20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s statements about pain and other symptoms against medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence when deciding how those symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Moulis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-08(a)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers a claimant’s subjective statements and “determine[s] the extent to which [any] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how [the] symptoms affect [the] claimant’s ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Here, the ALJ first discounted Plaintiff’s allegations on account that they were not entirely consistent with medical evidence in the record. ... Accordingly, this inconsistency with the medical evidence was a clear and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s allegations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1040; Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005).

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence to corroborate a claimant’s subjective complaints and requires evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and resulting work limitations using objective and other relevant evidence.

POLLARD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-25

... Instead, objective medical evidence must corroborate a claimant’s subjective complaints. Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 F. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). Specifically, an ALJ must follow a two-step process in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016). First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” Id. “Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms is established, [the ALJ] evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities[.]” Id.; see also Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999) (“[Evaluation of the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom and the extent to which it affects the ability to work] obviously requires the ALJ to determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). In this evaluation, an ALJ considers objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints of pain to consider the claimant's daily activities, the characteristics of the pain, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, and other pain-relief treatment in relation to the medical and other evidence.

Button v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-22(c)(2)

When analyzing the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must also consider the following factors and how they relate to the medical and other evidence in the record: the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s pain; the precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, and effect of medication; and the other treatment or measures to relieve pain. See Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F. 3d 1027, 1039 (6th Cir. 1994), construing 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(2).

Sections 404.1529(a) and (c)(3) require consideration of symptom statements and the regulatory pain factors, but pain alone does not establish functional limitations or compel an off-task restriction unsupported by the record.

Jean R. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-28(a), (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). ... The ALJ also did not err when he declined to use the Plaintiff’s pain as support for his general claim for off-task restrictions. Pain alone does not create functional limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating allegedly disabling pain to consider such factors as efforts to obtain relief, adherence to prescribed treatment, medical care, daily activities, and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication.

Lewis v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

Factors the ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant's pain is in fact disabling include the claimant's attempts to find relief; a claimant's willingness to try any treatment prescribed; a claimant's regular contact with a doctor; the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; the claimant's daily activities; and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication taken by the claimant. Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1166–67; see also Soc. Sec. R. 16-3p at *7 (listing similar factors); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). ... The ALJ in this case met his obligation to tie the evidence to the inconsistencies he found in Claimant’s statements. ... The ALJ adequately considered the nature and effect of Claimant’s pain in his evaluation.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all available medical and other evidence when deciding whether a claimant’s symptoms and alleged limitations are consistent with the objective evidence; symptoms alone do not establish disability.

Pouncy v. King (CONSENT) · filed 2025-01-29(a)

When assessing disability status, the ALJ considers symptoms “including pain, and the extent to which [] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). In assessing a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ “will consider all of the available evidence,” which includes “medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about [the effect of the claimant’s symptoms].” Id. “[S]tatements about [a person’s] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [they] are disabled.” Id. The ALJ will then determine whether the “alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the [objective evidence].” Id.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to assess whether a claimant’s alleged limitations from pain or other symptoms are consistent with the medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence.

Foster v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-13(a)

The ALJ is instructed to assess “the extent to which [the claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence.” ... We see no error. ... As part of the residual functioning capacity determination, the ALJ considered Foster’s headache symptoms and concluded Foster’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 [the ALJ’s] decision.” ... Ultimately, there was enough evidence that a reasonable mind could arrive at the same decision as the ALJ, and, for that reason, there was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s final decision.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effects on the claimant’s ability to work using the entire record without rejecting symptom statements merely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-14(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the familiar two-step framework. “First, the ALJ must determine whether subjective medical evidence presents a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.” Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3). “Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4). Social Security Ruling 16-3p acknowledges that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. “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 merely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate’ them.” Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95 (quoting SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5). “[W]hile there must be objective medical evidence of some condition that could reasonably produce the pain, there need not be objective medical evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.” Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989). ... Here, if the ALJ intended to account for Essie’s well-documented pain and its limiting effects in her RFC, she failed to explain it. In her discussion of the RFC and specifically the limitations regarding a production rate, the ALJ mentioned only Essie’s “mental complaints,” not those of pain. That the ALJ’s RFC failed to account for Essie’s pain is buttressed by the fact that, earlier in her decision, she expressly recognized that Essie had “reported that she had concentration problems due to being miserable and mad that she could not work.” (R. 660.) In fact, Essie reported that her pain is so severe that, occasionally, she “wants to do ‘evil things’ when her pain becomes severe, but she prays to get through it.” (R. 103.) She also reported that she is unable “to complete tasks secondary to joint pain.” (Id.) What’s missing, however, is any indication that the ALJ considered this evidence in crafting limitations on her ability to concentrate and stay on task. Perhaps the ALJ considered Essie’s testimony but rejected it, and perhaps she had a valid reason for doing so. But her analysis is silent on this critical issue.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) and (3) govern evaluation of pain and other symptoms; an ALJ’s consideration of those rules and a supported assessment of the claimant’s pain can satisfy them.

Fewell v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-12(c)(1), (3)

The Court notes that the ALJ expressly states he considered the 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), (3) and 416.929(c)(1), (3). Dkt. # 9, at 18. As a result, the Court does not find the ALJ “ignored” these regulations. Further, the ALJ expressly indicated that he was not convinced that plaintiff’s alleged pain was consistent with the medical evidence and noted that allegations of eye pain are sometimes absent from plaintiff’s medical records.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of a claimant’s pain and other symptom statements, but they alone do not establish disability and must be supported by appropriate medical findings.

Rufino v. Apfel · filed 1998-04-17(a)

In addition, the Commissioner will consider a claimant’s contentions about pain or other symptoms, but these factors alone will not establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). There must exist medical and clinical findings which support the conclusion that the claimant suffers from a medical impairment which could “reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all other evidence ... would lead to the conclusion that [the claimant is] disabled.”

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical signs and laboratory findings supporting an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or symptoms.

DiBernardo v. Chater · filed 1997-10-06(a)

The Commissioner’s regulations state that the Commissioner will consider statements about a claimant’s pain or other symptoms, but they alone will not establish that the claimant is disabled. There must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that the claimant has a medical impairment which could “reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered "with all of the other evidence ... would lead to a conclusion that [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

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

Manuel v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-24(a)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must first determine whether there is “a medical impairments) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the pain, in light of all the evidence, and the extent to which the symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to be employed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors for evaluating pain and other symptoms. An ALJ’s failure to address every factor in the decision can be cured if the factors were considered at the administrative hearing.

Mercado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-12-01(c)(3)

While it would have been preferable for the administrative law judge to enter into greater details as to the Avery factor, I cannot find that a review of the record would find such supporting data lacking. Generally, a failure to address all of the Avery factors in the rationale of the final decision is cured if the factors are discussed or considered at the administrative hearing. However, that was not possible here since plaintiff waived her right to such a hearing.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the claimant’s symptoms, then assess how those symptoms limit basic work activities.

Tyrpak v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-09

The social security regulations establish a two-step process for evaluating pain. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. ... Therefore, the ALJ must first consider whether an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s pain or other symptoms. See id. The ALJ then determines the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. See id.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s reported symptoms, including pain and its effects on daily life and ability to work.

Sastre v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-29(a)

The hearing officer must consider all of the claimant’s reported symptoms, “including his subjective allegations of pain and its effect on his daily life and ability to work.” Anderson v. Astrue, 682 F.Supp.2d 89, 97 (D.Mass.2010) (Gorton, J.) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529 requires adjudicators to evaluate symptoms, including pain, against objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Ferry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-10

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. ... On this record, the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 governs the evaluation of a claimant’s pain and other symptoms using medical and other evidence in the record.

Stanley v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2021-02-24

Although the ALJ did not explicitly state that he discredited Stanley’s subjective complaints of pain, he cited 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 – the pain standard – in his discussion (R. 15), he set forth the analysis for subjective pain testimony (R. 16),5 and he found that Stanley’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause only some of her alleged symptoms” and her statements concerning her symptoms were not “especially consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record, nor are they very persuasive” (R. 17).

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

Mullins v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-02

Per 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, when evaluating disability, the SSA will “consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ appropriately discounted Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling pain based on the objective medical evidence. While the Court agrees that the ALJ could have provided more analysis, it was not reversible error.

