20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors relevant to evaluating a claimant's subjective pain and other symptom statements, but does not require the adjudicator to discuss every factor explicitly.

French v. Massanari · filed 2001-05-10(c)(3)

Evaluation of the side effects of medications is one of the factors set forth by the regulations that an administrative law judge may consider in making his credibility determination. In the Eleventh Circuit, however, there is no requirement that all seven of these factors be discussed explicitly. ... Therefore, it is not reversible error that the administrative law judge did not expressly mention the side effects of French's medications in his credibility determination.

In evaluating a claimant's credibility about symptoms, the ALJ must consider the claimant's prior work history as one factor, but that history need not outweigh other record evidence.

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

While, as Mr. Jaramillo argues, the ALJ must consider his prior work history as one factor in making his credibility determination, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), that history does not outweigh the record evidence supporting the ALJ’s conclusion that Mr. Jaramillo’s pain testimony was not fully credible.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires considering seven specified factors, in addition to objective medical evidence, when evaluating the credibility of statements about pain or other symptoms.

Champney v. SSA · filed 1999-02-10(c)(4)

The ALJ properly considered the seven factors prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) that are to be considered in addition to the objective medical evidence when determining the credibility of an individual's statements about pain. Tr. 18.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the record and specified credibility factors.

Matejka v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-16(c)

[t]he regulations set forth a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s testimony regarding his symptoms. First, the ALJ must consider whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged by the claimant. Second, if the ALJ determines that the claimant is impaired, he then must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms. If the claimant’s statements about his symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must make a finding as to the claimant’s credibility. Such an evaluation of a claimant’s credibility is entitled to great deference if it is supported by substantial evidence. ... In his conclusion that “there is no evidence of any significant deterioration of her condition during that period,” the ALJ has misapplied the standard outlined above. Further, the ALJ failed to analyze a number of credibility factors he was required to consider.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant's statements about pain or other symptoms alone cannot establish disability.

Cerrato v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-07-02(a)

Moreover, subjective statements of symptoms alone are not sufficient to find disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment, including its conservative nature, when evaluating symptoms and credibility.

Zaricor-Ritchie v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-15(c)(3)(v)

An ALJ can take note of the level of treatment in assessing a claimant’s credibility. See Hackett, 395 F.3d at 1173 (approving ALJ’s reliance on fact that claimant “had responded to conservative treatment” as part of credibility evaluation); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v) (listing “[t]reatment” as one factor that may be considered when evaluating symptoms); id. § 416.929(c)(3)(v) (same). He did no more than that here.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and the listed factors, including daily activities, pain, treatment, medication, and functional limitations.

Newell v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-23(c)(2), (c)(3)

Factors that should be considered include the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, allegations of pain, aggravating factors, the types of treatment received, any medications taken, and functional limitations. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 96-7p. ... The medical record is a factor to be considered in determining a claimant’s credibility. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 96-7p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider the side effects of a claimant’s medication when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms.

Mandella v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-17(c)(3)

And, even if Mandella remains compliant with her medications, no consideration was given to the side effects of her medication, as required by SSR 96-7p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 4, and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce a claimant’s alleged symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Conn v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-30

First, the ALJ must determine whether there is an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms. ... Second, after making this determination, 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.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant's credibility when the claimant testifies about symptoms from an impairment.

Johnstone v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-23(c)(3)

When a claimant testifies regarding symptoms from his impairment, the ALJ must evaluate the credibility of the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) and (iv) permit an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities and whether medication helped when evaluating testimony about symptoms such as pain.

Kalishek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-05-30(c)(3)(i), (iv)

An ALJ is allowed to consider a claimant’s daily activities when determining whether a claimant’s testimony regarding symptoms such as pain is not credible, as well as whether medication helped the claimant’s condition. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), (iv).

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(4) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's credibility to consider objective medical evidence, symptom descriptions, treatments used to relieve symptoms, and daily activities.

