the ALJ may properly consider.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements.

Moyer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-17(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to discount symptom allegations that conflict with a claimant’s normal daily activities.

Shaw v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-21(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ may reject symptom allegations that are inconsistent with a claimant’s ability to perform normal activities of daily living. See 20 CFR. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff’s activities were inconsistent with his claims of debilitating symptoms.

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

Doing v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-28(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ reasonably found several of Plaintiffs reported daily activities clashed with his allegations about back pain-related symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Borrett v. O'Malley · filed 2025-06-06(c)

The ALJ observed Plaintiff’s daily activities as one subset of her subjective symptoms. “It is appropriate for an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating their credibility.” Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 639 (7th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the alleged severity of the claimant’s symptoms and their effect on the ability to work.

Matos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-17(c)

The record reflects Plaintiff was earning at a substantial gainful activity level for several years after the Accident. (See R. 201.) This, coupled with her daily activity level (as described in her disability reports), undercut the alleged severity of her symptoms; at a minimum, it suggests that, despite her impairments, Plaintiff could engage in some level of work activity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements, and activities that contradict alleged limitations may support discounting the claimant’s testimony.

Carlson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-20(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). The Ninth Circuit has even found such routine activities as playing video games, using public transportation, and preparing meals to undercut a claimant’s testimony of disabling limitations. Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir. 2021). The ALJ reasonably concluded that several of Plaintiff’s daily activities conflicted with his testimony about the extent to which his mental health issues affect his ability to work.

An ALJ may consider the totality of a claimant’s daily activities as one factor when evaluating the credibility, intensity, and persistence of symptoms, including pain.

BROWN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-06-20(c)(3)(i)

Rather, consistent with applicable regulations, the ALJ considered the totality of Plaintiff’s activities as a factor in evaluating her credibility and the intensity and persistence of her symptoms, including pain. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i); 416.929(c)(3)(i); see also McBee v. Colvin, No. CV 15-263-J, 2017 WL 1101884, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2017) (noting that, while sporadic or transitory activities do not disprove disability, an ALJ does not err by considering evidence of daily activities as one factor in a credibility analysis).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as part of the totality of the evidence when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms and residual functional capacity.

Dawn Drumgold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)

Drumgold also complains that the ALJ should not have considered her daily activities. But as the Social Security rules explain, “daily activities” are one of the “factors relevant to your symptoms . . . which we will consider” when making the residual functional capacity determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider not only the claimant's daily activities but also the extent to which the claimant can perform them.

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-18(c)(3)(i)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, ALJs use the two-step analytical framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and described in Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p. ... When applying the second step of the test, the ALJ considers the daily activities that the claimant can perform. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s assessment of these activities is, on this record, inadequate. In addition to the ALJ’s failure to explain how these types of activities contradict Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the ALJ also failed to consider “the extent to which” Plaintiff can perform these activities. Woods, 888 F.3d at 694 (emphasis in original).