Section 404.1529(b) requires the ALJ to develop evidence of a possible medically determinable mental impairment when information suggests one exists and the claimant alleges symptoms not substantiated by findings of a physical impairment capable of producing them.

Leggett v. Chater · filed 1995-10-30(b)

Leggett attempts to strengthen his position by relying on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (1995), but this reliance is misplaced. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) states that the ALJ: will develop evidence regarding the possibility of a medically determinable mental impairment when we have information to suggest that such an impairment exists, and [the claimant] allege[s] ... symptoms but the medical signs and laboratory findings do not substantiate any physical impairment(s) capable of producing the pain or other symptoms. As explained above and unlike Latham v. Shalala on which Leggett also relies, the ALJ did not have evidence sufficient to suggest that a mental impairment exists.

Section 404.1529 requires the agency to develop evidence of a possible medically determinable mental impairment when information suggests one exists and the claimant alleges symptoms that are not substantiated by findings of a physical impairment.

Shafer v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-13

“We will develop evidence regarding the possibility of a medically determinable mental impairment when we have information to suggest that such an impairment exists, and you allege pain or other symptoms but the medical signs and laboratory findings do not substantiate any physical impairments) capable of producing the pain or other symptoms.”

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider whether a claimant’s symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least as severe as the criteria for a listed impairment when evaluating medical equivalence.

Lester v. Chater · filed 1995-11-03(d)(3)

In determining whether the claimant’s combination of impairments equals a particular listing, the Commissioner must consider whether his “symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3).

An RFC must account for the combined effects of severe and nonsevere medically determinable impairments and relevant symptom factors.

Cooper v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-25(a)

In evaluating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the combined effect of all medically determinable impairments, including the severe and non-severe. See Wells v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 1061, 1065 (10th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant's daily activities, functional restrictions, medications, and other treatments or measures used to relieve pain when evaluating pain complaints.

Hagemike v. SSA · filed 1996-02-26(c)(3)

The ALJ questioned Hagemike and evaluated her complaints of pain in accordance with the regulatory requirements by asking about her daily activities, her functional restrictions, medications and other treatments or measures for relieving pain. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.919(c)(3); Avery, 797 F.2d at 28-29.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits the Commissioner to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating complaints of pain.

Solomon v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2013-08-05(c)(3)

Although Solomon continued to complain of constant, severe knee pain along with shortness of breath, substantial evidence supported the Appeals Council’s decision to discount this subjective evidence as of August 16, 2005. See Brown, 921 F.2d at 1236. There was no evidence that Solomon sought knee treatment after March 2005, and as of August 2005, he was not taking prescription pain medication. Moreover, Solomon testified that he was still able to take his boat out on several occasions. These facts further undermine Solomon’s subjective complaints of pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (explaining that the Commissioner may consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating his complaints of pain).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, under the Fourth Circuit’s rule that subjective pain complaints cannot be rejected merely because their severity is not established by objective medical evidence.

Winford v. Chater · filed 1996-02-26

On November 14,1991, this rule was incorporated by the Social Security Administration into a regulation entitled “How we evaluate symptoms, including pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. For more than a decade prior to this regulation, the Administration insisted upon requiring objective medical evidence, not only of a condition which may cause pain, but also of the pain itself. ... With the promulgation of section 404.1529, the Administration capitulated to the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation of the Social Security Act as it relates to pain evaluation. ... In this case, therefore, the ALJ properly relied upon section 404.1529. As the Magistrate Judge observed, however, the ALJ’s ruling as to Plaintiffs allegations of pain was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires the agency to properly analyze a claimant’s pain testimony when evaluating disability.

Hoffman v. Chater · filed 1996-03-29

The court believes defendant, through the Administrative Law Judge, faded to properly analyze the pain testimony of plaintiff and other persons in spite of well-established authority detailing this obligation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; ... It was unreasonable to deny plaintiff benefits at the agency level and to ask that this court affirm the denial of benefits without foEowing regulations and estabEshed precedent.

Under § 404.1529, pain allegations must be adequately supported by the record.

Jimmy D. HENLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-08-28

Moreover, Henley's allegations of pain are inadequately supported by the record, under the standard set out in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 treats pain as a symptom described by the claimant.

Rose E. Brown v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-06-20

Under the regulations, pain is a "symptom", 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which is, in turn, defined as a claimant’s own description of his or her impairment, id. § 404.1528(a).

Section 404.1529 requires a condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged pain when evaluating its severity.

Herminia Sanchez BARRIENTOS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1987-03-24

For similar reasons, we find substantial evidence to support the Secretary’s rejection of claimant’s complaints of disabling pain. The objective medical findings summarized above, accepted by the Secretary, do not show the existence of a condition that would reasonably be expected to produce back, hip, spine, neck or hand pain substantial enough to constitute a severe impairment.

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

Floyd v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1988-01-28

This regulation says no more and no less than that pain is a symptom which will be evaluated together with other symptoms to determine disability, but disability must always depend on the existence of a medical condition which could be expected to produce pain. The regulation on its face requires no objective proof of the pain itself.

Section 404.1529 considers pain symptoms to the extent that medical findings confirm a condition that could reasonably produce them.

Howell v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D. · filed 1991-11-05

Second, SSR 88-13 states that while it supersedes its predecessor, SSR 82-58, it reiterates the Secretary’s policy on the evaluation of pain and other symptoms as contained in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929 (symptoms of pain are considered to the extent that medical findings confirm a condition that could reasonably produce such symptoms).

Section 404.1529 evaluates subjective pain complaints against medical signs and findings that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged degree of pain.

Rosario v. Sullivan · filed 1992-12-28

Subjective complaints of pain are evaluated on the basis of presence of medical signs and findings that could reasonably be expected to produce the degree of complaints alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (1991). ... Such medical findings cannot reasonably be expected to produce the degree of complaints alleged.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of pain: the ALJ determines whether a medically determinable impairment could cause it, then assesses its intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work using the available evidence.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-21(a)-(b), (c)(1)

SSA regulations prescribe a two-step process for determining whether a claimant is disabled by pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. ... In arriving at this conclusion, the ALJ complied with the SSA’s two-step procedure for determining whether plaintiff was disabled by pain, including an appropriate consideration of plaintiffs subjective complaints.

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s complaints of pain when a medically determined impairment could reasonably be expected to cause that pain.

Craft, Roger A. v. Astrue, Michael · filed 2008-08-22(c)(1)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective com- plaints of pain if the claimant has a medically determined impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce that pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider complaints of pain when a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce that pain.

Bates v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-31(a)

An ALJ must “consider subjective complaints of pain if a claimant has established a medically determined impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce pain.”

Section 404.1529(a) allows subjective pain to establish disability when supported by other facts and requires supporting signs and laboratory findings showing an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.

Woodford v. Apfel · filed 2000-05-01(a)

A claimant’s subjective pain may, when supported by other facts, establish that a claimant has a disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The claimant’s testimony regarding subjective pain must be supported by signs and laboratory findings which show that the claimant has a medical impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain. Id.

Section 404.1529 is part of the governing standard for evaluating a claimant's complaints of pain.

Felix JELINEK, Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appellee · filed 1985-06-11

In Polaski v. Heckler, 751 F.2d 943, 950 (8th Cir.1984), we analyzed the legislative history of this statute and concluded that all pain cases in the Eighth Circuit are to be evaluated on the basis of the amended statute, the pain regulation in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1529, and the Secretary's ruling SSR 82-58 as clarified in the settlement agreement set forth in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1321-22 (8th Cir.1984).

Section 404.1529 allows adjudicators to consider allegations of severe pain even when that pain would not ordinarily be expected from the claimant’s condition.

Dixon v. Sullivan · filed 1992-05-08

Considered facially, the SSR and the regulation provide adjudicators with the necessary leeway to consider pain in accordance with the Second Circuit’s requirements.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to give adequate support for an assessment of a claimant’s reported pain and its limiting effects.

Wiley · filed 2026-03-26

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective reports of pain associated with his cervical arthritis is patently wrong.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires the Commissioner to compare a claimant's symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings with the listed criteria when evaluating whether combined impairments equal a listing.

Lester v. Chater · filed 1996-04-09(d)(3)

In determining whether the claimant's combination of impairments equals a particular listing, the Commissioner must consider whether his "symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3).