Perez v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-03(c)(2)-(4)

In examining the credibility of the claimant, the ALJ must take a number of factors into account, including the objective medical evidence, descriptions of the symptoms, treatments used to assuage those symptoms, and the daily activities of the claimant.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven factors when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including daily activities, pain characteristics, treatment, medication, and functional limitations.

Schmiedebusch v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2013-10-24(c)(3)

ALJs consider the following factors when determining the credibility of a claimant’s statements about his or her symptoms: (i) [A claimant’s] daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [a claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [a claimant] take[s] or [has] taken to alleviate [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, [a claimant] receive[s] or [has] received for relief of [a claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures [a claimant] use[s] or [has] used to relieve [his or her] pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on [one’s] back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) Other factors concerning [a claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(d)(3) does not permit a claimant’s own symptom statements to establish the severity required for a listed impairment.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-02-15(d)(3)

But a claimant’s own statements of her symptoms cannot satisfy a listing’s severity requirement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptom statements and their limiting effects, and bars rejecting those statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Byrd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-18

The ALJ was required to analyze those statements and determine the weight entitled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p. She was not permitted to reject Plaintiff’s testimony simply due to lack of objective evidence. SSR 16-3p (“[W]e will not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment- related symptoms alleged by the individual.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“[W]e will not reject your statements… solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”

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

Negus-Wooldridge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-05(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ can certainly consider a claimant’s daily activities as part of her subjective symptom evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7.

Section 404.1529(b) requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s subjective symptoms as part of a two-step analysis.

Shaw v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-03(b)

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 (citations omitted). First, the ALJ must determine whether or not there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82. Once a claimant produces medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms “based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of” the symptoms. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). Absent affirmative evidence that the claimant is malingering, the ALJ must provide “specific, clear and convincing” reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1529 bars rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them and permits evaluating those statements against the other record evidence.

Watkins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-02(c)(2), (c)(4)

Watkins argues that the ALJ improperly rejected his subjective complaints in violation of the social security regulations solely because the objective medical evidence did not substantiate his statements. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). This contention is belied by the record. The ALJ’s decision reflects that he considered, in addition to the objective medical evidence, the specifics of Watkins’s testimony at the hearing, Watkins’s statements concerning his daily activities and abilities, and the opinions of Watkins’s doctors. The ALJ then properly evaluated Watkins’s subjective statements in relation to the evidence in the record and found that Watkins’s subjective complaints were exaggerated and inconsistent with the evidence of record. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires a claimant’s symptom statements to be evaluated against the objective medical evidence and other evidence, including inconsistencies or conflicts in the record.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-18(c)(4)

The process for evaluating a claimant’s subjective reports of symptoms and functional limitations associated with IC is similar to the two-step process used for evaluation of symptoms generally. ... Generally, the framework for evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective statements is the following: We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Overall, the ALJ’s analysis was flawed both by her reliance on mischaracterizations of the evidence related to Plaintiff’s daily activities, the longitudinal medical record related to IC symptoms, and/or failure to consider evidence disfavorable to a finding of disability.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider conflicts between a claimant’s subjective symptom statements and the other evidence, but does not require the ALJ to accept those statements unquestioningly.

Woods v. Comm'r Soc. SEC. · filed 2025-03-26(c)(4)

Although an ALJ must “take the claimant’s reports of pain and other limitations into account,” the ALJ “is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question; [s]he may exercise discretion in weighing the credibility of the claimant’s testimony in light of the other evidence in the record.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (requiring ALJ to consider “the extent to which there are any conflicts between [subjective statements regarding symptoms] and the rest of the evidence”). ... In sum, we conclude that the ALJ committed no error in her evaluation of Woods’s subjective statements concerning his condition, and substantial evidence in the record supports this evaluation.

Subsection (c) requires an ALJ, at the second step of symptom evaluation, to assess the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms against the entire case record.

Lapish v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-02(c)

During the second step of this assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated considering the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p. This includes, but is not limited to, medical signs and laboratory findings; diagnoses; medical opinions provided by treating or examining sources and other medical sources; and information regarding the claimant’s symptoms and how they affect his or her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s pain and other symptoms using the listed factors; a cursory credibility finding is insufficient.

