20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to evaluate disabling symptom allegations against the overall record, including objective evidence, daily activities, pain characteristics, treatment, and self-imposed restrictions.

Barker v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23

An ALJ may discredit a claimant's subjective allegations of disabling symptoms to the extent they are inconsistent with the overall record as a whole, including: the objective medical evidence and medical opinion evidence; the claimant's daily activities; the duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications and medical treatment; and the claimant's self-imposed restrictions. See Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir.1984); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 96–7p.

When evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s pain or other symptoms, the adjudicator must consider the factors listed in subsection (c)(3), not rely solely on objective medical evidence.

Bennett v. Saul · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

Instead, as reflected above, having reached the second step concerning intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, the ALJ was required to consider other evidence, including, most notably, the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). See SSR 16-3p. And because the ALJ in this case did not consider any of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (see Tr. 16-17), some (if not all) of which are clearly relevant, this Court cannot find that his evaluation of Plaintiff’s testimony is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an adjudicator evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the treatment the claimant receives, including conservative treatment.

Armstrong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(c)(3)

The ALJ reasonably considered that Plaintiff required and received only conservative treatment. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017) (providing that the adjudicator, in evaluating credibility, must consider, inter alia, “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms” and “[t]reatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has received”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (same); Rudd, 531 F. App’x, at 727 (finding that minimal or lack of treatment is valid reason to discount severity); Despins v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 257 F. App’x 923, 931 (6th Cir. 2007) (“The ALJ properly considered as relevant the fact that [the claimant’s] medical records did not indicate that [claimant] received significant treatment . . . during the relevant time period.”); cf. Lester v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 596 F. App’x 387, 389 (6th Cir. 2015) (concluding that ALJ reasonably discounted a doctor’s opined limitations where, among other things, the claimant was receiving conservative treatment). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err when considering Plaintiff’s conservative mental health treatment.

Section 404.1529 provides that subjective complaints of pain alone cannot establish disability and requires additional objective evidence when evaluating the limiting effects of symptoms.

Earp v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-26

Additionally, the Social Security Regulations provide that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain cannot alone establish disability. Rather, the regulations describe additional objective evidence that permits a finding of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Interpreting these regulations, the Eleventh Circuit has articulated a “pain standard” that applies when a claimant attempts to establish disability through his own testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms. When establishing disability in this manner, a claimant must satisfy two parts of the Eleventh Circuit’s three-part pain standard: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's medical improvement when evaluating subjective pain symptoms.

Schultz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ reasoned that Plaintiff significantly improved by 2013. AR 1308; see AR 1287, 1584, 1829. This was proper. See, e.g., Burch, 400 F.3d at 681; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3). Plaintiff argues that “medical improvement” is a term of art that relates to a claimant being initially disabled but then improving so as to no longer qualify for benefits. ECF No. 10 at 20. While “medical improvement” does have a specific regulatory definition in another context, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1594, it is also used colloquially in evaluating pain symptoms. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 681.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ assessing pain or other symptoms to consider specified additional factors when the claimant's testimony is not fully supported by clinical evidence.

Centrone v. Colvin · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

In instances where the claimant's testimony as to pain is not fully supported by clinical evidence, the ALJ must consider additional factors in his assessment, including: 1) the claimant's daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of symptoms; 3) precipitating and aggravating factors; 4) type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medications taken; 5) other treatment received; and 6) other measures taken to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning the individual's functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(I)-(vi). Here, the ALJ found the Plaintiff’s testimony lacking in credibility. The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s ability to perform his activities of daily living with little to no restrictions. Plaintiff testified he was able to groom himself, pay his bills, cook and clean, do laundry and maintain an active social life. AR-21, 22, 32. The ALJ referenced Dr. Spektar’s treatment notes which indicate that Plaintiff’s emotional state was closely related to his relationship to his former wife, his girlfriends and fear of incarceration concerning a pending criminal matter. There was also evidence in the record that Plaintiff worked a few jobs in 2010 after filing he became disabled. AR-46, 119-20. Accordingly, the ALJ evaluation of Plaintiff’s credibility was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and consider factors including objective medical evidence, aggravating factors, treatment, side effects, daily activities, and past work history.

Keplar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)

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

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity and disabling effects of symptoms, but symptoms reduce residual functional capacity only insofar as the alleged limitations are reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

(SS) Keeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(c)(2), (c)(4)

The law does not require an ALJ simply to ignore inconsistencies between objective medical evidence and a claimant’s testimony. “While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). As part of his or her analysis of the record as a whole, an ALJ properly considers whether the objective medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s pain testimony. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.1529(c)(4) (symptoms are determined to diminish residual functional capacity only to the extent that the alleged functional limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions that can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical and other evidence, even when the symptoms are not wholly demonstrable by medical evidence.

Fellner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(c)

At the first step in the credibility analysis, plaintiff's allegations need not be substantiated by medical evidence, but simply consistent with it. The entire purpose of section [ ] 404.1529 . . . is to provide a means for claimants to offer proof that is not wholly demonstrable by medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats pain and other symptoms as potentially contributing to functional loss when medical signs or laboratory findings establish an impairment that could reasonably cause them.

Davis, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-07(c)(3)

Pain or other symptoms may be important factors contributing to a disability claimant’s functional loss and affects a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities where relevant medical signs or laboratory findings show the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could “reasonably” be expected to cause the associated pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of the entire case record and specified factors when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms.

BRIGGER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-10-07(c)

In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, the ALJ will examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record. ... Thus, I find the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff's symptoms as required by 20 C.F.R. §§416.929, 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all symptoms but provides that symptom statements alone cannot establish disability and must be supported by objective medical evidence of an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Zell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-22(a)

In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. We will consider all of your statements about your symptoms, such as pain, and any description your medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect your activities of daily living and your ability to work. However, statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled. There must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and that, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled. ... The regulations on their face allow for an assessment of consistency between statements of pain and other symptoms and the objective medical evidence. ... Having used the proper regulations, the ALJ had discretion to find that plaintiff’s statements and the objective medical evidence did not match.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's symptom testimony, including statements about pain and workplace limitations.

Orozco v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-24(a)

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).

Section 404.1529(c) directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication and treatment, and other functional limitations.

Philmlee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-12(c)

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

Section 404.1529 requires the Commissioner to evaluate disabling symptoms by considering whether an underlying condition could produce the alleged pain and whether objective evidence confirms its severity or the condition could reasonably be expected to cause it.

Boles v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-12

When a claimant alleges the existence of disabling pain, the ALJ is required to evaluate the assertion using a two-pronged test delineated by the Sixth Circuit in Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847 (6th Cir. 1986). To meet the first prong of this test, the claimant must produce objective evidence of an underlying condition. Id. at 853. To meet the second prong, there are two options: the claimant must present (1) “objective medical evidence to confirm the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition,” or (2) “the objectively determined medical condition must be of a severity which can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged pain.” Id. This standard represents “a more succinct form” of the requirements contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which circumscribes the Commissioner’s duties when evaluating whether a claimant suffers from disabling symptoms. Felisky, 35 F.3d at 1038. ... Bearing this in mind, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s alleged pain. ... Because Plaintiff has shown no error in the ALJ’s determination with respect to the severity of his alleged pain, the Court must reject this assertion of error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) treats the effectiveness of medication and treatment as relevant to evaluating a claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Stramol-Spirz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-13(c)(3)(iv)

With respect to the ALJ’s second reason, the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(ii) permits an ALJ to consider the frequency of a claimant’s pain when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms.

Primm v. Saul · filed 2019-11-21(c)(3)(ii)

And although Primm takes issue with the ALJ’s observation that Primm reported that his pain “comes and goes,” which he argues is typical of chronic pain, an ALJ may consider the frequency of a claimant’s pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(ii).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant's statements and source descriptions of their effects, along with relevant factors such as medication, treatment, daily activities, and functional limitations.

Flanery v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-12-03(a), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

Accordingly, the ALJ will consider plaintiff’s statements about symptoms such as pain, and “any description [his] medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect [his] activities of daily living and [his] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... In applying this framework, the ALJ should consider a non-exhaustive list of factors which include the level and effectiveness of medication, attempts (medical or nonmedical) to obtain relief, the frequency of medical contacts, the nature of daily activities, subjective measures of credibility within the judgment of the ALJ, the motivation of and relationship between plaintiff and other witnesses and “the consistency or compatibility of nonmedical testimony with objective medical evidence.” Kellams v. Berryhill, 696 F. App’x 909, 913 (10th Cir. 2017); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii). ... Here, although the ALJ decision did not explicitly mention Luna’s three-part framework, it did apply it in substance. ... Accordingly, the ALJ applied the proper framework in evaluating plaintiff’s allegations of pain.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s pain and other symptom statements, evaluate their intensity and persistence against objective and other evidence, and not reject them solely because objective evidence does not substantiate their severity.

Leavell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(a), (c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)

“Because symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone,” the ALJ also considers a claimant’s statements regarding her pain and symptoms in determining the extent to which they diminish her capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... However, a claimant’s testimony “cannot be rejected solely because the objective medical evidence does not support the severity of her impairment.” ... The Court finds error. An ALJ may not reject a claimant’s testimony solely because the objective medical evidence does not support the severity of symptoms alleged. ... Thus, because the ALJ based the adverse credibility determination solely on a lack of supporting objective evidence and articulated no other valid reason, she erred.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process for evaluating pain and, when objective evidence alone is insufficient, consider the claimant’s statements and specified factors in assessing symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-18(c)(1)-(3)

The ALJ must first consider objective medical evidence to assist in evaluating a plaintiff’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(2). When a disability determination that would be fully favorable to the plaintiff cannot be made solely on the basis of the objective medical evidence, an ALJ must analyze the symptoms of the plaintiff by considering the plaintiff’s statements about pain or other symptoms with the rest of the relevant evidence in the record and factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). These factors include: the plaintiff’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any pain medication; any treatment, other than medication, that the plaintiff receives or has received to relieve the pain; and other factors concerning the plaintiff’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors, including a claimant’s reports, daily activities, and course of medical treatment, that an ALJ may consider when evaluating the credibility of subjective symptom complaints.

Cofield v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-31(c)(3)

In support of his determination, and in accordance with Social Security regulations, the ALJ cited to inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s complaints and (1) her reports to treating sources that her pain was stable, (2) her activities of daily living, and (3) her routine and conservative course of medical treatment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (setting forth factors relevant to the ALJ’s credibility analysis). Plaintiff has not cited any evidence undermining the ALJ’s analysis of her credibility, and I thus find that the ALJ provided substantial evidence in support of his credibility evaluation.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all symptoms, including pain, and assess whether they are consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Amine v. Saul · filed 2020-01-22

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating pain or other symptoms to consider whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, assess their consistency with objective and other evidence, apply the listed factors, and explain the resulting credibility determination.

Hickey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-23(c)(3)

The ALJ must follow a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s assertions of pain and other symptoms. ... “At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” ... “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” ... The relevant regulations set out a seven-factor test to evaluate Plaintiff’s own subjective statements regarding pain.9 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Here, the ALJ failed to explain why Plaintiff’s reports of her pain and limited mobility were not credible, let alone discuss any factors identified in the regulations. ... On remand, the ALJ should determine Plaintiff’s credibility according to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ, after finding an impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence by considering the claimant's history, objective findings, statements, medical opinions, and other evidence about effects on daily activities and work.

Oliver v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-27(c)(1)-(4)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant's alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant's ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including, but not limited to, the claimant's history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant's statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant's daily activities and ability to work. Id. at §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the claimant's statements about symptoms and their effects on daily activities and work, as well as the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-13(a), (c)(3)

Specifically, the ALJ must consider the effect of a claimant’s symptoms on her daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider all of your statements about your symptoms, such as pain, and any description your medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect your activities of daily living and your ability to work.”); ... Nor did the ALJ assess the side effects of Plaintiff’s medications, beyond noting that “the claimant testifies that she has side effects from her medications.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (the ALJ must consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and work-limiting effects of alleged symptoms after finding a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce them, considering the claimant's history, medical evidence, statements, opinions, and daily-activity effects.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-21(c)(1)-(4)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant's alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant's ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including, but not limited to, the claimant's history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant's statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant's daily activities and ability to work. Id. at §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(4).