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider whether a claimant's symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least as severe as the criteria for a listed impairment when assessing medical equivalence.

Clegg v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 1997-07-18(d)(3)

The Commissioner must consider whether the "symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria."

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical signs and laboratory findings to establish a medically determinable impairment.

McFall v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration · filed 2016-03-09(a)

To establish the requisite impairment(s), “there must be medical signs and laboratory findings.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs and laboratory findings established by medically accepted diagnostic techniques to show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or other symptoms.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11(b)

The ALJ’s opinion, when read en toto, gives sufficient reasons for rejecting parts of the DDS physicians’ opinions regarding Plaintiff’s conditions and symptoms. For example, he specifically stated that “imagery and testing evidence does not provide objective support for an impairment that could reasonably produce the extent or intensity of the claimant’s expression of subjective pain and other symptoms.” (R. 22.) Thus, while the DDS physicians found that “one or more of the individual’s medically determinable impairment(s) reasonably [could] be expected to produce the individual’s pain or other symptoms” (R. 79), the ALJ expressly found that such a conclusion was not support by imagery and testing evidence. This conclusion was required by the applicable regulations: Medical signs and laboratory findings, established by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (emphasis added). The ALJ’s opinion stated why it rejected the conclusion the DDS physicians reached on this point, and Plaintiff’s argument is not supportable on this record.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) bars substituting allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient medical sign or laboratory finding to establish medical equivalence to a listed impairment.

Baeza v. Saul · filed 2021-10-28(d)(3)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3), it is inappropriate to “substitute…allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of…impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment.” This regulation does not require that the ALJ find that Plaintiff “was missing objective medical evidence before [she] excluded a discussion of [his] symptoms and conclude [he] was not disabled. The regulation provides that an ALJ will not consider the individual’s own allegations if the medical evidence demonstrates a lack of severity.”

Section 404.1529(d)(3) prevents a claimant from substituting allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient medical sign or laboratory finding needed to meet or equal a listing.

Sherman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-23(d)(3)

Neither the ALJ nor the Court can substitute Plaintiff’s “allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of [an] impairment[] to that of a listed impairment.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3).

Section 404.1529(d)(3) does not permit symptom allegations to substitute for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding when determining medical equivalence, but requires symptom effects to be considered in the RFC if equivalence is not established.

Gray v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-11(d)(3)

However, we will not substitute your allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of your impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment. If the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings of your impairment(s) are equivalent in severity to those of a listed impairment, we will find you disabled. If it does not, we will consider the impact of your symptoms on your residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3).

Section 404.1529(d)(3) does not permit symptom allegations to substitute for a missing listed-impairment sign or laboratory finding.

Blackham v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-29(d)(3)

Unless a listing specifies that a claimant’s subjective symptom statements can satisfy certain criteria—which is not the case here, see 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 1.00B(2)(d)—the Plaintiff bears the burden of producing objective medical evidence that shows that he met each of a Listing’s criteria. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3) (“[W]e will not substitute your allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of your impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment”).

Section 404.1529(d)(3) does not allow allegations of pain or other symptoms to substitute for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding when determining medical equivalence to a listed impairment.

Zuniga v. O'Malley · filed 2023-10-02(d)(3)

Allegations of pain or other symptoms are not substitutes for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of an impairment to that of a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(d)(3), 416.929(d)(3).

Section 404.1529 allows the ALJ to consider a claimant's treatment regimen and other listed factors when evaluating the credibility of subjective pain complaints; the treatment regimen is one factor and may support a finding that the claimant can perform light work.

Mandziej v. SSA · filed 1996-09-24(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(v), (c)(3)(vi)

Regimen of treatment is but one factor to assist the ALJ in his determination of the claimant's credibility. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1529 (c)(3)(i), (v), (vi); see, e.g., Harrell v. Harris, 610 F.2d 355, 359 (5th Cir. 1980); Epps v. Harris, 624 F.2d 1267, 1273 (5th Cir. 1980). The record reveals that the ALJ considered plaintiff's regimen of treatment as well as other evidence of impairment. ... The evidence plainly supports the ALJ's conclusion that plaintiff's physical exercise program, at a minimum, suggests that he is able to engage in light exertional work. ... Accordingly, his argument must fail.

Section 404.1529(a) permits the Commissioner to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating subjective symptoms and pain.

Princeau v. Chater · filed 1997-12-10(a)

Daily activities are among several factors that the Commissioner will consider when evaluating subjective symptoms and pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) Light, 119 F.3d at 792. The cases on which Princeau relies, Cohen v. Secretary, 964 F.2d 524 (6th Cir.1992) and Erickson v. Shalala, 9 F.3d 813 (9th Cir.1993) dd not hold that consideration of daily activities is improper.

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to analyze the relevant factors and identify the specific evidence supporting the evaluation of a claimant's pain and other symptoms; merely reciting the factors is insufficient.

Smith v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1998-03-11

Although he included a rote recitation of some of the criteria stated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and § 416.929, see Appellant's App. Vol. II at 36, he did not follow this recital with any specific analysis, and did not indicate what specific evidence he considered relating to these factors to reach his conclusion. ... We must therefore remand for the ALJ to reconsider his pain analysis and to make specific findings, in accordance with the pertinent criteria identified in the regulations and our cases, concerning Mr. Smith's claim of disabling pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the adjudicator to consider listed factors, including daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, other treatment, and measures used to relieve pain, when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Bagley v. SSA · filed 1999-08-10(c)(3)

According to the regulations, relevant factors to consider when evaluating pain include: (1) claimant's daily activities, location, duration, (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain alleged, (3) any aggravating factors, (4) type, dosage and effectiveness of any pain medication, (5) treatment other than medication for pain, (6) any other measures claimant has used to relieve the pain. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(3). ... Finally, the ALJ improperly evaluated Bagley's subjective complaints of pain and fatigue as required by the regulations when he failed to consider other relevant factors in his analysis. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(3). ... Thus, the ALJ committed legal error by failing to evaluate Bagley's allegations of disabling pain and fatigue according to the rules and regulations of the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(b); 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c); 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(d)(1); SSR 96-3p (July 2 , 1996).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's complaints of pain, while requiring objective medical support for allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms.

Mullin v. Apfel · filed 2000-01-07

AN ALJ must consider a claimant's complaints of pain, but “allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be supported by objective medical evidence.”

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging pain to first show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptom.

Gonzalez v. Apfel · filed 1998-09-22

In evaluating subjective symptoms such as pain, a claimant must first demonstrate the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptom.

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

Hartranft v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 1999-05-18(c)

Once an ALJ concludes that a medical impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms exists, he or she must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom, and the extent to which it affects the individual’s ability to work.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective pain complaints to first determine whether the alleged pain is substantiated by objective medical evidence.

Wates v. Barnhart · filed 2003-06-30

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must first determine whether the pain alleged is substantiated by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(b) requires an underlying medical condition plus objective confirmation of the pain's severity or a condition reasonably expected to produce the pain; if that showing is made, subsection (c) requires evaluating the pain's intensity and persistence using objective evidence and other listed factors.

Bartyzel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-08-26(b), (c)

This is consistent with the Secretary’s own rules. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), the plaintiff must establish an underlying medical condition, and then show either (1) that objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from the condition, or (2) the medical condition, objectively determined, is at a level of severity which can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged pain. If the plaintiff satisfies this burden, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the plaintiffs pain symptoms in light of objective medical evidence including the activity which precipitates or aggravates the plaintiffs symptoms, the plaintiffs daily activities, the intensity and duration of her symptoms, and medications, treatment and other means to relieve the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: establish an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work using objective evidence and relevant factors.

Thompson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-09-10(a)-(c)

The Social Security regulations set out a two-step analysis for evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, including pain. A claimant must first establish a medical impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, when considered with all other evidence, could lead to a conclusion of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)-(b). ... Once this determination is made, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom, and the extent to which it affects the individual’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the adjudicator to consider evidence beyond objective medical evidence, including relevant information about a claimant's symptoms and treatment, when assessing the credibility of the claimant's statements.

Valley v. SSA · filed 2003-09-30(c)(3)

In recognition of the fact that an individual's symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the adjudicator must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual's statements.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms and their effect on a claimant's ability to work after finding a medical impairment that could reasonably cause them.