Lane v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-23

Administrative Law Judges are required to evaluate a claimant’s credibility concerning pain according to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which states in relevant part: ... The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ erred in evaluating her credibility. In that regard, the ALJ’s cursory finding that Plaintiffs statements concerning her symptoms were “not entirely credible” does not satisfy the requirements imposed by 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider factors beyond objective medical evidence when assessing a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Thompson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-15

In accordance with Sections 404.1529 and 416.929, the Ruling provides seven factors that an ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing a claimant’s credibility: ... As a result, the ALJ’s credibility determination is amenable to judicial review; accordingly, the undersigned FINDS substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility assessment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires adjudicators to consider seven specified factors, in addition to objective medical evidence, when evaluating statements about symptoms.

Bechtold v. Massanari · filed 2001-05-10(c)(3)

This Court therefore holds that the discussion of these factors constitutes substantial supporting evidence for the credibility finding of the administrative law judge and that this finding is sufficiently explicit to comport with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), Social Security Ruling 96-7p, and the law of the Eleventh Circuit.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an administrative law judge to consider the entire record when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms and not reject symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Goble v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-22(c)

When conducting this evaluation, the administrative law judge may not reject the claimant’s statements regarding her symptoms on the sole ground that the statements are not substantiated by objective medical evidence. Instead, the administrative law judge must consider the entire case record to determine whether the individual’s statements are credible. ... In addition to the objective medical evidence, the administrative law judge considered the other relevant factors in determining that plaintiffs testimony concerning her pain and limitations was not entirely credible.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the credibility of symptoms that objective medical evidence does not support.

Schlichting v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-11(c)(3)

The ALJ reasonably concluded that these activities were inconsistent with Plaintiffs allegations of disabling symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the agency to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements about symptoms and the other evidence.

Puente v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-18(c)(4)

The regulations also provide that the SSA “will consider whether thei'e are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [his] statements and the rest of the evidence.” ... Thus, we conclude that the ALJ properly considered the evidence that could potentially bear upon Puente’s credibility.

An ALJ assessing a claimant’s statements about pain must consider conflicts with the other evidence and explain how the evidence supports an adverse credibility finding.

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2017-09-29(c)(4)

Significantly, however, the ALJ must “‘build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion’ that [the claimant’s] testimony was not credible” — which the ALJ wholly failed to do here.

Section 404.1529(c) directs the ALJ to consider a claimant’s activities, treatment, and inconsistencies in the record when evaluating symptoms.

HODNETT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-08-12(c)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). The ALJ also will look at inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the evidence presented. Id. ... After a review of the record in this case, I find the ALJ applied the above standard.

Section 404.1529(a) asks whether claimed symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.

Gunn v. Saul · filed 2020-11-19(a)

The question the SSA asks under SSR 16–3p, is whether the symptoms claimed “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). It is the revised standard that applies here.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider conflicts between a claimant’s symptom statements and the medical evidence when evaluating those statements.

Payne v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-11-19(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s symptoms, the effectiveness of medication, a claimant’s method of treatment, a claimant’s activities, and any conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4), 416.929(c)(3), (4); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 364186 at * 4-8. ... Moreover, the ALJ properly discredited Payne’s testimony because she discussed her specific reasons for doing so while also referencing the medical records that conflicted with this testimony.

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

Colwell v. Saul · filed 2020-12-09(a)

While an ALJ must consider a plaintiff’s representations about her symptoms and limitations, her statements about her “pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that” she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to give less weight to symptom statements that are inconsistent with the medical evidence and treatment record.

Sanford v. Saul · filed 2020-12-16(c)(4)

These were clear and convincing reasons for the ALJ to discount plaintiff’s pain and symptom statements, including her statement that she is unable to stoop.

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

De Ornelas v. Saul · filed 2020-12-22(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements about symptoms against the other evidence, including properly assessed medical opinions.