Section 404.1529 directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider specified medical and nonmedical evidence, bars rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them, and limits symptom-based work restrictions to limitations consistent with the record.

BAUCOM v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-28(c)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4)

This approach facilitates the AL]’s ultimate goal, which is to accurately determine the extent to which a claimant’s pain or other symptoms limit the ability to perform basic work activities. Relevant evidence for this inquiry includes a claimant’s “medical history, medical signs, and laboratory findings” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595, as well as the following factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3): (@) [Clatmant’s] daily activities; ... (vii) Other factors concerning [claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... It is undisputed that at step two of the analysis, the AL] should not reject a claimant’s statements “about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his] symptoms have on [his] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... However, it is also undisputed that a plaintiff's “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish [his] capacity for work activities. [only] to the extent that [his] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and directs the adjudicator to consider factors such as daily activities and course of treatment when assessing their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Natrella v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(c)

Following the two-step process outlined by the regulations, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, the ALJ determined that Natrella’s impairments could reasonably be expected to cause his alleged symptoms, but that Natrella’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence in the record. (R. 22.) The ALJ also discussed relevant factors such as Natrella’s activities of daily living and course of treatment. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s subject complaints in making his RFC determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an administrative law judge to consider treatment effectiveness and daily activities when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Massaglia v. Saul · filed 2020-03-04(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)–(v)

An ALJ may consider the effectiveness of a claimant’s treatment in making a credibility determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v); Lambert v. Berryhill, 896 F.3d 768, 777 (7th Cir. 2018). Here, the ALJ pointed to medical evidence showing that the treatment Massaglia received was generally successful in managing her symptoms. An ALJ is also permitted to consider whether a claimant’s daily activities are inconsistent with 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).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but does not require naming and discussing each factor individually.

Moreton v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-05(c)(3)

It is within the ALJ’s discretion to assess the disabling nature of a claimant’s pain pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and to resolve conflicts between the subjective evidence and medical evidence. ... Although an ALJ must consider the factors in § 404.1529(c)(3), he is not required to name and discuss each individual factor. ... The ALJ’s decision demonstrates his consideration of some of the factors included in § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Thus, the ALJ complied with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and did not commit legal error when assessing Moreton’s credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s subjective pain and other symptom testimony under a two-part standard and, after an underlying condition is shown, assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on work using specified evidence.

Benefield v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-05(a), (b), (c), (c)(3), (c)(4)

The Eleventh Circuit applies a two-part pain standard when a plaintiff claims disability due to pain or other subjective symptoms. The plaintiff must show evidence of the underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged symptoms arising from the condition, or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b), 416.929(a), (b); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029; Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). If the first part of the pain standard is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and their effect on his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225−26. In evaluating the extent to which the Plaintiff’s symptoms, such as pain, affect his capacity to perform basic work activities, the ALJ will consider (1) objective medical evidence, (2) the nature of Plaintiff’s symptoms, (3) the Plaintiff’s daily activities, (4) precipitating and aggravating factors, (5) the effectiveness of medication, (6) treatment sought for relief of symptoms, (7) any measures the Plaintiff takes to relieve symptoms, and (8) any conflicts between a Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4), 416.929(c)(3), (4); SSR 16-3p. In order to discredit Plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ must clearly “articulate explicit and adequate reasons.”

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using objective and other evidence.

BARTMAS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-03-05(a)

Pain alone does not establish disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Allegations of pain must be consistent with objective medical evidence and the ALJ must explain the reasons for rejecting non-medical testimony. ... Moreover, the ALJ followed the proper method in assessing Bartmas’s symptoms and pain. That is, he first determined whether there was an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce Bartmas’s pain or other symptoms, then he evaluated the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms. (R. 21-29)

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant relying on subjective complaints to provide evidence of an underlying medical condition plus objective evidence confirming symptom severity or evidence that the condition could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.

JOHNSON v. SAUL · filed 2020-03-02(a), (b)

A claimant who attempts to prove disability based on subjective complaints must provide evidence of an underlying medical condition and either objective medical evidence confirming the severity of her alleged symptoms or evidence establishing her medical condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the symptoms alleged.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors an ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant's pain is disabling, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Sanchez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-13(c)(3)

Factors under the regulations relevant to the determination of whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include: (i) [Her] daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [her] pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [she] take[s] or [has] taken to alleviate [her] pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, [she] receive[s] or [has] received for relief of [her] pain or other symptoms …; and (vii) Other factors concerning [her] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); SSR 16-3P , 2017 WL 5180304, *7-8; see Watts, 705 F. App’x at 763.

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant's statements about pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability and permits evaluating the limiting effects of symptoms using medical evidence, treatment history, and daily activities.

Koetje v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-16(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3)

As the relevant Social Security regulations make clear, however, a claimant’s “statements about [his] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [he is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 531 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)); Hash v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 309 F. App’x 981, 989 (6th Cir. 2009). ... In particular, the ALJ considered the medical evidence, Plaintiff’s course of treatment, and his daily activities in determining the extent to which his symptoms limited his capacity to work. These were proper considerations pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) and (3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using the entire case record and specified factors, including daily activities, treatment, medications, and inconsistencies.

WEYANDT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY · filed 2020-05-01(c)

In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, the ALJ will examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record. SSR 16-3p. Additionally, the ALJ will also consider daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), 416.929(c). The ALJ will also look at inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the evidence presented. Id.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms and their effect on work-related activities using the medical and other evidence.

Marler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-04(c)

Under SSR 16-3p, the regulations require a two-step process for evaluating an individual's symptoms. First, there must be a determination of whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. Second, there must be an evaluation of the intensity and persistence of any individual's symptoms, such as pain and determine the extent to which these symptoms limit an individual's ability to perform work-related activities. ... The ALJ gave due consideration to her allegations of pain; however, he determined that while Marler likely was experiencing some pain, based on the other evidence (including her other testimony regarding daily activities, physician opinions, and her longitudinal medical record), her pain was not as debilitating as alleged. His determination included specific reasons as to how he evaluated her symptoms in relation to the overall medical record, and why he found that, even considering her allegations of pain associated with AVM, she could still perform the RFC as defined in the decision. These reasons included an assessment of her daily activities, her testimony regarding the duration of her pain, factors that attributed to her pain, as well as what her records and objective testing showed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529©.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess their consistency with objective and other evidence.

Philippone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-08

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms to consider the medications, treatments, or other methods the claimant uses to alleviate them.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-15(c)(3)

In evaluating the “intensity and persistence” of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ may consider “what medications, treatments, or other methods [the claimant] use[s] to alleviate them.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant’s statements about their effects, objective medical evidence, and specified factors including daily activities, pain characteristics, medication side effects, treatment, and other measures of relief.

Ballard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(a), (c)(3)

In making a disability determination, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect her daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *2 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... The ALJ must weigh the claimant’s subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following factors: (i) The individual’s daily activities; (ii) Location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (v) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; (vi) Other measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; (vii) Other factors concerning functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom allegations against objective medical and other evidence, including the consistency of the statements and evidence, treatment history, daily activities, and medications.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-20(c)

In assessing the consistency of Plaintiff’s statements with his symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate allegations together with the objective medical and other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p. The ALJ should also consider the consistency of statements and available evidence, as well as factors such as the individual’s treatment history, daily activities, and medications. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom statements to consider daily activities, pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and to justify the finding with specific reasons.

Jimenez v. Saul · filed 2020-08-19(c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom statements, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, [his] level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, . . . and justify the finding with specific reasons.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (Mar. 16, 2016).

Section 404.1529 provides that pain statements alone do not establish disability, requires consideration of symptom intensity and persistence using testimony, daily activities, and medical records, and permits consideration of inconsistencies between a claimant's statements and the other evidence.

COLLINS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-24(a), (c), (c)(4)

An individual's statement concerning pain is not alone conclusive evidence of a disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Rather, the intensity and persistence of the pain must be considered, using plaintiff’s testimony, including activities of daily living, and objective medical records as evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). The Commissioner is entitled to “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence, and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [plaintiff’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disabling pain to show an underlying medical condition plus objective confirmation of the pain’s severity or a condition reasonably expected to cause it.

Brown v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-08-25

When, as here, the plaintiff alleges disability because of pain, he must present “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (2) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition or (3) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain.” See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective pain and other symptom statements, but those statements alone cannot establish disability without medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce them.

Gavin, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-31(a)

In order to determine whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider subjective evidence of pain or disability drawn out in the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). However, “[s]tatements about a claimant's pain cannot alone establish disability; there must be medical evidence that shows that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Davis v. Massanari, No. 00-cv-4330, 2001 WL 1524495, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2001). ... Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ inappropriately relied on Plaintiff’s capacity to perform daily activities in his determination. (J.S. 31.) However, given the extensive discussion above concerning the medical opinion evidence of record, as well as the ALJ’s assessment of that evidence in his decision (R. 15-18), this Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints related to pain and physical limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s pain and other symptoms using objective medical evidence and factors including the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effects on the ability to work.

Hill v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-01(c)

The Eleventh Circuit applies a two-part pain standard when a plaintiff claims disability due to pain or other subjective symptoms. The plaintiff must show evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged symptoms arising from the condition, or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b), 416.929(a), (b); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029; Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). ... If the first part of the pain standard is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of the plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and their effect on her ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225-26. In evaluating the extent to which the plaintiff’s symptoms, such as pain, affect her capacity to perform basic work activities, the ALJ will consider (1) objective medical evidence, (2) the nature of a plaintiff’s symptoms, (3) the plaintiff’s daily activities, (4) precipitating and aggravating factors, (5) the effectiveness of medication, (6) treatment sought for relief of symptoms, (7) any measures the plaintiff takes to relieve symptoms, and (8) any conflicts between a plaintiff’s statements and the rest of evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4); 416.929(c)(3), (4); SSR 16-3p. In order to discredit a plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ must clearly “articulate explicit and adequate reasons.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider daily activities, the symptoms, efforts to alleviate them, treatment and its efficacy, and other factors concerning functional limitations, including limited treatment when assessing the symptoms against objective and other evidence.

Falkosky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-10(c)(3)

An ALJ is not required to accept a claimant’s subjective symptom complaints, however, and may properly discount the claimant’s testimony about his symptoms when it is inconsistent with objective medical and other evidence. ... In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom complaints, an ALJ may consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, the nature of the claimant’s symptoms, the claimant’s efforts to alleviate his symptoms, the type and efficacy of any treatment, and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4 *15-19; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see also Temples v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 515 F. App’x 460, 462 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that an ALJ properly considered a claimant’s ability to perform day-to-day activities in determining whether his testimony regarding his pain was credible). ... Here, the ALJ considered Falkosky’s statements regarding his limitations during the relevant time period and found that they were not as severe as alleged. First, he found that the objective medical evidence did not support the severity alleged by Falkosky. This finding was based, in part, on the fact that Falkosky sought limited treatment during the relevant time period. This was an appropriate factor to consider in this context. ... Although it is not entirely clear how the ALJ related all of these facts to Falkosky’s statements regarding his ability to use his hands, it was generally appropriate for the ALJ to compare Falkosky’s treatment notes to the statements he made regarding his functional abilities.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and then to assess whether the symptoms are consistent with the objective and other evidence.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-09-11(a), (b)

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

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms against the record as a whole and determine how the symptoms affect work-related capacity.

Sauder v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(a), (c)(4)

[W]hen a claimant presents “objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms [the claimant] alleged,” the ALJ is required to determine the extent to which the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her subjective symptoms . . . are consistent with the record evidence as a whole and, consequently, whether any of the individual’s symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions are likely to reduce the claimant’s capacity to perform work-related activities.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective pain complaints to consider objective medical evidence, work history, daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and functional restrictions.