Eyler v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-11-13(c)

Allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be supported by objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Once an ALJ concludes that a medical impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms exists, he or she must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom, and the extent to which it affects the individual's ability to work. This obviously requires the ALJ to determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

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

Johns v. Barnhart · filed 2004-07-19

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself. Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his.condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an underlying condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain, but does not require objective proof of the pain itself.

Fleming v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-02

While both' the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011.

Section 404.1529 requires subjective symptom allegations such as pain to be evaluated for consistency with objective medical evidence and requires an ALJ to explain why such allegations are rejected.

Massaro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-12-17

Allegations of subjective symptoms such as pain must be consistent with objective medical evidence, see Hartranft, 181 F.3d at 362 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), and an ALJ must explain the reasons for rejecting such allegations.

Section 404.1529(c) permits ALJs to evaluate the credibility of a claimant’s symptom claims and whether the allegations are supported by objective medical evidence.

Holler v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-06-02(c)

ALJs can evaluate the credibility of such claims and whether allegations are supported by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging pain to establish an underlying medical condition and then show either objective confirmation of the pain's severity or an objectively severe condition reasonably expected to cause the alleged pain; if that burden is met, the adjudicator evaluates symptom intensity and persistence using the listed evidence.

Lowery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-11-02(b), (c)

Finally, the Court finds that the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), for subjective complaints to support a disability finding the plaintiff must establish an underlying medical condition, and then show either (1) that objective medical evidence confirms the severity of the alleged pain arising from the condition, or (2) the medical condition, objectively determined, is at a level of severity which can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged pain. If the plaintiff satisfies this burden, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the plaintiffs pain symptoms in light of objective medical evidence including the activity that precipitates or aggravates the plaintiffs symptoms, the plaintiffs daily activities, the intensity and duration of his symptoms, and medications, treatment and other means to relieve the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (1995).

Section 404.1529 permits an adjudicator evaluating subjective pain complaints to consider the claimant’s daily activities, medication, and treatment.

McDaniels v. Commisioner of Social Security · filed 2005-06-10

McDaniels’s argument that the ALJ did not properly consider her subjective complaints of pain is meritless. Far from ignoring her testimony, the ALJ clearly found that McDaniels “experiences some pain.” Record at 15. The ALJ also found, however, that the remaining evidence of record was “inconsistent with an individual with the degree of neck and back pain alleged.” Id. This decision was made in light of McDaniels’s daily activities, the medicine she took, and the treatment she received. In other words, the ALJ considered the very factors in Social Security Ruling 88-13 that McDaniels claims he ignored. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate pain and other symptoms using objective medical evidence and factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and other relief measures.

Bembery v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-29(c)

Under the current statutory regime, a claimant’s statements about her pain and symptoms do not alone establish disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Rather, a disability must be proven through objective medical evidence. Furthermore, the ALJ should consider a claimant’s daily activities, the location, frequency, and intensity of the pain or symptoms, the type and dosage of pain medication, and any other measures used to relieve the alleged pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (2003).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and their effects even when available objective medical evidence does not substantiate those statements.

Briscoe, Katherine v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2005-09-23(c)(2)

The ALJ was required to evaluate whether Taylor’s statements about the intensity and persistence of his pain were consistent with the available evidence and whether that testimony supported an earlier onset date. He failed to do so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (stating that the ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and its effects to him even where the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s statements).

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

Williams v. Barnhart · filed 2005-10-03

In this circuit medical evidence of pain itself, or of its intensity, is not required. While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself. Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disabling pain to establish an underlying medical impairment reasonably expected to cause the alleged symptoms before the adjudicator evaluates the pain’s intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Davis v. Barnhart · filed 2005-10-06(b), (c)

Her claim is therefore governed by the Secretary’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which specify how the Commissioner evaluates symptoms, including pain. ... The April 10, 2004 letter is not material to this “step one” inquiry required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... This is classic “step two” evidence under § 404.1529, in that it bears on the intensity and persistence of her pain, and its effect on her ability to work. ... It is not evidence of any “anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormality” likely to cause her pain; therefore, it does not and can not conflict with such evidence as the ALJ did consider concerning her underlying impairment, and provides no basis for a remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms, aggravating factors, medication and treatment effects, other treatment options, and other vocationally limiting factors.

Rease v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-12(c)(3)

The ALJ utilized the criteria set forth in SSR 96-7p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), to evaluate the claimant’s credibility; to wit, he looked at: the claimant’s activities of daily living; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of his alleged problems; precipitating and aggravating factors; the effects of medication and treatment; other treatment options, and any other factors which might limit the claimant vocationally.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the adjudicator to consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, and other relief measures, alongside objective medical evidence when evaluating claimed symptom severity.

Force v. SSA · filed 2006-05-02(c)(3)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the adjudicator must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individuals’ statements. ... Those factors include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes (or has taken) to alleviate pain or other symptoms; and any measures other than medication that the claimant receives (or has received) for relief of pain or other symptoms. Id. See also Avery, 797 F.2d at 2 3 ; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

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

Sparks v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-14

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating pain complaints to consider evidence such as daily activities, pain duration, medication, and treatment when the complaints suggest greater restriction than the evidence shows.

Ochs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-06-29(c)(3)

Because Ochs’s complaints suggested greater restriction than the evidence showed, the ALJ was permitted to consider other evidence such as Ochs’s daily activities, duration of the pain, medication and treatment.

Section 404.1529 requires medical signs and laboratory findings that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and directs the ALJ to consider the entire record, including work history, symptom statements, source evidence, observations, and inconsistencies.

Osborn v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-24(a), (c)(3), (c)(4)

The regulations further direct that statements of pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that a claimant is disabled, but rather there must be medical signs and laboratory findings showing a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, and, when considered with other evidence, would lead to a conclusion that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). In reaching a conclusion regarding a claimant’s disability, the ALJ considers “all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record, your statements about your symptoms, evidence submitted by your treating or nontreating source, and observations by our employees and other persons.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). Inconsistencies or conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the other evidence are also considered. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an administrative law judge evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the listed factors, including pain characteristics, medication and treatment, and functional limitations, rather than relying solely on inconsistencies with daily activities.

Lipke v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-24(c)

The administrative law judge’s credibility determination was inadequate. In addition to the previously-described flaws in his evaluation of the medical evidence, the administrative law judge erred by focusing solely on what he perceived were inconsistencies between plaintiffs activity level and his subjective complaints without regard to any of the other factors the commissioner has deemed relevant to credibility, including the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the individual’s pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; other treatment or measures taken for relief of pain; and any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Social Security Ruling 96-7p. Although an administrative law judge’s failure to discuss each and every factor is not necessarily grounds for remand, an administrative law judge may not ignore an entire line of evidence that is contrary to his findings.

Section 404.1529 directs consideration of all subjective symptom statements, descriptions of how symptoms affect daily activities or ability to work, and the extent to which the statements are supported by objective medical evidence.

Picard v. McMahon · filed 2007-02-05

Consideration is given to all subjective statements of symptoms and any provided description of how the symptoms affect a claimant’s activities of daily living or ability to work and to the extent that the subjective statements are supported by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) permits an ALJ to reject alleged symptoms to the extent they conflict with objective medical evidence.

Barron v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-08(a)

The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Barron’s testimony by noting that it conflicted with the “objective medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess whether a claimant’s symptoms are consistent with objective medical and other evidence and bars finding disability solely on the claimant’s statements about disabling pain.

Prokopick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-04-04(a)

Under the regulations, an ALJ may not base a finding of disability solely on a claimant’s statements about disabling pain; the ALJ must evaluate “the extent to which [a claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective pain complaints, consider the listed factors when objective evidence does not fully support the testimony, and explain with sufficient particularity the basis for rejecting it.