Marazzo v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-31(c)(4)

The ALJ’s evaluation of the credibility of plaintiff’s statements was based on an incorrect weighing of plaintiff’s treating physicians’ medical opinions. Thus, on remand, the ALJ is instructed to reevaluate plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms in light of the ALJ’s careful reassessment of the medical opinion evidence and the underlying medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to assess the consistency of a claimant’s symptom statements with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Belcher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-20(c)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ provided good reasons why she concluded that Plaintiff’s subjective statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluating a claimant’s symptom statements against the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Rivera v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-26(c)

A claimant’s statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, which are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, are less likely to reduce his capacity to perform work related activities. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... It cannot be said that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s subjective symptom evaluation here.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms and support a credibility finding with record evidence.

Wurst v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-30(c)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors imposed by the regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and must support a credibility finding with evidence in the record. ... The ALJ cited Claimant’s own testimony and litany of daily activities in evaluating his credibility. The ALJ explained why she did not find Claimant persuasive and supported that determination with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) permits an ALJ to consider conservative treatment alongside other evidence when evaluating a claimant's statements about symptoms.

Rivera v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-03-15(c)(1)

These were permissible factors for the ALJ to consider in determining plaintiff's credibility pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1) (2011) and 416.929(c)(1) (2011).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not support them.

Royalty v. SSA · filed 2023-12-27(c)(2)

ALJs cannot reject a claimant’s “statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); accord Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1039 (6th Cir. 1994). ... The ALJ did not rely only on the objective medical evidence to find that Ms. Royalty’s account of her pain lacked credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to compare a claimant’s symptom statements with the objective medical and other evidence and evaluate inconsistencies or conflicts.

Sances v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-09(c)(4)

The ALJ must then consider the Plaintiff's statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence and evaluate inconsistencies or conflicts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4), § 416.929(c)(4). As discussed below, this is precisely the analysis undertaken by the ALJ here, and the Court reverses credibility determinations only when such determinations are “patently wrong.” Hohman v. Kijakazi, 72 F.4th 248, 251 (7th Cir. 2023).

Section 404.1529(c) makes the assessment of medical evidence part of evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Brisby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-09(c)

In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility as to physical symptoms and limitations should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

An ALJ evaluates a claimant’s symptom statements for consistency with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Sauvageau v. O'Malley · filed 2025-08-14(c)(4)

In evaluating the claimant’s statements about his symptoms, the ALJ examines the extent to which the statements are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... The ALJ’s evaluation of Sauvageau’s symptoms is supported by substantial evidence.

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

ROBINSON · filed 2025-11-25(a)

A plaintiff’s statements regarding their symptoms will not establish that they are disabled unless they are supported by objective medical evidence that the plaintiff suffers from a medical impairment that “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements about symptoms in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Phelan · filed 2026-03-12(c)(4)

The administrative ruling requires that in evaluating the evidence—including testimony presented at the hearing before an ALJ—the ALJ must provide “clearly articulated” and “specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms.” Id. at *9, 10; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.920c(c)(4) (the ALJ will consider the claimant’s “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [his or her] symptoms, and [the ALJ] will evaluate [the claimant’s] statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence”). ... At a minimum, the Court is unable to say on this record whether the ALJ’s apparent discounting of Plaintiff’s testimony at least as to her significant limitation in her ability to stand for any significant period of time (if not her limitation as to her ability to walk as well) is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence considers evidence from medical and nonmedical sources, including objective evidence and other submitted symptom information.

Sandrock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-13(c)(1)-(3)

The agency regulations provide that, “[i]n evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1) and 416.929(c)(1). The agency considers both “objective” medical evidence and “other evidence”. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) and 416.929(c)(2)-(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of observations from relatives and other nonmedical sources, and a relative's status alone is insufficient grounds to reject that testimony as biased or not credible.