Meyers v. Saul · filed 2020-09-18(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must consider objective medical evidence, the claimant’s work history, and other evidence relating to (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions. Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019); see Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly evaluated Meyers’ subjective complaints and found they were inconsistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes pain and other symptoms relevant to a claimant’s functional loss when medical signs or laboratory findings establish an impairment that could reasonably be expected to cause them.

Holscher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)(3)

Pain or other symptoms may be important factors contributing to a disability claimant’s functional loss and affects a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities where relevant medical signs or laboratory findings show the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could “reasonably” be expected to cause the associated pain or other symptoms.

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

Crane v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3)

The ALJ also found that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved with treatment. Tr. 20. An ALJ may consider the effectiveness of treatment when determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires the SSA to determine whether an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce pain, then evaluate the pain using all available evidence, specified pain-related factors, and the consistency of the claimant’s statements with the evidence.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a), (b), (c)(3), (c)(4)

To determine disability, the SSA considers pain and the extent to which the pain “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Statements about pain alone cannot establish disability. Id. § 404.1529(a), (b). Objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source must show a medical impairment that “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain” and, when considered with the other evidence, would lead to a finding of disability. Id. § 404.1529(a), (b). ... The SSA then determines the extent to which the “alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain … can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how” the pain affects the ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Factors relevant to pain include: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate the pain; treatment for the pain other than medication; and measures used to relieve the pain. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... To determine the extent to which pain affects a claimant’s capacity to perform basic work activities, the SSA considers statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the pain; the statements in relation to the objective medical and other evidence; any inconsistencies in the evidence; and any conflicts between the statements and other evidence, including history, signs, laboratory findings, and statements by others. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Contrary to Green’s arguments, the ALJ applied the correct standards in considering her statements, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings concerning them.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the claimant's reported limitations in light of the record, but does not require an exhaustive discussion of every activity or piece of evidence.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30

The Court finds that the ALJ provided sufficient explanation in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective limitations as consistent with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (See Tr. 47-49). While the ALJ’s evaluation of subjective complaints is somewhat brief as it pertains to Plaintiff’s ADLs, there is also no requirement that the ALJ exhaustively discuss every activity Plaintiff engages in (Tr. 47-48). “Although required to develop the record fully and fairly, an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence submitted.” Wildman, 596 F.3d at 966 (citing Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir.1998)).

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of a claimant’s pain or other symptoms to determine their effect on the claimant’s capacity to work.

Blackman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(b)

“An individual’s statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). Instead, the ALJ must follow a two-step process in which it first determines whether the medical evidence shows any impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. Second, if an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of a claimant’s pain or symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit a claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). “If the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of her symptoms, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements based upon consideration of the case record as a whole.” Burch v. Commr. of Soc. Sec., 15-CV-9350, 2017 WL 1184294, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an administrative law judge assessing a claimant's statements about pain and related functional limitations to consider conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.

Vass v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-02(c)(4)

When a Law Judge assesses the credibility of a claimant’s statements about pain and related functional limitations, the Law Judge is supposed to consider whether there are any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistency with objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity, but objective evidence cannot be the sole reason for rejecting a claimant’s symptom testimony.

White v. Saul · filed 2021-02-22(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that the objective medical evidence is not consistent with Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling symptoms. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason, along with the other reason offered, to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence useful in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms but prohibits rejecting statements about their intensity, persistence, or work effects solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Wallender v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-02-25(c)(2)

Social Security regulations and rulings require ALJs to consider objective medical evidence—that is, “evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”—when evaluating a claimant’s alleged symptoms, including pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that objective medical “is a useful indicator to assist [the ALJ] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms and the effect of those symptoms”); see also SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *9–13. However, an ALJ may not “reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his] symptoms have on [his] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his] statements.” § 404.1529(c)(2) (emphasis added); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *12–13 (“However, we will not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.”). ... I agree with Wallender that the ALJ relied too heavily on the absence of objective support to discount Wallender’s complaints of disabling symptoms. For several of Wallender’s allegations, lack of objective support was the sole reason the ALJ rejected them.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform the evaluation of symptom severity and disabling effects, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole reason for rejecting pain testimony.

Bruegeman v. Saul · filed 2021-03-01(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... This lack of corroboration of Plaintiff’s claimed limitations by the medical evidence was a clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s symptom claims. ... As a final matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff fails to challenge the additional reasons given by the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s symptom claims, including: (1) Plaintiff’s hip and back complaints are inconsistent with her treatment history which is “essentially devoid of and complaints or treatment related to the back and hips from May 2015 to October 2016”; and (2) Plaintiff’s physical complaints are inconsistent with her activities prior to the date last insured, including “golfing during portions of the period at issue.” Tr. 20.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform the evaluation of symptom severity and disabling effects, but an ALJ may not reject symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

Kent v. Saul · filed 2021-03-03(c)(2)

The ALJ may not, however, make an adverse finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). Rather, an ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain” or other symptoms. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). But the ALJ may not reject subjective pain or other symptom testimony merely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883. ... Medical evidence of record is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... On this record, the Court finds the ALJ reasonably concluded that, while the objective medical evidence revealed Petitioner suffered from pain and fatigue because of breast cancer treatment, her symptoms during the period prior to December 31, 2017, Petitioner’s last date insured, were not as limiting as Petitioner reported. ... The Court therefore finds the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons to discount the disabling symptoms claimed by Petitioner.

Section 404.1529(b)-(c) requires objective evidence of an impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms, but permits the claimant to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the symptoms’ intensity and persistence.

Ansah v. Saul · filed 2021-03-12(b)-(c)

An ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints under the two-step framework set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. “First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3). Second, “the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4). “[W]hile there must be objective medical evidence of some condition that could reasonably produce the pain, there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.” Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989). It follows, then, that a claimant is “entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test.” Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 564–65 (4th Cir. 2006). ... Because of the ALJ’s weighty reliance on these objective medical findings, the ALJ’s references to Plaintiff’s daily activities does not save his decision. (Tr. 26). A plain reading of the decision indicates that, despite the ALJ’s consideration of other evidence, “the lack of objective medical evidence was [the] chief, if not definitive, reason for discounting” Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 97. Therefore, even though the ALJ considered other, permissible evidence such as daily activities, “the ALJ ‘effectively required’ objective evidence [to support Plaintiff’s subjective description of his symptoms] by placing undue emphasis on [claimant’s] normal clinical and laboratory results”). Id. Therefore, remand is warranted.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ, when symptom statements lack objective substantiation, to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects from the entire record and the listed factors rather than treating objective findings as the only consideration.

Palacios v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15(c)(3)

If the statements are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the alleged symptoms based on the entire record and considering a variety of factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms, and the treatment she has received for relief of the pain or other symptoms. Id. at *18-19; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ must, after considering these factors, build a logical bridge between the evidence and his finding that the claimant’s testimony was not credible, Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2009), but on review, the court affords considerable deference to the ALJ’s credibility conclusion, reversing only if it is “patently wrong.” Ray v. Berryhill, 915 F.3d 486, 490 (7th Cir. 2019). ... While objective findings are important, they cannot be the only factor in a pain case. As the Seventh Circuit has noted, “pain can be real and intense yet its cause not be discernible by medical tests or examinations.” Adaire v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 685, 687 (7th Cir. 2015). ... Moreover, as discussed above, the ALJ’s analysis failed to include the required bridge from the evidence to the conclusion, and it contained errors of reasoning. The matter must be remanded for reconsideration of plaintiff’s statements.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the Commissioner to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms when determining whether the claimant is disabled.

Birmingham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-24(a)

However, even if the ALJ could permissibly reach this conclusion without a medical opinion, the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s migraines was still erroneous. This is because the ALJ appears to have failed to account for other alleged symptoms of Plaintiff’s headaches—specifically, her sensitivity to light and sound, and the concomitant need to isolate herself. See Tr. 53. Nowhere in the decision does the ALJ acknowledge Plaintiff’s testimony, which leaves the Court with the impression that he simply failed to consider these aspects of Plaintiff’s headaches. That would constitute error. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (noting that the Commissioner must consider “all [the claimant’s] symptoms” in determining whether the claimant is disabled).

Section 404.1529(a) requires the Social Security Administration to consider descriptions from nonmedical sources about how a claimant’s symptoms affect daily activities and ability to work.

Morrall v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-26(a)

The regulations provide that the Social Security Administration will consider any description “nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect [the plaintiff's] activities of daily living and ... ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ did consider and weigh such lay testimony here. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weight given to the lay report.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) makes the effectiveness of medication and other treatment relevant to symptom severity and permits an ALJ to rely on effective treatment when discounting alleged symptoms.

McKinney v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-01(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

Third, the ALJ did not err in finding that Plaintiff’s psychological impairments responded well to treatment. The effectiveness of treatment is relevant to determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, and an ALJ may properly rely on evidence of effective treatment to discount a claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008). Contrary to Plaintiff’s unadorned assertion that “the record shows ongoing severe symptomology and longitudinal decline in functioning,” the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s mental status examinations were generally normal and cited numerous instances where Plaintiff reported his medications were effectively treating his mental health symptoms. Pl. Br. 18, ECF 8; Tr. 29-30 (citing Tr. 898, 925, 1045); see also Tr. 580, 586, 704, 726, 837, 1007, 1017. Thus, the ALJ’s finding of effective treatment is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider the effectiveness of medication, including reported improvement despite side effects or a planned replacement medication.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-02(c)(3)(iv)

Additionally, the ALJ properly discounted Plaintiffs symptom testimony because of the reported effectiveness of medication in reducing or eliminating several of his symptoms. (R. at 25.) Social Security regulations allow ALJ’s to consider the effectiveness of medications taken when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s subjective symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). Here, the ALJ noted that with repeat Botox injections, Plaintiff showed improvement in terms of the frequency and severity of his headaches. (R. at 25; see R. at 1792.) The ALJ also pointed to reported emotional and cognitive improvement on medication. (Id. at 25.) See Warre v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.”). During his most recent psychiatric exam in January 2019, Plaintiff reported Venlafaxine was helping to stabilize his mood and irritability. (R. at 1781.) Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to acknowledge that Venlafaxine was also causing notable side effects and was intended to be discontinued from Plaintiff’s treatment plan. (Pl. Br. at 20.) While the Court acknowledges this, it is still noteworthy that Venlafaxine was improving Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms for the year he was taking it and that his physician planned to replace Venlafaxine with Duloxetine to achieve the same result. (R. at 1781–85.) At the same 2019 appointment, Plaintiff also expressed that he and his wife noticed improvement to his energy and concentration levels while he was taking Ritalin. (Id.) His dose of Ritalin was thus increased. (Id.) Plaintiff also reported that due to his combination of medications, his chronic pain had improved since his last exam. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff reported improvements to his joint issues on Entanercept and noted that he continually used a CPAP machine as well as Mirtazapine to help with his sleep apnea. (Id. at 1781.) Therefore, the ALJ did not err in discounting Plaintiff’s testimony on account of symptom improvement with medication.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication.

Needham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)(iv)

In addition, the ALJ noted plaintiff’s testimony that he experiences migraines three to seven times a month, but his medications help manage the condition. (Tr. 22, 65). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3) (ALJ should consider “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take”). ... As noted by the ALJ, plaintiff’s neurological examinations have remained unremarkable, and the record demonstrates that plaintiff’s migraines are managed with medication. ... The ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s migraines are not a severe impairment is based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom allegations against the entire record and accept alleged functional limitations only to the extent they are reasonably consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

York v. SSA · filed 2021-03-05(c)(4)

“Whenever a claimant's complaints regarding symptoms, or their intensity and persistence, are not supported by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must make a determination of the credibility of the claimant in connection with his or her complaints based on a consideration of the entire case record,” including medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant’s own complaints of symptoms, any information provided by treating physicians and others, statements by persons familiar with how the claimant’s symptoms may affect her daily life, and any other relevant evidence contained in the record. Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). An ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s symptoms and diminish her capacity for basic work activities to the extent that her alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to her symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... The ALJ’s decision adequately considered York’s medical history, testimony, and reported symptoms in determining that he has the RFC to perform light work. The Court finds that a reasonable mind might accept the foregoing evidence as adequate to support the ALJ’s determination. The ALJ appropriately evaluated the relevant factors and diminished York’s capacity for basic work activities to the extent that his alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to his symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence. The ALJ provided specific reasons for discounting York’s subjective complaints, and she explained why certain opinions were entitled to greater weight than others.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the complete record, including objective medical evidence and relevant nonmedical proof, and does not permit lack of objective substantiation alone to justify rejection.