Crysler v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-27(a), (c)(3)(i)-(vi), (c)(4)

An ALJ must take into account subjective complaints of pain in making the five step disability analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (d), 416.929(a), (d). ... When such testimony is consistent with and supported by objective clinical evidence demonstrating that claimant has a medical impairment which one could reasonably anticipate would produce such pain, it is entitled to considerable weight. ... If the claimant’s testimony concerning the intensity, persistence or functional limitations associated with his or her pain is not fully supported by clinical evidence, however, then the ALJ must consider additional factors in order to assess that testimony, including: 1) daily activities; 2) location, duration, frequency and intensity of any 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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vi). ... After considering plaintiffs subjective testimony, the objective medical evidence, and any other factors deemed relevant, the ALJ may accept or reject claimant’s subjective testimony. ... If such testimony is rejected, however, the ALJ must explicitly state the basis for doing so with sufficient particularity to enable a reviewing court to determine whether those reasons for disbelief were legitimate, and whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication side effects, and treatment or relief measures when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Davis v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-09(c)(3)(i)-(iv)

Where the ALJ improperly discredited claimant’s subjective complaints, and thus failed to give adequate consideration to the effect the combination of claimant’s exertional and non-exertional impairments had on her ability to work, the regulations require remand to the ALJ for reconsideration of claimant’s residual functional capacity. Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 226 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider such things as: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) adverse side-effects of medications, and (5) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(iv).

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant’s allegations of pain to be evaluated against objective medical evidence and the factors bearing on the severity and functional effects of the symptoms.

Zonak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-07-24

Finally, we reject appellant’s contention that the ALJ improperly discredited Zonak’s subjective complaints of pain. A claimant’s allegations of pain must be consistent with the objective medical evidence. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. “Once an ALJ concludes that a medical impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms exists, . . . the ALJ [must] determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it.” Hartranft, 181 F.3d at 362. In making this determination, the ALJ must consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, and effectiveness of medication used to reduce the pain; (5) the type of treatment, other than medication, the claimant received for the pain; (6) measures the claimant has taken to relieve the pain; and (7) “[o]ther factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ reviewed the evidence and concluded that while Zonak undoubtedly experienced pain while performing strenuous activities, his subjective complaints of disabling pain were not entirely credible. For the same reasons articulated above in our discussion of the ALJ’s residual functional capacity analysis, we conclude that the ALJ’s decision to discount Zonak’s subjective complaints of pain was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication effects, and treatment or other relief measures.

Carman v. Astrue · filed 2009-11-13(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider such things as: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the nature and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) effects of medications; and (5) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ articulated various inconsistencies in Carman’s evidence that a reasonable person could conclude supported the ALJ’s finding that Carman’s subjective complaints of pain were not entirely credible. Thus, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant’s credibility to consider factors including daily activities, symptom intensity, aggravating factors, medications, and treatment.

Seamon v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-29(c)

In assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, the degree of her pain or intensity of her symptoms, aggravating factors, medications, and treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); S.S.R. 96-7p.

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

Minter v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-12

While both the regulations and the Hand [v. Heckler, 761 F.2d 1545 (11th Cir.1985) ] standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself. Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating alleged disabling pain to assess its severity using all relevant evidence, including the listed symptom factors.

Kendrick v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-13(c)

Second, the ALJ should evaluate the severity of the alleged pain in light of all relevant evidence, including the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... Accordingly, in making the credibility assessment, ALJ Silvain applied the proper factors and reasonably concluded that Plaintiffs pain allegations were not entirely credible.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them and, when objective evidence is insufficient, consider specified factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

House v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-23(b), (c)(3)

However, subjective symptomatol-ogy by itself cannot be the basis for a finding of disability. A claimant must present medical evidence or findings that the existence of an underlying condition could reasonably be expected to produce the symptomatology alleged. ... According to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) and 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii), if the plaintiffs contentions are not supported by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must consider the following factors in order to make a determination regarding the plaintiffs credibility: ... 7. Other factors concerning [Plaintiffs] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... Accordingly, this Court finds that the ALJ properly exercised his discretion to evaluate the credibility of Plaintiffs testimony and rendered an independent judgment regarding the extent of Plaintiffs subjective complaints based on the objective medical and other evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to evaluate subjective symptoms, including pain, against objective medical evidence and to assess their persistence, intensity, and effect on ability to work, considering treatment, medication and side effects, and daily activities.

Seney v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2014-09-26(a), (c)(1), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(v)

When evaluating subjective complaints of disabling symptoms, the ALJ must assess the persistence and intensity of the claimant’s pain as well as the extent to which it impairs her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). Allegations of disabling symptoms must be consistent with objective medical evidence, and the ALJ must explain why any allegations were rejected. See Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000). ... The ALJ first determined that Seney had a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce pain and other symptoms. However, during the second step of the inquiry, the ALJ determined that Seney could perform a range of sedentary work despite her symptoms. In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ considered the treatment needed for Seney’s condition, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v); the positive results from that treatment, the medication that she was taking, and its side effects, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv); her ability to perform many daily functions, including managing her own personal care, cooking, childcare, cleaning, and shopping, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); and the opinions of three state agency physicians who concluded that she had a range of limitations on her ability to work but that she could ultimately perform sedentary work. See Hartranft, 181 F.3d at 362. Consequently, the ALJ’s decision to not credit Seney’s allegations of disabling pain and other symptoms is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that statements about pain or other symptoms alone do not establish disability; medical signs and laboratory findings must show an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, considered with the other evidence.

Bryant v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-27(a)

The Social Security regulations provide: [S]tatements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show that you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and which, 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. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(a) (2013).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's pain symptoms to consider the entire record, including medical evidence, statements, daily activities, pain characteristics, medication effects, aggravating factors, and functional restrictions.

Salsbury v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-03

Thus, to analyze subjective complaints of pain, an ALJ considers the entire record, including the medical records; statements from the plaintiff and third parties; the plaintiff's daily activities; the duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors; and functional restrictions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). Although in the present case the ALJ did not specifically address the Polaski factors, that omission alone does not require reversal. “[A]n ALJ need not explicitly discuss each Polaski factor . . . . It is sufficient if he acknowledges and considers those factors before discounting a claimant’s subjective complaints.” Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted). Here, the ALJ acknowledged both the controlling regulations and relevant Social Security Rules, which include the Polaski factors. Tr. 18. Additionally, he stated that he considered both objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on those requirements. Tr. 18. The ALJ then performed a detailed review of Salsbury’s medical history over the relevant period, and identified inconsistencies and contradicting treatment notes. Tr. 19-24.

Section 404.1529(c) permits the Administration to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Dandy · filed 2018-04-26(c)

However, daily activities are an appropriate consideration in the evaluation of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, and this was but one factor considered by the ALJ in the assessment of the plaintiff’s subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (listing factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms that will be considered by the Administration, including “daily activities”).

Section 404.1529 provides that statements about pain or other symptoms cannot alone establish disability and requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, giving specific reasons for the finding.

Toliver v. Admininstration Office of the General Counsel Civil Action Suite · filed 2018-12-06(a), (c)(3)

Even if this testimony was fully credited by the ALJ, it alone could not have entitled Plaintiff to a finding of presumptive disability based on Listing 1.05B. See Hopson v. Colvin, No. 13 C 5993, 2014 WL 6883373, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2014) (explaining that subjective allegations, such as those set forth in testimony, cannot alone meet a claimant’s burden to produce medical evidence showing that a listing is met); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (Apr. 1, 2015 ed.) (“[S]tatements about [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [the claimant is] disabled[.]”). ... In evaluating hearing testimony—whether from a claimant or her family members, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and justify the finding with specific reasons.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, at *7.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors for evaluating a claimant's symptoms, but an ALJ need not address every factor in the written decision when the evaluation is supported by substantial evidence.

Paquet v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-04-04(c)(3)

ALJ is not required to address every Avery factor in [his] written decision for [his] evaluation to be supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s statements about symptoms and pain, but those statements alone do not establish disability; objective medical evidence must show an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged pain and, with other evidence, support disability.

Hostutler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-24(a)

The ALJ must consider all the claimant’s statements about his or her symptoms, including pain, and any medical or nonmedical descriptions about how the symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). However, statements about pain do not alone establish that a claimant is disabled; there must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that show the claimant has a medical impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain alleged, and that, when considered with other evidence, would lead to a conclusion that the claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptoms by considering whether they are reasonably consistent with objective medical and other evidence; statements about pain alone do not establish disability.

ALI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-07-25(a)

When evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s self-reported symptoms, the ALJ must consider 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(a), 416.929(a). Statements about one’s pain alone are not sufficient to establish that one is disabled. (Id.) ... Accordingly, ALJ Lissek weighed Plaintiff’s claims against his medical reports and correctly determined that they were inconsistent. (R. 24.)