Behymer v. Apfel · filed 1999-03-11(c)(3)

This court agrees with the plaintiff that without some showing from the record that the testimony of a relative is biased or not credible, the mere fact that the witness is a relative is not enough to reject the testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider testimony from family and friends submitted on behalf of a claimant, but does not require express reasons for rejecting testimony from each lay witness.

Molina v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-02(c)(3)

The applicable regulations are in accord; they require the ALJ to consider testimony from family and friends submitted on behalf of the claimant, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 404.1545(a)(3), but do not require the ALJ to provide express reasons for rejecting testimony from each lay witness, see id.; see also SSR 06-03p (recognizing that “there is a distinction between what an adjudicator must consider and what the adjudicator must explain in the disability determination or decision”).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to consider all available evidence from the claimant's medical and nonmedical sources.

Steele v. Saul · filed 2020-01-27(c)(1)

The regulations require an ALJ to “consider all of the available evidence from [a claimant’s] medical and nonmedical sources.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider evidence submitted by an “other source” on a claimant’s behalf.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(c)(3)

It is well-established that ALJs must consider evidence from “other source” evidence submitted on behalf of a claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 404.1545(a)(3). In the Ninth Circuit, lay witness testimony cannot be disregarded without comment. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (citing Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996)). “Other source” opinion evidence may be discounted by an ALJ if the ALJ “gives reasons germane to each witness for doing so.” Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010). ... “Inconsistency with medical evidence” is a germane reason for discounting lay witness/other source evidence. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005). These are germane reasons for not accepting Ms. Bibiloni’s GAF assessment and therefore, the ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider nonmedical-source statements about symptoms and limitations fairly and does not permit rejecting a spouse’s testimony merely because of familial interest or nonmedical status.

Monteith v. Saul · filed 2021-03-05(c)(3)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider all evidence, including statements from nonmedical sources regarding Plaintiff’s symptoms and limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Thus, while an ALJ may evaluate the credibility of hearing witnesses based on the manner and content of their testimony, the ALJ may not discredit the testimony of the Plaintiff’s wife simply on the basis of inherent familial bias. ... Indeed, if ALJs were permitted to reject the testimony of all family members as inherently biased and “non-medical” the Commissioner would regularly fail to consider important relevant evidence of a claimant’s limitations from those who have frequent opportunities to observe the claimant in his or her home environment and elsewhere. In sum, with a claimant’s relatives (as well as the claimant) the ALJ may appropriately evaluate the credibility of their testimony in light of all the evidence but must always fully consider their evidence fairly with an open mind in accordance with the Social Security Act and its regulations. ... Again, however, notwithstanding the erroneous additional reason given by the ALJ for giving “little weight” to Ms. Monteith’s testimony, there is ample evidence for the Court to conclude that the ALJ’s ultimate conclusion is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed.

Sections 404.1529(a) and (c)(3) require an ALJ to grapple with descriptions from nonmedical sources about how symptoms affect a claimant's daily activities and ability to work.

Luczynski v. Saul · filed 2021-11-22(a), (c)(3)

Section 1529 directs an ALJ to consider “any description . . . medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect [a claimant’s] activities of daily living and . . . ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a),(c)(3) (“Because symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone, [the ALJ] will carefully consider . . . information . . . medical sources or nonmedical sources provide about . . . pain or other symptoms.”). ... Under these provisions, the ALJ was required to grapple with Alifantis-Kickel’s and the mother’s firsthand observations regarding the limiting effects of Andrew’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of medical and nonmedical evidence about how symptoms affect the claimant, and the 2017 medical-opinion regulations did not eliminate the duty to address lay-witness statements.

Olson v. Saul · filed 2021-12-01(c)(1)

The 2017 regulations affected the consideration of evidence from nonmedical sources. It did not, however, eliminate the need for the ALJ to articulate his consideration of lay-witness statements and his reasons for discounting them. Joseph M. R. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 3:18-cv-01779, 2019 WL 4279027, at *12 (D. Or. Sept. 10, 2019). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1) and 416.929(c)(1) state that, in “evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms,” the ALJ must “consider all of the available evidence from…medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [a claimant’s] symptoms affect [him].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, in contrast, sets forth how the ALJ is to consider and articulate medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, and describes factors to be considered when evaluating medical opinions. ... In addition, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and SSR 16-3p have not been ... amended, and both suggest that lay witness statements are among the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) allows nonmedical sources to describe how symptoms affect daily activities and work, and such evidence may be discounted for reasons germane to the witness.