Thompson v. SSA · filed 2021-03-09(c)(3)

In determining whether and to what extent an ALJ should credit a claimant’s subjective statements, the ALJ must consider the complete record, including medical evidence and any relevant nonmedical proof. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). In addition to objective medical evidence, the regulations direct consideration of such factors as the claimant’s daily activities, the duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms, the type and effectiveness of any medication, and any other treatment the claimant receives or measures taken to alleviate symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). Importantly, a lack of objective medical evidence to substantiate the claimant’s subjective complaints cannot, standing alone, justify rejection of the subjective complaints. See Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1039 (6th Cir. 1994); Ridge v. Astrue, No. CIV.A. 12-50-JBC, 2012 WL 6652591, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 20, 2012) (citing Social Security Ruling 96-7p); see also Social Security Ruling 16-3p. ... In sum, ALJ Holsclaw properly considered the entire medical record, inclusive of both objective medical evidence and other relevant nonmedical factors (such as daily activities, medication and treatment, etc.) in assessing whether Thompson’s subjective representations as to her symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effect were consistent with the available proof. This approach complied with the governing case law and regulations. ... Even entirely disregarding ALJ Holsclaw’s reference to the outdated GAF score, his brief mention of Thompson’s reduction in counseling, and his observation concerning Thompson’s gardening activity, there is a substantial body of combined medical and nonmedical evidence supporting the ALJ’s treatment of Thompson’s subjective reports. ... The ALJ thus reasonably weighed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints within the appropriate legal framework and in a manner supported by the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs an ALJ evaluating alleged symptoms to consider inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the record.

LAZAR v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-10(c)(4)

When determining the extent to which alleged symptoms affect a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities, the ALJ considers whether inconsistencies exist “in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between” the claimant’s statements and “the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). An ALJ is required to give the claimant’s testimony “serious consideration,” state his reasons for discounting it, and make “specific findings.” Rowan v. Barnhart, 67 F. App’x 725, 729 (3d Cir. 2003). ... The ALJ gave Plaintiff’s testimony serious consideration. He provided adequate reasons for discounting her subjective complaints and made specific findings. See Rowan, 67 F. App’x at 729. Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s argument.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider the listed symptom factors but does not require discussion of every factor if the decision gives precise, evidence-supported reasons and clearly identifies the weight assigned to the claimant’s statements.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

When assessing the existence and severity of symptoms arising from the claimant’s underlying medical condition or impairment, applicable regulations state that an ALJ should consider various factors, including: the claimant’s daily activities; intensity and persistence of pain and other symptoms; the factors that aggravate the claimant’s symptoms; and the treatments and medications used to alleviate the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. However, the ALJ does not need to discuss all the factors so long as the ALJ’s determination “includes precise reasoning, is supported by evidence in the case record, and clearly indicates the weight the ALJ gave to the claimant’s statements and the reasoning for that weight.” Simmons v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 103 F. Supp. 3d 547, 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Felix v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-03697 (KAM), 2012 WL 3043203, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. July 24, 2012)). ... The ALJ compared Plaintiff’s subjective complaints with his treatment history, the evidence in the record, and Plaintiff’s testimony to conclude that the symptoms arising from his impairments were less severe than alleged. The ALJ noted that the lack of muscle atrophy was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s claim to be essentially chair-ridden and contrasted Plaintiff’s testimony with the lack of evidence showing continued and significant sensory deficit and motor disruption. (R. 21-22.) Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to discuss the relevant symptom-evaluation factors and give sufficiently specific reasons connecting the evidence to any decision to discount reported symptom severity.

Steadman v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)

In short, the ALJ failed to give sufficient specific reasons for his decision to discount Steadman’s statements regarding the severity of her symptoms. The ALJ also generally failed to discuss the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), as is required under SSR 16-3p. Therefore, remand is required.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s work record when assessing reported symptoms, but reliance on work history requires record support and an explanation connecting that history to the symptom testimony.

Moon v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-02-23(c)(3)

See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (work record can be considered in assessing reported symptoms); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 (same). ... The ALJ cites to no records nor discusses how Plaintiff’s “inconsistent work history” “suggest[s] the best explanation of [Plaintiff’s] current unemployment likely involves factors other than her current medical conditions.”79 Without more, the ALJ’s characterization of Plaintiff’s work history is not supported by substantial evidence and does not suffice as clear and convincing reason to reject her symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms, and an excellent work history may enhance the claimant’s credibility.

Toler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(c)(3)

If Plaintiff’s testimony (Plaintiff’s credibility is enhanced by excellent work history) -- and the opinions of Dr. Hurlow and Dr. Saulitis -- were credited as true, the ALJ would be required to find Plaintiff disabled on remand. AR 73-74, 269, 960-61; Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e will not remand for further proceedings where, taking the claimant's testimony as true, the ALJ would clearly be required to award benefits.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (An ALJ will consider evidence about an individual’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms); see also Archer v. Apfel, 66 Fed.Appx. 121, 121 (9th Cir. 2003) (A good work history over an extended period enhances a Social Security claimant’s credibility). Accordingly, remand for an award of benefits is the appropriate remedy.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ assessing a claimant’s symptom testimony to consider statements from treating and nontreating medical sources.

Yolanda Cooper v. Saul · filed 2021-03-08(c)(4)

The ALJ properly relied on the opinions of the examining consultative examiner Dr. Hoang, and medical expert Dr. Morse, to assess Plaintiff’s testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“We will consider ... statements by your treating or nontreating source”); Morgan v. Comm’r, 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Opinions of a nonexamining, testifying medical advisor may serve as substantial evidence when they are supported by other evidence in the record and are consistent with it”). ... The ALJ properly considered that the medical opinion evidence of Dr. Morse and Dr. Amado finding Plaintiff capable of performing medium work, also contradicted Plaintiff's assertion to the contrary. [AR 20-21.] ... When considered with the reasons discussed in the previous subsection, the Court finds the inconsistency between Plaintiff’s testimony and the state agency medical opinions and other medical evidence are clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(b)-(c) requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate how the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects restrict functioning.

Ickes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08(b)-(c)

In doing so, the ALJ follows a two-step determination: (1) whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or symptoms; and (2) evaluate whether the extent that the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms limit the claimant’s functioning. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... She followed the necessary two-step process and determined that Ickes’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms; however, [Ickes’s] statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record …” [AR 28-29.] She then pointed to evidence in the record to support this.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, other treatment and relief measures, and other functional restrictions.

James v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(c)(3)

The factors an ALJ considers in evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms include: 1. The individual’s 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 (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *3 (1996); see also SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (2016) (factors nearly identical to SSR 96-7p); Moreno, 366 F. App’x at 28 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)). “A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1562.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors and a specific, record-supported explanation identifying the weight assigned to the claimant’s statements and the reasons for that weight.

Artega v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

“In making a[n evaluation of subjective symptoms], the ALJ must consider seven factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the] claimant’s pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) any treatment, other than medication, the claimant has received; (6) any other measures the claimant employs to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of pain or other symptoms.” Gallagher v. Colvin, 243 F. Supp. 3d 299, 306-07 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii), 416.929(c)(3)). An ALJ’s evaluation of subjective symptoms “must contain specific reasons for the finding . . ., supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the individual’s statements and the reasons for that weight.” Atwater v. Astrue, No. 10-CV-420, 2012 WL 28265, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2012), aff’d, 512 F. App’x 67 (2d Cir. 2013). ... Thus, remand is appropriate. See Kane v. Astrue, 942 F. Supp. 2d 301, 314 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding legal error when the ALJ did not explicitly refer to or discuss any of the factors for evaluating subjective symptoms). On remand, the ALJ should make a specific evaluation of subjective symptoms and identify any inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s testimony and the rest of the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires assessment of seven symptom-related factors, but an ALJ need not expressly reference each factor if substantial evidence supports the determination and the rationale can be discerned from the record.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26(c)(3)

The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76. However, the failure to specifically reference a particular relevant factor does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the determination. Id.; see also Del Carmen Fernandez, 2019 WL 667743 at *11 (citing Rousey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 285 F. Supp. 3d 723, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). “[R]emand is not required where ‘the evidence of record allows the court to glean the rationale of an ALJ’s decision.’” Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76 (quoting Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d at 1040). ... However, the ALJ’s RFC determination in this case is based upon a misapplication of the treating physician rule, a selective lay interpretation of the medical evidence, and a faulty consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective testimony. As a result, the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff could perform her past relevant work and his ultimate finding that Plaintiff was not disabled were not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formalistic factor-by-factor discussion or treatment of factors unsupported by record information, so long as the ALJ identifies the specific evidence relied upon in evaluating symptoms.

Deherrera v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

However, the regulations do not require the ALJ to discuss every factor listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). See SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (“If there is no information in the evidence of record regarding one of the factors, we will not discuss that specific factor in the determination or decision because it is not relevant to the case.”). Further, the ALJ is not required to engage in a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence,” as long as he “sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant’s credibility.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000)). ... The court finds that the ALJ’s analysis clearly and thoroughly examined Plaintiff’s subjective allegations of pain, including his testimony concerning back pain and fatigue, appropriately linking that discussion to the relevant statutory factors.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) and (3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider all available evidence, including testimony from family members and other nonmedical sources familiar with the claimant.

Haukaas v. Saul · filed 2021-03-22(c)(1), (c)(3)

In “evaluating the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms, [the ALJ] consider[s] all of the available evidence from . . . medical sources and nonmedical sources.” 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(1). This includes testimony from other people familiar with the claimant’s situation, including, for example, family members. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p. ... Just as there is ample support in the medical record for plaintiff’s similar testimony on this topic, there is ample support in the medical record for her husband’s. The ALJ’s cursory conclusion that the husband’s testimony is not necessarily supported by the medical evidence is simply not supported by the substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v)’s treatment factor does not permit an ALJ to discount symptoms for conservative or sporadic care without considering whether inability to afford treatment caused the limited treatment history.

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

In doing so, the ALJ considers evidence such as the claimant’s medical history; medical signs and laboratory findings; medical source statements; daily activities; evidence from attempts to work; lay evidence; recorded observations; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication or other treatment the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 404.1545(a)(3); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... Although the ALJ thoroughly considered the evidence of record in making that finding, the ALJ failed to appropriately consider Plaintiff’s ability to afford proper medical treatment and whether the conservative and sporadic nature of her treatment stemmed from her inability to afford regular or more aggressive treatment. As the ALJ repeatedly pointed to the conservative treatment and lack of ongoing treatment or complaints, such failure is significant in this instance and warrants remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(2), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(3)(v) require an ALJ evaluating symptom severity to consider whether the claimant’s allegations are supported by objective medical evidence, daily activities, and the course of treatment.

Vasquez v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(v)

Social Security regulations require ALJs to consider whether a claimant’s allegations of limitations are consistent with their daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Specifically, ALJs are required to consider whether objective medical evidence, and the claimant’s course of treatment, supports a claimant’s allegations about the severity of her symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(3)(v). As the Seventh Circuit has recognized, “it is entirely permissible to examine all of the evidence, including a claimant’s daily activities, to assess whether ‘testimony about the effects of his impairments was credible or exaggerated.’” Alvarado v. Colvin, 836 F.3d 744, 750 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 508 (7th Cir. 2016)). ... Plaintiff has not shown the ALJ erred in his consideration of Plaintiff’s recitation of her limitations compared to the medical evidence or her course of treatment. ... The Court does not find it “patently wrong” for the ALJ to have “tailor[ed] an RFC that fit her limitations, though not necessarily the intensity to which she testified.” Green v. Saul, 781 F. App’x 522, 527 (7th Cir. 2019). The Court will not remand on this basis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to evaluate subjective symptoms against the combined objective findings, medical opinions, treatment history and response, hospital history, and daily activities in the record.