Section 404.1529 requires an adjudicator evaluating subjective symptoms to consider conflicts with the rest of the evidence, treatment received, and daily activities.

Shelby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(c)(4), (c)(3)(iv)-(vi), and (c)(3)(i)

An ALJ must consider “the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence, including . . . the signs and laboratory findings . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); see, e.g., Molina, 674 F.3d at 1113 (discounting complaints that conflicted with mental status exam findings). ... An ALJ must consider the treatment a claimant receives when assessing her subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi). ... An ALJ must consider daily activities when assessing subjective complaints (see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)), and in the Ninth Circuit, an ALJ may rely on an activity to discount a claimant’s subjective complaints if the activity is inconsistent with alleged symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) permits an adjudicator evaluating subjective symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication and its effects, and other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions.

Pritchett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-08-28(c)(3), (4)

An ALJ rendering findings regarding a claimant’s subjective symptoms may consider a variety of factors, including: the claimant’s daily activities; symptom location, duration, frequency, and intensity; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; and other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4), 416.939(c)(3), (4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptom statements and permits consideration of treatment, medication, daily activities, and other factors bearing on the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Hartling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(c)(3)(v)

To make an RFC determination, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective statements about his symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), (4). An ALJ can consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication; (5) any treatment other than medication; (6) any measures the claimant used to relieve her pain or symptoms; and (7) other factors about the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions because of her pain or symptoms. § 404.1545(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider listed factors when evaluating subjective symptoms, including medication side effects and treatment response, and failure to separately discuss every factor does not require reversal when the relevant evidence was adequately considered.

SCHOTT v. Saul · filed 2019-10-07(c)(3), (c)(3)(v)

Factors for the ALJ to consider when assessing a claimant’s subjective testimony include (1) 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 side effects of any medication, (5) treatment other than medication, and (6) any measures used to relieve pain and other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416(c)(3). ... When assessing a claimant’s subjective testimony, an ALJ may consider evidence demonstrating that the claimant’s condition improved in response to treatment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d at 1040; Celaya v. Halter, 332 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir. 2003). ... the ALJ appropriately found that her subjective complaints as to the disabling severity of her pain were undermined by evidence showing overall improvement with treatment. ... The Court concludes the ALJ provided sufficiently clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective testimony. To the extent Plaintiff argues the ALJ erred by not specifically walking through each of the seven factors set forth in 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), including medication side effects, when assessing her subjective testimony, the Court is not persuaded. Review of the ALJ’s decision reflects that he adequately considered the relevant evidence and any error in not addressing medication side effects was harmless as outlined below.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate symptom intensity and persistence using the record evidence and listed regulatory factors.

Christensen v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-27(b)-(c)(4)

The Commissioner’s regulations outline a two-step process for considering a claimant’s statements regarding the limitations caused by her impairments, including limitations resulting from symptoms such as pain. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 593-96 (4th Cir. 1996). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence shows the existence of a medical impairment that could be reasonably expected to produce the pain or alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); Craig, 76 F.3d at 594. If so, the ALJ proceeds to the second step and evaluates the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine whether they limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. At this second step, the ALJ must consider all of the evidence in the record, such as medical signs, laboratory findings, medical opinions, and factors listed in the regulations that relate to the reliability of a claimant’s statements, such as the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment of symptoms other than with medication; any measures used to relieve the symptoms; and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at **7-8. The ALJ must consider whether there are inconsistencies or conflicts in the evidence, and a claimant’s symptoms will be determined to diminish his or her capacity for basic work activities to the extent that the alleged limitations and restrictions due to the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Craig, 76 F.3d at 595-96.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to find a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and then to assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the relevant evidence.

Yarrusso v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-02(b)-(c)

First, the ALJ must find a medically determinable impairment – proven with medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic data – that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms. Otherwise, the ALJ cannot find the applicant disabled, no matter how genuine the symptoms appear to be. This step does not consider the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the claimant: it only verifies whether a medical condition exists that could objectively cause the existence of the symptom.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the effectiveness of treatment as a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Farino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-11(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate how a medically determinable impairment's symptoms limit a claimant's ability to work by considering their intensity and persistence and relevant evidence about the claimant's daily activities and work ability.

Velez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-27(c)(1)–(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(4) requires an ALJ evaluating alleged symptoms to consider all available evidence, including objective medical evidence, statements from the claimant and others, work history, and inconsistencies in the evidence.

Larson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)(1)–(4)

If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the alleged severity of a claimant’s symptom, but an impairment can be reasonably expected to cause that alleged severity, an ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms and their effect on ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, an ALJ must consider all available evidence, including objective medical evidence, statements from the claimant and others, and any prior work history. Id. § 404.1529(c)(2)–(3). An ALJ also must consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... The ALJ cited Larson’s work history, see Tr. 25, and considered it, though in a neutral or unfavorable way, to observe that Larson continued working for at least two years after his head injury, see Tr. 22 and footnote 10. Though Larson’s work history could have supported giving more credence to his testimony, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, as discussed, and the Court is without authority to reweigh evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for the Commissioner’s judgment. See Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an adjudicator to find a claimant’s subjective reports of pain not entirely consistent with the medical evidence after considering those reports.

NICOT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-05-18(c)(4)

As to Plaintiff’s subjective reports of pain, the ALJ stated that she considered them, but did not find them to be entirely consistent with the medical evidence. This is proper under the Regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate pain and other subjective symptoms under a two-part standard, consider specified evidence and factors, and give explicit and adequate reasons for discounting the claimant’s statements.

Gowens v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-01(a), (b), (c)(3), (c)(4)

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 the 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 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 requires an adjudicator to evaluate a claimant's subjective symptoms under a two-part pain standard and, after the standard is satisfied, assess their intensity and persistence using objective medical evidence and other listed factors.

Marsh v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-01(a), (b), (c), (c)(3), (c)(4)

Marsh’s subjective complaints alone are insufficient to establish a disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.926(a); Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584 (11th Cir. 1991). Subjective testimony of pain and other symptoms may establish the presence of a disabling impairment if it is supported by medical evidence. See Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1561 (11th Cir. 1995). 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 the 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 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.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and functional effects using specified factors.

Schreiner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-03(b), (c)(3)

An evaluation of subjective complaints should reflect a two-step analysis. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.6 First, the ALJ must determine whether the evidence shows that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or impairments that could produce the relevant symptoms. See id. Next, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity, persistence, or ... functionally limiting effects of [the] symptom[s].” Id. The relevant factors for the ALJ to weigh include: (1) [the claimant’s] daily activities; (2) [t]he location, duration, frequency and intensity of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (3) [p]recipitating and aggravating factors; (4) [t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (5) [t]reatment, other than medication, [the claimant] receive[s] or ha[s] received for relief of [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (6) [a]ny measures [the claimant] us[es] or ha[s] used to relieve [his or her] pain or other symptoms . . . ; and (7) [o]ther factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii)).

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

Solt v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-29(a), (b), and (c)(4)

In determining the extent to which your symptoms, such as pain, affect your capacity to perform basic work activities, we consider all of the available evidence described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section. We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. ... Your symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent that your 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. ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly evaluated Solt’s subjective allegations, the record evidence, the medical opinions of record, and considered all of Solt’s symptoms of foot pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes medication and treatment effectiveness relevant to evaluating alleged symptoms.

Maehler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes medication and treatment effectiveness relevant to evaluating alleged symptoms.

Sweeney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-30(c)(3)

The ALJ also did not err in rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her vision. The ALJ noted Plaintiff had optic neuropathy in her left eye, but nonetheless found her records indicated improvement. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms), 416.929(c)(3) (same).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to determining symptom severity.

Noren v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-22(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to evaluating alleged symptoms.

Taylor v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-11(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (2011).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity.

Regalado v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-17(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), as is a conservative treatment course, see Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–751 (9th Cir. 2007).

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

Dunning v. Colvin · filed 2025-01-22(a)

The ALJ considers “all of the available evidence” when “evaluating the intensity and persistence of [the alleged] symptoms,” including whether the “pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Here, the ALJ discounted Dunning’s testimony regarding the extent of his pain and symptoms because he continues to engage in a wide range of daily activities, his uveitis episodes responded well to topical steroids, and he was not currently taking any medications.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate it, while subsection (c)(3)(iv) requires considering the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication and treats medication that controls but does not eliminate symptoms as a limiting factor.

(SS) Parker, III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-23(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)

“The fact that a claimant’s testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and of itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.” ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide additional reasons for discounting the testimony. ... That Plaintiff obtained some relief from mental health symptoms through use of prescription medications is not a proper ground upon which the ALJ may discount Plaintiff’s credibility or reject his symptomology testimony. The Social Security Administration regulations state that in evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms and determining the extent they limit a claimant’s capacity to work, a relevant factor to consider is “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). Thus, the use of prescription medications to control but not eliminate mental distress symptoms should be considered by the ALJ as a limiting factor in the residual functional capacity.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: objective medical evidence must first show an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, and the adjudicator must then assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effects on the claimant’s capacity for work.

Ledbetter v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-06-24(a)–(c)

To determine whether a claimant is disabled as defined by the Social Security Administration, an ALJ evaluates all symptoms, including subjective complaints, such as pain and how the symptoms affect a claimant’s daily life and ability to do work. 20 CFR § 404.1529(a). But a claimant’s subjective complaints alone are insufficient to establish a disability. Id. Rather the ALJ will apply a two-step analysis. Id. at § 404.1529(a)–(b). First, the ALJ looks for either objective medical signs or laboratory findings that there is a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. If this first step is satisfied, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. Id. at § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about pain and assess how far the symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Audrey P. v. Saul · filed 2021-01-08(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about 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). ... In this case, Plaintiff challenges as error the ALJ’s reliance on the SA physicians, whose opinions the ALJ used (together with his lay assessment of the post-SA treating record) not just as the foundation for the RFC, but also to support both the finding that the treating rheumatologist’s opinion is unpersuasive and the rejection of Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the functional limitations caused by pain. I find these arguments to be well founded.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment when evaluating symptoms.

McPherson v. Saul · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)(v)

So too was it proper for the ALJ to consider the course of Claimant’s treatment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), as well as Claimant’s improvement over time with the assistance of medication, knee brace adjustments, and conservative post-surgery care recommended and implemented by her treating physician.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider statements about pain and prohibits rejecting them solely because objective evidence does not substantiate their severity.

Bisignano · filed 2025-10-14(c)(3)

To comply with this requirement, an ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about pain and determine the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence but also may not disregard them “solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all symptoms when determining disability.

Rucker v. Shalala · filed 1995-07-06

Furthermore, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929 indicate that the ALJ must consider all symptoms when determining disability.

Section 404.1529(d)(1) requires symptoms such as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, and nervousness to be considered when determining whether an impairment or combination of impairments is severe.

Mom v. Saul · filed 2020-09-01(d)(1)

A claimant’s “symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, or nervousness, are considered in making a determination as to whether [the claimant’s] impairment or combination of impairment(s) is severe.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(1). ... The ALJ considered each of Plaintiff’s physical impairments one by one and found that “[t]he medical evidence does not establish that these conditions are severe impairments.” AR 29; see AR 29-30. Discussing Plaintiff’s allegations that she had pain in her back and shoulders, the ALJ noted that x-ray imaging showed only “very mild” degeneration in Plaintiff’s lumbar spine and none in her thoracic spine5, and that Plaintiff “generally reported to her providers that her pain was 0/10 or 1/10 on the 10-point pain intensity scale” with “only one instance of increased (4/10) pain related to her low back.” AR 29, 30 (citations to the AR omitted). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s GERD was not a severe impairment. Therefore, the ALJ committed no error.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider all symptoms and the extent to which they reasonably accord with objective and other evidence.

Cuzzo v. Saul · filed 2022-08-26(a)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all of the claimant’s symptoms and “the extent to which [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider all symptoms and the extent to which they reasonably accord with objective and other evidence.

Hand v. Saul · filed 2022-08-26(a)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all claimant’s symptoms and “the extent to which [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ assessing RFC to consider a claimant’s symptom statements, daily activities, pain frequency and intensity, medication effects, medical evidence, and opinion evidence.

Harris v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-21

Unlike medical providers and medical consultants, the ALJ considers additional evidence including the claimant’s statements and testimony concerning his symptoms, his activities of daily living, the frequency and intensity of pain, the effects of medication, as well as all other medical evidence and opinion statements in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of symptoms against objective and other evidence when formulating RFC.

Morell-Aviles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24

In formulating the RFC, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s symptoms and the extent to which these were reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence on record, including medical opinions, studies, medications prescribed, and prior administrative medical findings, as required by 20 CFR §404.1529; §404.1520C and SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304 (S.S.A.).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of symptoms against objective and other evidence when formulating RFC.

Barreto-Pagan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24

In formulating the RFC, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s symptoms and the extent to which they were reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence on record, including medical opinions, studies, medications prescribed, and prior administrative medical findings, as required by 20 CFR §404.1529; §404.1520C and SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304 (S.S.A.).

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires evaluation of symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings for medical equivalence to a listed impairment but does not allow pain or other symptom allegations to substitute for missing or deficient signs or laboratory findings.

Hunter v. Saul · filed 2021-03-11(d)(3)

The law only requires that the ALJ evaluate a claimant’s symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings which are medically equal to the symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings of a listed impairment in severity to a listed criterion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3). However, an ALJ will not substitute allegations of pain or other symptoms for missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding which raises the severity of an impairment to that of a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3). ... As the ALJ is responsible alone for determining the credibility of Hunter’s allegations of disabling symptomology, and for resolving any ambiguities, substantial evidence exists to support his conclusion that Hunter does not have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of the listed impairments in Appendix 1 to Subpart P of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(iii).

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires the Commissioner, when deciding whether combined impairments equal a listing, to consider whether the claimant’s symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2021-06-11(d)(3)

“In determining whether the claimant’s combination of impairments equals a particular listing, the Commissioner must consider whether h[er] ‘symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria.’”

Section 404.1529(d)(3) bases medical equivalence on all relevant evidence but does not allow allegations of pain or other symptoms to substitute for missing or deficient signs or laboratory findings needed to reach listing-level severity.

Benaderet v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-01(d)(3)

Again, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof at step three. Weatherbee v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2011). “To determine whether an individual is disabled at step 3, an ALJ must follow 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3), which describes how the agency decides whether the individual’s impairment or combination of impairments are medically equal in severity to an impairment on the list of pre-determined disabling impairments.” Curvin v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2015). “[T]he agency will consider whether an individual’s symptoms and objective medical evidence are equal in severity to those of a listed impairment.” Id. Under §404.1529(d)(3), the agency considers medical equivalence based on all evidence in the record relevant to a claimant’s impairments and their effects. “However, [the agency] will not substitute [a claimant’s] allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment.” Curvin, 778 F.3d at 650.

Under subsection (d)(3), an ALJ must adequately discuss whether a claimant’s combined impairments medically equal a listing, although an inadequate discussion is harmless if the claimant does not show prejudice.

LODISE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-08-29(d)(3)

While the ALJ cursorily stated that Plaintiff did not “have an impairment or combination of impairments that meets or medically equals the severity of one of the listed impairments,” R. at 23, he failed to adequately discuss whether Plaintiff’s combination of impairments could medically equal a listing. This was error. However, this court finds that Plaintiff has not shown that the error was harmful.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings to be at least equal in severity to a listing’s criteria for medical equivalence.

Dingle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-27(d)(3)

To make that determination, the Commissioner “will look to see whether [the claimant’s] symptoms, signs, and laboratory findings are at least equal in severity to the listed criteria.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3).

Section 404.1529 directs the evaluator to consider available evidence and specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and functional limitations, when assessing the intensity, persistence, and effects of symptoms.

Piper v. SSA · filed 1997-06-09(c)(3), (c)(4)

In evaluating the intensity or persistence of Piper's symptoms and the extent to which they affected her ability to work, the ALJ carefully considered the available evidence, including the claimant's medical history and statements from the claimant and from her treating or examining physicians and/or psychologists. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). In addition, when he evaluated the degree of claimant's pain and other subjective symptoms, the ALJ carefully applied the relevant factors in coming to this conclusion. See Avery v. Secretary, 797 F.2d 19, 23 (1st Cir. 1986). Considerations capable of substantiating subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms include evidence of daily activities; the nature of the pain and other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the pain or other symptoms; other treatment received to relieve pain or other symptoms; and any other factors relating to claimant's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Avery, supra, 797 F.2d at 23.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective symptom limitations and evaluate the complaints against the objective medical evidence and reported daily activities.