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

Third, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred in finding that Plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with the evidence in the record. (Id. at 24-28.) More specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ (1) erroneously used shorthand, boilerplate credibility language when making Plaintiff’s credibility determination instead of clearly articulating how she evaluated Plaintiff’s symptoms and credibility; (2) overstated and mischaracterized Plaintiff’s daily activities while failing to articulate how Plaintiff’s stated daily activities are inconsistent with the limitations that her treating providers opined; and (3) failed to consider the seven credibility factors pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). (Id.) ... After careful consideration, the Court answers this question in the affirmative for the reasons stated in Defendant’s memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 13 at 20-25.) To those reasons, the Court adds the following analysis, which is intended to supplement but not supplant Defendant’s reasons. ... Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [Plaintiff’s] statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” (T. 28.) As set forth in Part II.A. of this Decision and Order, the ALJ highlighted, inter alia, Plaintiffs largely intact mental status examination findings (T.29-31), the opinions of Dr. Kamin and Dr. Slowik (T. 29-30), Plaintiff's improvement with conservative treatment (T. 29), the fact that Plaintiff had not been hospitalized nor visited the emergency room for mental health concerns (T. 29), and Plaintiffs daily activities (T. 25-26), all of which were inconsistent with Plaintiff's alleged subjective symptoms. As aresult, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiffs subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the record, without demanding any particular wording if the analysis applies that standard.

Gray v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(c)(4)

But § 404.1529(a) also requires an ALJ to determine whether plaintiff’s statements are consistent with the record evidence. See also § 404.1529(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence.”). ... First, although the ALJ used “chronic pain that never varies in intensity,” rather than a term that might more closely track the appropriate standard, the ALJ’s analysis demonstrates that she considered all ... of plaintiff’s symptoms and medical records to determine whether plaintiff’s allegations were consistent with the available evidence. ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s discounting plaintiff’s subjective allegations to have been supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ evaluating symptom testimony to consider inconsistencies among the claimant’s statements about the extent and severity of symptoms.

Basl v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-24(c)(4)

Additionally, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements and complaints were inconsistent throughout the record and at times contradictory. Inconsistent statements about the extent of a claimant’s symptoms are also a proper consideration in evaluating the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff’s claims regarding his pain varied from being incapacitated at times, to only episodic with occasional incapacity. (Tr. 253, 430). The ALJ also found that there was “some inconsistency in statements about poor balance versus stating he ‘frequently rides a skateboard.’ The record does not contain evidence of problems with balance leading to injuries.” Tr. 23. Similarly, the ALJ found there were “inconsistent statements on whether the claimant actually has panic attacks or just a persistent level of anxiety and only occasional suicidal ideation presented in the context of substance use.”

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and medical or other record evidence.

Mathis v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-29(c)(4)

The ALJ further articulated reasons for discrediting Ms. Mathis’s statements regarding the residual pain and limitations she experienced following the partial amputation of her toes. Specifically, the ALJ pointed to records from Gadsden Foot Clinic, which provided that Ms. Mathis was “doing well” one week after the debridement of her gangrenous toes, although she had “some complaints of pain.” (R. at 307). Moreover, the Clinic found that Ms. Mathis’s toes were “pink and room temperature with good capillary return.” (R. at 303). With the exception of a residual ulceration—for which Dr. John Vanore recommended applying antibiotic ointment—Ms. Mathis’s toes were “fully healed.” (Id.). The ALJ considered evidence that Ms. Mathis presented to an emergency room with toe pain at a level 9 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Treatment notes, however, showed that she was stable for discharge, and that her toes were warm to the touch with no drainage. (R. at 27, 296–98). Based on these inconsistencies, the ALJ discredited Ms. Mathis’s statements, and found that she was capable of performing a light range of work. (R. at 26). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (allowing an ALJ to consider whether “any inconsistencies exist” between the claimant’s statements and the evidence). See also Foote v. Charter, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir.1995) (“A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between symptom statements and the other evidence and identify the specific supporting evidence, without requiring a formal factor-by-factor recitation.

Koskinas, II v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)(4)

In assessing a claimant’s credibility, an ALJ must consider the following factors, in addition to the objective medical evidence: 1. The individual’s daily activities; 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual’s pain or other symptoms; 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5. Treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6. Any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning the individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence.”). The ALJ must set forth “the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant's credibility,” but is not required to undergo a “formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1372 (10th Cir. 2000). ... The Court finds substantial support for each of the ALJ’s findings in these areas and notes that the ALJ considered each of the factors in SSR 96-7p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to acknowledge and consider the symptom factors but not to discuss each factor explicitly when whole-record inconsistencies and good reasons support discounting the claimant’s complaints.

Wallenbrock v. Saul · filed 2021-03-25(c)(3)

In analyzing a claimant’s subjective complaints, the regulations instruct ALJs to consider the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the condition; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) treatment, other than medication; and (6) any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other symptoms; other factors concerning the claimant’s functional restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(3). Courts also consider the claimant’s “relevant work history and the absence of objective medical evidence to support the complaints.” Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 968 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The above factors stem from the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). Id. “While ALJs must acknowledge and consider these so-called Polaski factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints, [the Eighth Circuit] ha[s] held that ALJs need not explicitly discuss each Polaski factor. ALJs may discount claimants’ complaints if there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole, and [courts] will defer to an ALJ’s credibility finding as long as the ALJ explicitly discredits a claimant’s testimony and gives a good reason for doing so.” Id. (citations and internal quotations omitted). ... Contrary to Wallenbrock’s assertions, the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that she properly considered all the evidence in the record in reaching her RFC determination, and gave good reasons for discrediting Wallenbrock’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ assessing functional capacity to consider daily activities, work attempts, lay evidence, observations, symptom characteristics, medication and treatment, relief measures, and other symptom-related functional limits.

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

In doing so, the ALJ considers evidence such as the claimant’s medical history; medical signs and laboratory findings; medical source statements; daily activities; evidence from attempts to work; lay evidence; recorded observations; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication or other treatment the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.945(a)(3); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... The ALJ’s decision simply glosses over the mental health treatment records, indicating primarily that Plaintiff presented with “largely normal” mental status findings (Tr. 19-23). Without more, it is unclear whether the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s condition as a whole. Upon remand, therefore, the ALJ should address whether Plaintiff’s anxiety, PTSD, or auditory hallucinations limit her ability to perform work activities and, if so, the extent of such limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the symptom factors but not an explicit discussion of each one when the ALJ acknowledges them and gives specific, evidence-supported reasons for the assessment.

McNeely v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

In examining the record, the Commissioner must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, intensity, and frequency of the symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; any functional restrictions; the claimant’s work history; and the objective medical evidence. See Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir. 2008), and Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984)). See also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-*8 (describing several of the above factors, as well as evidence of treatment other than medication that an individual receives); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (same). ... “The ALJ is not required to discuss each Polaski factor,” however, “as long as ‘he acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.’” Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore, 572 F.3d at 524). ... After reviewing the record, the Court finds that the ALJ conducted a proper assessment of Plaintiff’s symptoms, consistent with SSR 16-3p and the relevant regulations, and that her assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and work limitations from the entire record, and permits discounting an asserted limitation when the ALJ acknowledges it and logically contrasts it with contemporaneous treatment evidence.

Jacobs v. Saul · filed 2021-03-26(c)

Under Social Security regulations, when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must follow a two-step process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see also SRR 16-03p. First, the ALJ must “determine whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment (MDI) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms.” SSR 16-03p. Second, assuming that the ALJ finds in the affirmative at step one, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities for an adult.” Id. In determining the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” Id; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... By citing the absence of any need to raise his legs in Jacobs’ medical records, the ALJ provided a logical reason for discounting that asserted limitation. ... Therefore, I find that the ALJ built a logical bridge between the evidence and his determination to give little weight to Jacobs’ testimony that he must elevate his legs.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(3)(i) permit an ALJ to use objective medical evidence and the claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Fritts v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)

Here, the ALJ’s decision is not such a broad rejection. After summarizing the objective medical evidence of record, the ALJ made specific note of the findings he relied on in determining that Fritts had no greater limitations than what was in the RFC. See (Doc. 11, PageID.141-142); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence of this type is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work.”). The ALJ also noted that Fritts’s subjective statements about the limiting effects of her pain were inconsistent with her activities of daily living (see Doc. 11, PageID.142), a finding that Fritts does not challenge. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (Commissioner considers a claimant’s “daily activities” in evaluating severity of pain and other symptoms). The ALJ’s RFC was also supported by the assessment of physical therapist Chris Ireland, who limited Fritts to light work, and the June 2, 2017 assessment of Dexter Walcott, M.D., performed less than six months after the alleged disability onset date, which the ALJ noted to have found Fritts “to be significantly less impaired than” the ALJ did. (Doc. 11, PageID.142-142 (emphasis by the ALJ)). Much of this, Fritts does not address.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to enumerate every symptom factor in every decision if the explanation is explicit enough for a reviewing court to understand the reasoning.

Tolliver v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s analysis fails to fully address the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and rather, focuses primarily on objective factors in contrast to the Rules and Regulations. However, Eleventh Circuit case law does not require an ALJ to enumerate every factor in every decision. See Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 771 F.3d 780, 782 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an ALJ’s decision need only be explicit enough to enable a reviewing court to determine the reasoning behind findings). For these reasons, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1529(b)-(c) requires objective evidence of an impairment capable of causing alleged symptoms, but at the second step permits exclusive reliance on subjective evidence to prove symptom severity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Hakeem v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(b)-(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95 (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [his] statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” R. at 21. As noted above, there does not need to be objective evidence of the claimant’s pain itself or its intensity. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. Rather, the claimant is entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test above. Id. In other words, “disability claimants are entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms.” Id. at 98. “Thus, [the ALJ] ‘improperly increased [Plaintiff’s] burden of proof’ by effectively requiring [his] subjective descriptions of [his] symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence.” Id. at 96 (quoting Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 866 (4th Cir. 2017)). Moreover, to the extent that the ALJ stated that he considered other evidence, “ALJs apply an incorrect legal standard by requiring objective evidence of symptoms even when they also consider other evidence in the record.” Id. at 97. The Court thus remands on this ground as well.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom evaluation but prohibits rejecting statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and effects solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Robles v. Saul · filed 2021-03-26(c)(2)

To guide the step two evaluation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) provides a structure by which the SSA considers “objective medical evidence” and “other evidence.” While the former “is a useful indicator to assist . . . in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms . . . may have on your ability to work,” the SSA will not reject statements about intensity, persistence and effects “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... The Court finds that the ALJ erred when she discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. For the first prong of the test, the ALJ found “that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.” (Tr. 26). However, the ALJ’s analysis went astray as it pertains to the second prong, where the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s statements concerning the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of Plaintiff’s symptoms because such statements were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Id. In doing so, the ALJ “improperly increased [Plaintiff’s] burden of proof” by effectively requiring [Plaintiff’s] subjective descriptions of [her] symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence.” Arakas, 983 F.3d at 96.

Section 404.1529(a)-(b) requires an ALJ first to determine whether medical evidence shows an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the objective and other record evidence.