Scott v. Callahan · filed 1997-09-10

In addition, the ALJ’s opinion demonstrates that he considered all the evidence and based his conclusion on sound reasoning. As noted above, the ALJ went through the required five-step analysis. When he reached step five, the ALJ considered Scott’s subjective assessments of his limitations as mandated by SSA regulations. ... Weighing Scott’s corn-plaints against the medical records, expert physician opinions and Scott’s testimony regarding his daily activities, the ALJ found that Scott’s allegations of disability were not credible. ... Here, the ALJ based his negative credibility assessment on both subjective considerations (Scott’s demeanor) and objective considerations (comparison of Scott’s claims to medical findings and self-reported activities). ... And we uphold the ALJ’s objectively grounded credibility determination, based on our analysis that Scott’s claims of disabling impairment are out of line with the objective medical evidence and Scott’s reported daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ evaluating the credibility of subjective pain complaints to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medications.

Espinoza v. SSA · filed 1999-04-30(c)(3)(iv)

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (In making credibility determination, ALJ should consider the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” claimant has taken.).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of a claimant’s subjective symptoms but does not treat those allegations alone as evidence of disability; a medical condition must reasonably produce the alleged symptoms.

DaCosta v. Apfel · filed 2000-01-11

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the claimant’s subjective allegation of symptoms is not itself evidence of a disability, but there must be a medical condition that would reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, leading to the conclusion that the claimant is disabled.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce them, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the entire case record.

Beech v. Apfel · filed 2000-06-20

Social Security Ruling 96-7p sets forth that the Regulation requires a two-step process for evaluating subjective symptoms: First, the ALJ must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment or impairments established by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques which could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms; Second, if such underlying physical or mental impairment or impairments have been found, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual’s symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the individual’s ability to do basic work activities. To do so, the ALJ must make a finding in regard to the credibility of the individual’s testimony and statements based upon his evaluation of the entire case record. Any allegation of diminishment of the Plaintiff’s capacity for basic work activities must be support by the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the case record. Social Security Ruling 96-7p. ... The undersigned finds no error in the ALJ’s analysis of the Plaintiffs subjective complaints nor in his application of the analysis as set forth in Social Security Ruling 96-7p and in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate specified evidence, including daily activities, pain intensity, medication side effects, pain-relief measures, and related functional limitations, rather than the claimant's speculation about what caused the disability.

Henderson v. Apfel · filed 2001-02-28

According to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s daily activities, the intensity of pain, the side effects of medication, measures used to relieve pain, and corresponding functional limitations. In reviewing these factors, the ALJ did not find Henderson’s written statements and testimony entirely credible. The ALJ noted that Henderson attributed his disability to his fall from his employer’s truck. The ALJ found this inconsistent with Henderson’s arthritis in the back and CTS, two conditions that do not arise from sudden trauma. However, questioning Henderson as to the source of his disability does not relate to the factors articulated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Henderson, who is not a doctor, and can only speculate as to what caused his disability.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies daily activities and the characteristics and triggers of symptoms as factors relevant to evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Egas v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-06(c)(3)

In the case at bar, the ALJ assessed the credibility of Egas’ subjective complaints as prescribed by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) and Social Security Ruling 96-7p, and the ALJ determined that Egas’ allegations regarding the severity of his impairments were not reasonably consistent with the other evidence contained in the record. The ALJ asserted that the extent of Egas’ daily activities was contrary to his allegations of an inability to perform work-related activities. He also noted that, with regard to the location, duration, frequency and intensity of Egas’ symptoms, the record contained no confirmation of his alleged inability to leave home and no documentation of Egas’ reports that he experienced sweating, shaking, flushing and trembling lips when he was around people. The ALJ noted that none of the doctors found any of these symptoms and, in fact, Dr. McGrath cited improvement in Egas’ mood. Furthermore, with respect to any precipitating and aggravating factors relating to Egas’ condition, the ALJ considered Egas’ reports of increased anxiety in enclosed spaces and provided for this impairment in his hypothetical question to the vocational expert. As such, we reject Egas’ contention that the ALJ “failed to discuss other very important issues.” (R. 12-2, Pl.’s Mem. in Supp. of its Mot. for Summ. J. at 13.) As stated above, the ALJ is not required to analyze every factor relating to credibility. Moreover, according to Social Security Ruling 96-7p, the internal consistency of Egas’ complaints is merely a guideline for the ALJ to evaluate Egas’ credibility, and no matter how consistent Egas’ complaints may have been, the fact that the objective medical evidence contradicts his allegations of disabling anxiety is far more determinative. Therefore, we conclude that the ALJ’s credibility findings regarding Egas were supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective pain complaints to consider objective medical evidence together with daily activities, pain characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication and its side effects, and functional limitations and restrictions.

Flores v. Massanari · filed 2001-09-13(c)(3)

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain that are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole. But the ALJ may not disregard complaints merely because they are not fully supported by objective medical evidence. Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 314 (7th Cir.1995). The absence of objective medical evidence is just one factor to be evaluated along with (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see Knight, 55 F.3d at 314. Other factors include the claimant’s relevant work history and observations by treating physicians, examining physicians, and third parties. Clifford, 227 F.3d at 872.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) directs the Commissioner to consider a claimant’s symptom intensity and persistence, objective medical evidence, and daily activities when evaluating subjective pain.

Spicer v. Apfel · filed 2001-07-16(c)(1)

According to the Social Security regulations, when a claimant contends that he or she is impaired by subjective pain, the Commissioner is to consider several factors, including the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, objective medical evidence, and the claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ first to determine whether the claimant has objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Lawson v. Massanari · filed 2001-06-25(a)

In evaluating a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms, the ALJ performs a two-step analysis. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has produced objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess the severity and work-related effects of a claimant’s subjective symptoms using all pertinent evidence in the record.

Arnold v. SSA · filed 2001-11-15

The ALJ must assess the severity of a claimant’s subjective symptoms and the extent to which those symptoms impair the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Avery v . Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 797 F.2d 1 9 , 23 (1st Cir. 1986). The symptoms and their effects are assessed by considering all of the pertinent evidence of record including “claimant’s statements, opinions of treating physicians, reports of claimant’s activities and claimant’s course of treatment.” Nguyen, 172 F.3d at 3 4 ; see also DaRosa v . Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 803 F.2d 2 4 , 25-26 (1st Cir. 1986).

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

Sullivan v. SSA · filed 2001-12-07(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ considered Sullivan’s complaint of this side effect as required by Avery and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). However, he discounted the seriousness of the complaint because the record reflects that when she complained of the side effect, her doctor reduced the dosage.

The regulation directs the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and other pain-relieving treatment when evaluating subjective allegations.

Markle v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-30(c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective allegations, the ALJ considers various factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, the frequency and intensity of pain, the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication, and other treatment that relieves pain.

Section 404.1529 requires the adjudicator to evaluate the relevant factors, in addition to objective medical evidence, when assessing the effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-26(c)

The ALJ’s decision included a reference to the factors she was to consider in determining the effect of pain and other subjective complaints (Tr. at 13, ¶ 2, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529) and a brief recitation of plaintiffs complaints (Tr. at 13, ¶ 4), but no evaluation of the relevant factors or how plaintiffs complaints impacted upon her claim. This was error.

Section 404.1529(d)(4) requires an administrative law judge to consider the impact of related symptoms, including pain, on a claimant’s residual functional capacity after finding a severe impairment that does not meet or equal a listed impairment.

Querido v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-10(d)(4)

In cases such as Querido’s, where it is determined at steps two and three that a claimant has a severe impairment or combination of impairments that is not so severe as to meet or medically equal the criteria of a listed impairment, the administrative law judge, proceeding to steps four and five, “must consider the impact of related symptoms, including pain, on the claimant’s residual functional capacity.” ... Overall, this Court is satisfied that the administrative law judge sufficiently inquired as to the adverse side-effects of Querido’s medications and adequately considered them when determining her residual functional capacity.