Flynn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(a)-(b)

To determine the credibility of subjective symptom evidence, the ALJ follows a two- step process in which he or she: (1) considers whether the medical evidence shows any impairment that “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged”; and (2) upon finding an impairment, evaluates “the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects’ of a claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work.” See Wells v. Colvin, 87 F. Supp. 3d 421, 431 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b)). Here, the ALJ noted an inconsistency between Plaintiffs testimony of the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [her] symptoms” and the other record evidence. Tr. 24. To resolve this inconsistency, the ALJ concluded that he would incorporate Plaintiffs testimony into the RFC assessment “only to the extent [it] [could] reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.” This conclusion is proper because the ALJ “is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question” and reserves the discretion to weigh the credibility of a claimant’s testimony against the other record evidence. See Yucekus v. Comm’ of Soc. Sec., 829 F. App’x 553, 556 (2d. Cir. 2020) (citing Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010)). The ALJ did not mischaracterize Plaintiffs daily activities because his determination that Plaintiff testified to “mostly normal daily functioning” goes to the qualitative effect of Plaintiffs symptoms. See id. at 23-24; Dkt. 12-1, at 28.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) makes treatment an indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, but conservative treatment cannot support rejection without considering the condition, available alternatives, and any good reason for not pursuing more aggressive care.

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

Routine, conservative treatment can be sufficient to discount a claimant’s subjective testimony regarding the limitations caused by an impairment. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007). Not seeking an “aggressive treatment program” permits the inference that symptoms were not “as all-disabling” as the claimant reported. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). If, however, the claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive treatment, conservative treatment is not a proper basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective symptoms. Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155,162 (9th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff argues that the ALJ found that her treatment record was conservative, without offering any evidence showing that her treatments were conservative relative to her alleged impairments. The Court agrees. “Any evaluation of the aggressiveness of a treatment regimen must take into account the condition being treated.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 667 (9th Cir. 2017). For example, a plaintiff who was diagnosed with a condition which could produce disabling symptoms, but for which there is no known treatment, could not be faulted for the lack of aggressive treatment options available. The ALJ did not identify a more aggressive alternative treatment option for Plaintiff’s condition, compare Plaintiff’s treatment record with a sufficiently aggressive treatment for her disabling conditions, or otherwise take into account the condition being treated. Merely proclaiming that treatment has been conservative, without taking into account the condition being treated or the treatments available is legally insufficient. This type of statement is not a clear and convincing reason supported by substantial evidence to support a finding that subjective symptom testimony is not credible.

Section 404.1529(a)’s consistency standard is not violated merely by using “not entirely consistent” boilerplate when the ALJ states the correct legal standards and gives specific reasons for the symptom assessment.

Czadzeck v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(a)

Plaintiff faults the ALJ for using boilerplate language, i.e., that plaintiff's statements about her symptoms and limitations were “not entirely consistent” with the evidence. (PI.’s Br. at 16; Tr. at 25.) As courts have repeatedly noted, such boilerplate is harmless where the ALJ otherwise sets forth the correct legal standards, e.g., Harris v. Saul, 835 Fed. Appx. 881, 886 (7"" Cir. 2020), and goes on to provide specific reasons for her conclusion, e.g., Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 510 (7" Cir. 2019); Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 508 (7" Cir. 2016); Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 367-68 (7" Cir. 2013). In the present case, the ALJ set forth the standards from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p (Tr. at 23), and she explained why she discounted plaintiff's allegations of greater limitations (Tr. at 25-28).

Section 404.1529(b)–(c) does not require objective evidence to substantiate subjective fibromyalgia symptoms, but lack of objective evidence remains a valid consideration if the ALJ gives it no undue weight and evaluates the medical and nonmedical record as a whole.

Ward v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(b)–(c)

While, as noted, objective evidence is not required to substantiate a claimant’s subjective claims as to fibromyalgia, the lack of such evidence is still a valid consideration under both SSR 12-2p and the symptom-evaluation regulations, 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1529(b)-(c), 416.929(b)-(c). Thus, it is not reversible error for an ALJ to note such a dearth of objective evidence in his decision, so long as the decision does not indicate that the ALJ gave undue weight to this fact and that the ALJ considered both the medical and non-medical evidence in the record as a whole in evaluating the claimant’s statements. ... Accordingly, contrary to Ward’s first claim of error, the ALJ’s decision adequately indicates that he evaluated Ward’s fibromyalgia under the proper standards.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven additional factors when reported symptoms suggest greater functional restriction than objective evidence alone demonstrates.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

Further, if a claimant’s reported symptoms suggest a greater restriction of function than can be demonstrated by objective evidence alone, consideration is also given to such factors as: (1) the claimant’s daily ... activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness and adverse side effects of medication; (5) treatment (other than medication) that the claimant receives or had received; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 40.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... At bottom, the ALJ’s rationale comports with statutory and regulatory requirements and is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment and other relief measures, and other functional restrictions, with specific reasons clearly explaining the weight given to symptoms.

St. Claire v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-02(c)(3)

To evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptoms, an ALJ considers the claimant’s complaints along with the objective medical evidence, information from medical and non-medical sources, treatment received, and other evidence. Id. In addition to this evidence, the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3) are considered: daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; measures other than treatment a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms, e.g., lying flat on one’s back; and any other factors pertaining to a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id. at *7-8. The ALJ’s decision “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” Id. at *10. ... The ALJ did not err when evaluating St. Claire’s fibromyalgia.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ, when alleged symptom limitations are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, to consider other record evidence and the seven regulatory factors in determining how symptoms limit work activities.

Epps v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-04-09(c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms and pain, an ALJ must consider: (i) [the claimant’s] daily activities; (ii) [t]he location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (iii) [p]recipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) [t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate … pain or other symptoms; (v) [t]reatment, other than medication, [the claimant] receive[s] or ha[s] received for relief of … pain or other symptoms; (vi) [a]ny measures [the claimant] use[s] or ha[s] used to relieve … pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) [o]ther factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Leiter v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 377 Fed. Appx. 944, 947 (11th Cir. 2010). ... The ALJ must evaluate whether the statements regarding limiting effects of symptoms and pain are substantiated by objective medical evidence, and if they are not, then the ALJ must consider other evidence in the record to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Review of Mr. Epps’s testimony, his medical records, and the ALJ’s decision reveals that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Mr. Epps’s symptoms relating to his left arm pain and limited mobility. ... The Court cannot determine whether the ALJ would or should have reached different results at steps three, four, and five of the sequential analysis in the absence of the errors discussed above. Therefore, remand to the Commissioner is proper.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history as one of many factors in evaluating symptom testimony but does not require an ALJ to credit a good work history over the claimant’s own testimony about limitations.

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

ALJs must “‘consider all of the evidence presented, including information about [a claimant’s] prior work record,’” but “work history is just one of many factors that the ALJ is instructed to consider in weighing the credibility of claimant testimony.” Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 502 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Here, there is no indication that the ALJ traversed this standard. The ALJ specifically noted that, prior to her onset date, Plaintiff “had a substantial history of employment in several different office-type settings.” Tr. 14. The ALJ was not required to credit Plaintiff’s good work history over her own testimony regarding the limitations caused by her impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) requires consideration of medication effectiveness and other treatment when evaluating whether symptom statements are consistent with the record.

Ellington v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

The ALJ’s consistency analysis was sufficient and legally sound. In reaching his conclusion regarding consistency, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his mental symptoms were inconsistent with the objective evidence. R. 24. The ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s mental health treatment history, which included medication that reportedly helped improve his mood and sleeping. In August 2018, Plaintiff reported progress with symptoms with the use of medication. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (Commissioner must consider medication effectiveness and other treatments for pain relief when considering statements regarding symptoms). ... Plaintiff’s consistency arguments are unavailing, and the ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the objective evidence satisfies SSR 16-3p.

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

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

The ALJ may not, however, discount testimony “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). An ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). ... Considering the totality of the evidence to determine whether Plaintiff had established that he was disabled on September 30, 2014, without a robust body of evidence to rely on, the ALJ gave specific, clear, and convincing reasons based in the medical evidence before him. ... The ALJ did not err in giving less than full weight to Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(1) requires a two-step symptom inquiry that evaluates intensity, persistence, and limiting effects from the entire record and does not permit rejection of pain testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

Jenkins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-31(a), (c)(1)

The ALJ makes a credibility determination to assess the subjective symptom testimony of a claimant amidst a two-step process. First, the ALJ evaluates the existence of an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms. Second, the ALJ addresses the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the alleged symptoms based on an examination of the entire record. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(l); 416.929(a), (c)(l); see Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). ... The ALJ erred in discounting plaintiff’s testimony on his physical symptoms for the reasons addressed in the foregoing sections. Additionally, plaintiff is correct that the ALJ also erred by discounting plaintiff’s pain testimony based solely on objective medical evidence. The extent to which the ALJ may have erred in discounting plaintiff’s testimony about his psychological symptoms is obscured by errors in the in the evaluation of plaintiff’s VA assessments and social functioning. The Court will address those errors below.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom assessment, but an ALJ cannot reject symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not affirmatively substantiate it.

Cordova v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). ... In discrediting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ cited Plaintiff’s medical records that did not support the alleged symptoms, as well as the specific inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s hearing testimony and his symptom reports to treatment providers. The ALJ gave specific, clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to discount Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom testimony solely for lack of objective corroboration but permits medical evidence to be considered as one factor in determining symptom severity.

Colladay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-07(c)(2)

Third, the ALJ cited a number of ways in which the objective medical evidence contradicted the severity of plaintiff’s symptom testimony. Tr. 23–24. In contrast to plaintiff’s claims that he could barely hold a coffee pot to pour a cup of coffee, the ALJ noted that plaintiff had normal motor strength, sensation, and reflexes in his arms and hands. Tr. 25; compare Tr. 74 with Tr. 876–77. The ALJ noted that the record regularly showed that plaintiff had a normal gait and appeared well during examination without acute distress. Tr. 23–24; see Tr. 433, 533, 562, 588, 631, 705, 876, 881, 896. Although it is improper to reject symptom testimony solely because it is not corroborated by objective medical evidence, medical evidence remains a relevant factor in determining the severity of the alleged symptoms. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ’s evaluation of his symptom testimony was unsupported by substantial evidence or the result of harmful legal error.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of severity, but objective evidence remains relevant together with medical-source information.

Rolen v. Saul · filed 2021-04-14(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(b)-(c) requires an ALJ first to determine whether medical signs or laboratory findings show a symptom-producing impairment and then to evaluate symptom intensity, persistence, and work limitations from the entire case record.

Gillman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(b)-(c)

The regulations have established a two-step symptom evaluation process. First, the ALJ must determine if there are “medical signs or laboratory findings [which] show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Thereafter, at step two, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain, and determining the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms limit [their] capacity for work.” Id. § 404.1529(c). In making this determination, the ALJ will “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p Titles II & XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017). ... Of note here, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, using the factors as guidance for his analysis,6 and finding Plaintiff’s allegations involving his physical limitations “are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence” [TR 33]. ... Based upon the medical records in evidence, the Court finds the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s testimony, ... utilizing the subjective symptom evaluation, to be proper. The totality of the medical evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s subjective statements about the limiting effects of his symptoms were not fully believable.

Section 404.1529(b)–(c) first requires objective evidence of an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms, but then permits symptom severity, persistence, and limiting effects to be proved by subjective evidence and requires consideration of the entire record.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-02(b)–(c)

In all cases, “an ALJ follows a two-step analysis when considering a claimant’s subjective statements about impairments and symptoms.” , 858 F.3d at 865–66 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), (c)). “First, the ALJ looks for objective medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms.” at 866 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). The ALJ only proceeds to the second step if the claimant’s impairments could reasonably produce the symptoms he alleges. At the second step, the ALJ is required to “evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit [his] ability to perform basic work activities.” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). ... Because Plaintiff had medical conditions that reasonably could be expected cause the symptoms he alleged, he was “entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of [his] symptoms.” , 983 F.3d at 98. ... In contravention of SSR 16-3p, the ALJ reached his conclusion as to the consistency of Plaintiff’s statements without considering the entire record. ... The ALJ’s conclusion as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of Plaintiff's symptoms is not supported by substantial evidence, given his incomplete and inaccurate assessment of the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of medication and other treatment when assessing symptom testimony.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

Improvement with treatment is a clear and convincing reason to discount symptom testimony. Impairments that can be effectively controlled by treatment are not considered disabling for purposes of Social Security benefits. See Warre v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv-v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv-v) (the ALJ may consider the effectiveness of treatment when assessing testimony). ... The ALJ noted that plaintiff’s testimony that his cardiac functioning was only “a little better” was inconsistent with the medical evidence demonstrating significant objective improvement. AR 23. Accordingly, the ALJ provided a clear and convincing reason supported by substantial evidence to discredit plaintiff’s testimony, and therefore this reason must be germane to the lay witnesses whose testimony was discounted.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits normal examination findings and other objective evidence to inform the assessment of alleged chronic fatigue even when that evidence does not directly reflect fatigue.

Larue v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

The Court finds that the ALJ’s determination of plaintiff’s credibility regarding his subjective allegations of fatigue is supported by substantial evidence in the record. This evidence includes consistently normal exam findings, such as normal strength, muscle tone, coordination, gait, cognition, and appearance. R. at 214–19, 229–31, 283–99, 305–06, 312–20, 539–78. While normal exam findings and objective evidence may not reflect fatigue, such evidence may be used in assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). For instance, a claimant who alleges that he suffered from chronic, debilitating fatigue may be less credible if he presents at an examination with normal muscle tone and strength.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(4) require an ALJ to assess subjective symptoms throughout the sequential process and specifically identify each rejected symptom statement and the particular record evidence that undermines it.

Maria P. Castanon Arteaga v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-04-01(a), (c)(4)

When determining disability, an ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s impairment-related pain and other subjective symptoms at each step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (d). Accordingly, when a claimant presents “objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms [the claimant] alleged,” the ALJ is required to determine the extent to which the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her subjective symptoms (“subjective statements” or “subjective complaints”) are consistent with the record evidence as a whole and, consequently, whether any of the individual’s symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions are likely to reduce the claimant’s capacity to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(4); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4-*10. ... The ALJ failed to provide specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject plaintiffs subjective statements. Instead, the ALJ offered only general, boilerplate assertions that plaintiff's statements were “not entirely consistent” (or “not fully consistent”) with “the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” (AR 25, 29). Such broad assertions do not suffice. ... Because the ALJ failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount plaintiff's subjective statements, remand is warranted for reconsideration of these statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to demonstrate consideration of all evidence relevant to subjective complaints, including daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication effects, and functional restrictions; merely identifying inconsistencies is insufficient.

Trudell v. Saul · filed 2021-04-02(c)(3)

When determining the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must consider all evidence relating to the complaints, including the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of the symptoms; any precipitating and aggravating factors; the dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and any functional restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p; Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931 (8th Cir. 2010); Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. ... It is not enough that the record contains inconsistencies. Instead, the ALJ must specifically demonstrate in her decision that she considered all of the evidence. Id. at 738; see also Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560, 565 (8th Cir. 1991). Where an ALJ explicitly considers the relevant factors but then discredits a claimant’s complaints for good reason, the decision should be upheld. Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th Cir. 2001). ... The ALJ acknowledged plaintiff’s reported symptoms, including pain, and went on to weigh these allegations against the evidence of record as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(4) require an ALJ to evaluate subjective symptoms throughout the sequential process and identify the specific statements discounted and the evidence inconsistent with each statement.

Martinez v. Saul · filed 2021-04-06(a), (c)(4)

When determining disability, an ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s impairment-related pain and other subjective symptoms at each step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 404.1529(d), 416.929(a), 416.929(d). Accordingly, when a claimant presents “objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms [the claimant] alleged,” the ALJ is required to determine the extent to which the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her subjective symptoms (“subjective statements” or “subjective complaints”) are consistent with the record evidence as a whole and, consequently, whether any of the individual’s symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions are likely to reduce the claimant’s capacity to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(a), 416.929(c)(4); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4-*10. ... The ALJ determined that plaintiff’s “medicall determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms,” but plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in th[e] decision.” (AR 34). However, the ALJ failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to support this determination. ... The ALJ’s only other asserted basis for discounting plaintiff’s statements is the purported lack of objective medical evidence,5 which is not a sufficient basis, in itself, although it may be a relevant factor. ... Because the ALJ failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount plaintiff’s subjective statements, remand is warranted for reconsideration of these statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii)’s seven symptom factors need not all be discussed if the decision precisely explains the evidence, weight, and reasons, but an unexplained assessment that applies none of the factors requires remand.

Green v. Saul · filed 2021-04-08(c)(3)(i)–(vii)

The ALJ, however, is not required to discuss all seven factors as long as the decision “includes precise reasoning, is supported by evidence in the case record, and clearly indicates the weight the ALJ gave to the claimant’s statements and the reasons for that weight.” Felix, 2012 WL 3043203 at *8 (citing Snyder v. Barnhart, 323 F. Supp. 2d at 546-47 & n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). ... The ALJ’s decision, however, does not assess, directly or indirectly, the medical evidence and the symptoms and complaints by applying any of the factors described above. Consequently, the decision does not properly assess plaintiff’s symptoms and complaints. Specifically, the ALJ failed to state which of plaintiff’s symptoms and complaints, if any, she found to be credible, in light of the medical evidence, the weight given to plaintiff’s statements, and the reasons for affording such weight. ... On remand, the ALJ must thoroughly evaluate Plaintiff's credibility, and specifically apply the seven factors.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires an unlisted impairment’s symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings to be at least equal in severity to the listed criteria; scoliosis equals Listing 14.09C1 only if it causes the implicit extreme limitation in seeing around oneself and effective ambulation.

Halperin v. Saul · filed 2021-04-06(d)(3)

To show that her unlisted impairment equals Listing 14.09C1, Halperin must prove that her “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3). She therefore must show that her scoliosis results in “an extreme limitation” in her ability to see around herself, resulting in an inability to ambulate effectively. 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, § 14.00D6(e)(i). ... We conclude that, although the ALJ applied an erroneous standard for fixation in Listing 14.09C1, he correctly required Halperin to demonstrate an extreme limitation in her ability to see around herself resulting in an inability to ambulate effectively. Because the ALJ found that Halperin did not satisfy this requirement and Halperin does not contest that finding on appeal, it is sufficient to sustain the ALJ’s conclusion that Halperin is not entitled to a conclusive presumption of disability at step three of the five-step evaluation process.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical and other evidence but does not require the ALJ to cite every allegation expressly when the explanation shows it was considered.

Fain v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-12(c)(4)

As the ALJ noted, Dr. Williams’s findings are consistent with an RFC of light work with limitations. (R. 19-20). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (Plaintiff’s statements are to be evaluated “in relation to the objective medical evidence.”). Although the decision does not specifically cite Plaintiff’s statement that he must recline a significant portion of the day, the ALJ’s explanation indicates that he considered Plaintiff’s symptom allegations, including those related to back pain. (R. 19). The ALJ also noted Plaintiff’s testimony that, due to his back surgeries, “he cannot stand in one place for more than 30 minutes or bend over.” Id. Thus, the ALJ’s decision indicates that he applied the proper legal standards in reviewing the evidence. See Wall, 561 F.3d at 70 (“Where, as here, the ALJ indicates that he has considered all the evidence our practice is to take the ALJ at his word.”). ... The ALJ also reasonably explained “the link between the evidence and credibility determination.” Kepler, 68 F.3d at 391. Specifically, the ALJ noted that despite Plaintiff’s statements of disabling foot and spine pain, Plaintiff was able to continue working after his back surgery and only stopped working after injuring his shoulder. (R. 22). As such, the ALJ reasonably explained his conclusion that Plaintiff’s back pain is not as limiting as alleged. ... Nothing more was required.

Section 404.1529(c) treats subjective complaints as valid evidence but requires their holistic evaluation with objective evidence, treatment and its effectiveness, daily activities, and other evidence of functional limitations.

Lake v. SSA · filed 2021-04-15(c)

A claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms are, of course, valid evidence for an ALJ to consider when reviewing a disability claim. Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116, 1123 (6th Cir. 1989); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 1529. However, such complaints are not, in a vacuum, outcome determinative. See SSR 16-3P(2)(a). They are part of a holistic review, considered alongside other factors, including the objective medical evidence and other evidence and opinions in the record. Id. Accordingly, “an ALJ is not required to accept the claimant's complaints at face value[,] but may discount them based on several factors, including the claimant's daily activities,” the claims’ independent evidentiary support, treatment and treatment efficacy, and other factors relevant to the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions. Henderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-CV-2913, 2020 WL 7481544, at *12-13 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 24, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-2913, 2020 WL 7480666 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2020). ... In short, the ALJ properly considered Lake’s subjective statements and the other evidence in the record. There is no basis for reversal. She complied with SSR 16-3p and § 404.1529. Lake’s suggestion that the ALJ should have considered Lake’s credibility is based on an outdated policy. The Social Security Administration has “eliminated the term ‘credibility’ from its sub-regulatory policy.” Henderson, 2020 WL 7481544, at *13 (citing SSR 16-3p).

Section 404.1529(d)(2) requires only that a symptom listed as a criterion be present to satisfy that element of a listing; evidence about the symptom’s intensity, persistence, or limiting effects is unnecessary.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-19(d)(2)

The Commissioner argues Plaintiff offers only evidence of “minimal” sensory loss within a two-month period in 2017. (Dkt. # 22 at 4.) But to meet a listing “it is only necessary that the symptom be present”; information about the “intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of the symptom” need not be provided. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(d)(2), 416.929(d)(2). And the durational requirement is met by evidence in 2019 continuing to show “[d]iminished light touch sensation.” AR at 42. Because Plaintiff provided evidence addressing each element of Listing 1.04A, the Commissioner’s failure to address the evidence submitted to the Appeals Council regarding nerve compromise/compression was harmful error. On remand, the ALJ should reassess his findings regarding Listing 1.04A.

Section 404.1529(b) permits an ALJ to consult a medical expert about whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Wigginton v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(b)

In accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and § 416.929, an ALJ may call upon a medical expert to help them determine whether an individual’s medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce his or her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider daily activities, medication, pain causes, and related factors when claimed pain exceeds objective evidence rather than relying on objective findings alone.

Mines v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

The Court's review reveals that the ALJ did not rely solely on a lack of objective findings in concluding that plaintiff's fibromyalgia and related limitations were nondisabling. “When, as in this case, a plaintiff alleges pain that exceeds the objectively verifiable evidence, the ALJ must consider several evaluative factors, including daily activities, medication, and causes of the pain, in order to determine the extent to which the pain affects the claimant’s functional capabilities.”

Section 404.1529(c)’s second step does not permit an ALJ to use objective medical evidence, even as one of several factors, to discount subjective fibromyalgia symptoms because normal findings are not probative of that disease’s severity.

Stull v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(c)

Second, if the ALJ finds a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ assesses the plaintiff’s symptoms to determine how the symptoms’ intensity and persistence affect the plaintiff’s ability to work. See id. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16-3p. At the second step, the plaintiff is not required to produce objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity. ... Neither can her normal physical examination findings be used to discount her subjective complaints. ... But none of these arguments, even if true, explain how the ALJ did not use “objective medical evidence (or lack thereof)—even as just one of multiple factors—” to discount plaintiff’s symptoms. See Arakas, 983 F.3d at 97. ... Ultimately, Arakas requires remand because the ALJ impermissibly used objective evidence to discount plaintiff’s complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i), (iv)–(v) permits an ALJ assessing subjective symptoms to consider daily activities and whether medication or other treatment produced improvement or satisfactory control.

Santini v. Saul · filed 2021-04-08(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)–(v)

An ALJ may properly consider whether treatment produced a fair response or satisfactory control of pain. See Odle v. Heckler, 707 F.2d 439, 440 (9th Cir. 1983); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v); 416.929(c)(3)(iv)-(v). ... The Court finds that the improvement of Plaintiff’s symptoms with treatment and medication constituted a clear and convincing reason for the ALJ to discount his testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms. ... An ALJ may properly consider the claimant’s daily activities in evaluating testimony regarding subjective pain. ... The ALJ may consider inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and the claimant’s conduct, as well as whether the claimant engages in activities inconsistent with the alleged symptoms. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112 (quotations and citations omitted). ... Here, the ALJ could reasonably conclude that George S.’s activities, including driving, shopping for groceries, traveling to New Jersey, and working part-time for Uber undermined his claims about the severity of his symptoms, (see Am. Admin. R. 24, ECF No. 13), as did Plaintiff’s ability to perform mild exercise such as walking and biking, (see, e.g., id. at 579, 596).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors bearing on subjective pain complaints, including objective findings, treatment, medication effectiveness and side effects, daily activities, functional restrictions, and other symptom-relief measures.

O'Rorke v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-04-19(c)(3)

In the present action, this Court finds the ALJ properly addressed and discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. In his opinion, the ALJ addressed the factors from Polaski, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929, and stated inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony and the record. (Tr. 20-23). Specifically, the ALJ noted the following: (1) Absence of objective medical findings to support Plaintiff’s alleged disabling pain, (2) Conservative medical treatment, (3) Conditions controlled by use of her medications, (4) Plaintiff’s described activities of daily living allow for active lifestyle, (5) No severe or disrupting side effects from medication, and (6) No surgeries planned or recommended. Id. These findings are valid reasons supporting the ALJ’s credibility determination, and this Court finds the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed. See Lowe, 226 F.3d at 971-72. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in discounting Plaintiff complaints of pain. Thus, the Court cannot find a basis for reversal on this issue.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(vii) permits consideration of a medical provider’s recommendation that a claimant return to full-time work, but the record must support the ALJ’s characterization of that recommendation.

Herrera v. Saul · filed 2021-04-13(c)(3)(vii)

This cited note does not contain a clear recommendation by the therapist, who was meeting with Plaintiff for only the second time, that Plaintiff perform and sustain full-time work to improve her mental health. Rather the counselor discussed the idea of working with Plaintiff to motivate her beyond her anxiety and fears. This note does not constitute substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s finding that a mental health provider advised Plaintiff that work would likely improve her mental-health symptoms. This error is inconsequential, however, because the ALJ offered two other clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence— inconsistency with the objective medical evidence and Plaintiffs activities—to discount Plaintiff's reported symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all alleged symptoms, including pain, determine the extent to which they are consistent with objective and other evidence, and evaluate how their intensity and persistence affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Vernatter v. SSA · filed 2021-05-21(a)

When evaluating complaints of pain, the ALJ should “consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). When there is objective medical evidence “from an acceptable medical source that shows [the claimant has] a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged,” the ALJ should then evaluate “the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain,” and determine what symptoms and pain “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [the claimant’s] ability to work.” Id. ... The ALJ clearly evaluated Plaintiff’s complaints of pain, took into consideration the medical record, and the frequency of headaches, and ensured that this limitation was accounted for in Plaintiff’s RFC. The ALJ therefore considered the relevant evidence and made a credibility determination that is supported by substantial evidence and “entitled to considerable deference.” Howard, 276 F.3d at 242.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis that first asks whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, severity, and work-related effects using all relevant evidence.

Pennington v. Saul · filed 2021-05-25(a)-(c)

Under the applicable Social Security rulings and regulations, an ALJ is obliged to use a two-step process when evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective statements regarding the effects of his or her symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (effective March 27, 2017). First, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s medically determinable medical and psychological conditions could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, including pain. Id. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... Second, after establishing that the claimant’s conditions could be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and severity of the symptoms to determine the extent to which they prevent the claimant from performing basic work activities. Id. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... In this case, the ALJ clearly performed the two-step process. ... Therefore, the undersigned FINDS that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s subjective symptom analysis.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c)(1) require a two-step analysis that first identifies a medically determinable impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and effect on work capacity using the full record.

Moore v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-23(b), (c)(1)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ uses a two-step process.4 SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)-(c), 416.929(b)-(c). First, the medical signs or laboratory findings must show the existence of medical impairment(s) that result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); see also SSR 16-3p, at *3. Second, once such impairment(s) are established, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms so he can determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1); see also SSR 16-3p, at *3. ... As such, there are no supported reasons given in the ALJ’s decision for the weight he assigned Plaintiff’s symptoms. ... The ALJ’s decision, in this regard, is therefore not supported by evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step pain analysis that identifies an impairment capable of producing the symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using medical evidence, daily activities, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and other relevant evidence.

DEBEVITS v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-24(a)-(c)

Here, the ALJ specifically stated that he considered “all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.” (R. 14) Moreover, the ALJ followed he proper method in assessing Debevits’ symptoms and pain. That is, he first determined whether there was an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his pain or other symptoms, then the ALJ evaluated the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms. (R. 14-21) The ALJ comprehensively detailed Debevits’ medical history. He properly compared the medical evidence and other evidence of record, including activities of daily living, the intensity of pain, factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms, the effectiveness of medication, and treatment other than medication, and found them not to be entirely consistent. There can be no suggestion that he ignored or discounted Debevits’ complaints of pain. Rather, given the conservative course of treatment regarding Debevits’ hands, his statements that it is primarily his back and shoulder pain that prevent him from working, and his continued wide range of daily activities, the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence of record.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis that identifies an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against objective medical and other evidence.

LEONARD v. SAUL · filed 2021-07-16(a)-(c)

Here, the ALJ specifically stated that he considered “all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.” (R. 21) Moreover, the ALJ followed the proper method in assessing Leonard’s symptoms and pain. That is, he first determined whether there was an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce Leonard’s pain or other symptoms, then the ALJ evaluated the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of those symptoms. (R. 21-25) The ALJ comprehensively detailed Leonard’s medical history.

Section 404.1529(a) requires a claimant relying on pain or other symptoms to show an underlying medical condition and either objective evidence confirming alleged severity or a condition reasonably expected to produce the claimed symptoms.

Proenza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-21(a)

To establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms, the claimant must show: (1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged symptoms or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed symptoms. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2002); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ must articulate “explicit and adequate” reasons for discrediting subjective testimony. Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1226.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c) require a claimant alleging disabling pain first to show a medical condition reasonably expected to cause the symptoms, after which the adjudicator evaluates their intensity, persistence, and effects without being required to credit the claimant’s statements.

Iacouzzi v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-11-04(b)–(c)

When a claimant says he is in too much pain to work, he must first show that he has a medical condition that could “reasonably be expected” to cause his symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If he does that, the judge will then evaluate the “intensity and persistence” of those symptoms and how they affect him. § 404.1529(c). Though the judge must review the claimant’s statements, the judge need not “credit” them. Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011).

Section 404.1529 provides that symptom statements alone do not establish disability and requires consideration of objective evidence together with activities, symptom frequency and intensity, medication effects, and other measures used to relieve pain.

Nalley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-24(a), (c)(2)–(3)

A claimant’s statement that she is experiencing pain or other symptoms, taken alone, will not establish that she is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 530 (6th Cir. 1997); Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1986). There must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged. Walters, 127 F.3d at 530; Duncan, 801 F.2d at 854. The ALJ considers objective medical evidence, as well as other factors, such as evidence of daily activities, the frequency and intensity of pain, medication taken and any resulting side effects, and any other measures taken to alleviate the pain. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), (3), 416.929(c)(2), (c)(3); SSR 16-3P, at *7-8.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c) require a two-step analysis of a symptom-producing impairment and its work effects, without requiring objective proof of pain intensity at the second step.

Glacken v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-21(b)–(c)

First, the ALJ must assess the objective medical evidence and determine whether the plaintiff has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4 (Mar. 16, 2016). Second, if the ALJ finds a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ assesses the plaintiff's symptoms to determine how the symptoms’ intensity and persistence affect the plaintiff's ability to work. See id. § 404.1529(c). At the second step, “there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.” Arakas v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989)).

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to evaluate symptom allegations against all relevant evidence, including activities, symptom descriptions, medical-source statements, treatment, relief measures, and inconsistent reports.

Spires v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-02(c)

The ALJ did not rely exclusively on the objective evidence to evaluate Plaintiff’s allegations as to those impairments he found could reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms he alleged, but, instead, considered all the relevant evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. He evaluated Plaintiff’s statements as to his ADLs, his description of his symptoms, his medical sources’ statements, the treatment he received, and the measures he used to relieve his pain as partially supporting his allegations and credited this evidence in limiting him to sedentary work with additional restrictions.

Section 404.1529 requires subjective allegations to be assessed with medical records and opinions; symptom statements alone do not establish disability, and objective evidence, daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and relief measures may be considered.

Prater v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-31(a), (c)(2), (3)

When forming the RFC, an ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective allegations alongside medical records and physician opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 404.1529(a). A claimant’s statement that she is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that he is disabled. ... In evaluating the claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ considers objective medical evidence, as well as other non-exhaustive factors such as evidence of daily activities, the frequency and intensity of pain, medication taken and any resulting side effects, and any other measures taken to alleviate the pain.

Section 404.1529 uses a two-step process addressing an impairment capable of producing symptoms and then their intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-07(b), (c)

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

An ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s symptom statements, including pain, and determine how far the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence.

Scott M v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-15(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Once objective medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, all evidence about their intensity, persistence, and functional effects must be considered in addition to medical signs and laboratory findings.

Newsome v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-14(a)

Once a claimant establishes that his subjective symptom is disabling through “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows . . . a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to ... produce the pain or other symptoms,” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a), “all evidence about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms must be considered in addition to the medical signs and laboratory findings in deciding the issue of disability,” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating alleged pain limitations to consider the record evidence bearing on whether the claimant is as limited by pain as claimed.

Jamison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-19(a), (c)(3)

The ALJ instead did as required of him by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p where he considered the bulk of the record evidence bearing upon the question of whether Dusty was as limited by pain as she claimed.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine first whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate the symptoms' intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the entire record, including the listed symptom-evaluation factors.

Levengood v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-14(a), (b), (c), and (c)(3)

Symptoms such as pain or fatigue will be considered to affect a claimant’s ability to perform work activities only if medical signs or laboratory findings establish the presence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated considering the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p. ... Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s assessment of Levengood’s symptoms was adequately explained, and as such, supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce alleged pain or other symptoms and directs adjudicators to consider other relevant factors when objective evidence does not establish the claimed severity.

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

A claimant’s statement that she is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that she is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... When, as in this case, the reported pain and other symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the ALJ will consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The undersigned concludes that the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and fully comport with applicable law, including the regulations for evaluating consultative and treating physician’s opinions and pain. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1519a-p, 404.1527, 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant's statements about symptoms, including pain, affect the disability assessment only insofar as they are consistent with the record, and symptoms alone generally do not establish disability.

Edmondson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-06-26(a)

A claimant’s statements about the frequency, intensity, and duration of her symptoms will only impact her RFC to the extent they are consistent with other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. As a general rule, a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms alone will not establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416 .929(a) (2012).

Section 404.1529 governs evaluation of a claimant’s pain and other symptoms, with distinct step-two and step-four inquiries that address separate issues and impose different burdens of proof.

Tucker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-06-26

By comparison, the relevant pain standard applies during the ALJ’s step four determination of the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)–(d); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1221, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2002). The analyses of pain at step two and at step four should not be conflated because each is designed to address separate issues and each places different burdens of proof on the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)–(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider listed factors relevant to symptom intensity and persistence.

PATON v. SAUL · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

Pursuant to SSR 16-3p, an ALJ considers the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), as well as “the consistency of the individual’s own statements” and the “individual’s attempts to seek medical treatment for symptoms.”

Section 404.1529 identifies treatment received for symptom relief and measures used to relieve pain or symptoms as additional factors in evaluating subjective complaints.

Lafayette v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-06-24

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence, along with medical-source information about pain or other symptoms, in determining symptom severity and disabling effects, but objective evidence alone cannot justify rejecting symptom testimony.

McBride v. Saul · filed 2020-06-24(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).