Toback v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-06(a)

Nonmedical sources may testify about how a claimant’s symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Such testimony is “competent evidence” that an ALJ may disregard by giving “reasons germane to each witness for doing so.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s prior work record and observations by other persons, including competent lay statements from family and employers.

Kelley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-11(c)(3)

The regulations regarding the evaluation of symptoms state, “[w]e will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record, your statements about your symptoms, evidence submitted by your medical sources, and observations by our employees and other persons.” ... The ALJ’s failure to consider the lay statements of Plaintiff’s mother and employer was error. This error was harmful because the ALJ ended her inquiry at Step Two in the disability analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of family statements describing symptom-related limitations.

Sheppard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(a), (c)(3)

The ALJ erred in declining to consider the statement from Matthew’s wife.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider evidence from both medical and nonmedical sources about how symptoms affect the claimant.

Roybal v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-08(c)(1)

“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of competent lay testimony from medical and nonmedical sources about how symptoms affect the claimant.

Shaw v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-28(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Section 404.1529(a) evaluates symptom intensity and work effects using claimant statements and source descriptions.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-07(a)

The ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms by considering subjective statements regarding symptoms and pain, as well as any description medical sources and other nonmedical sources provide about how these symptoms affect a claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

An ALJ must consider lay-witness statements as nonmedical evidence about the intensity, persistence, and effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Upshaw v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26(c)(1)

Under the plain language of the regulations, the ALJ must consider lay witness statements: “In evaluating the intensity and persistence” of symptoms, the ALJ “consider[s] all of the available evidence,” including that from “medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [a claimant’s] symptoms affect [him].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1); 416.929(c)(1); see also SSR 16-3p (requiring ALJs to consider other evidence such as other non-medical sources to evaluate symptoms). However, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(d); 416.920c(d), specifies that the ALJ is not required to articulate how he or she considered evidence from nonmedical sources “using the requirements in subparagraphs (a) – (c),” applicable to evaluations of medical opinions.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of observations by family and other nonmedical sources, and an ALJ may not remain silent about material family statements describing symptom limitations.

Kleist v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-03(c)(3)

Though the Commissioner contends that the ALJ’s failure to expressly discuss the statements made by Katie’s parents, husband, and brother does not show reversible error, the Court disagrees.

Evaluating symptom intensity and persistence requires consideration of evidence from both medical and nonmedical sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Shorts v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-18(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of nonmedical-source descriptions of how symptoms affect daily activities, notwithstanding § 404.1520c(d)’s rule that an ALJ need not articulate the evaluation of nonmedical evidence under medical-opinion criteria.

FORJOHN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-05-22(a)

The Commissioner is correct that the cited regulation states that an ALJ is not required to articulate how she considered evidence from nonmedical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(d). However, regulation 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) does require the ALJ to determine if the claimant’s statements about his symptoms are consistent with medical and other evidence in the record, and it further requires consideration of nonmedical sources’ descriptions of how the claimant’s symptoms affect their ability to perform activities of daily living. ... Together Section 404.1529(a) and Burnett required the ALJ to consider Ms. Forjohn’s diary. ... This court should not interpret § 404.1520c(d) to allow the ALJ to ignore such significant evidence, particularly since § 404.1529(a) explicitly required her to consider such evidence.

An ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence must consider available evidence from medical and nonmedical sources about how symptoms affect the claimant.

Johnsen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-23(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to consider nonmedical lay statements about how symptoms affect a claimant and to provide germane reasons before rejecting competent corroborating testimony.

Schnarre v. Saul · filed 2022-09-01(c)(1)

Because the ALJ failed to provide any reason for rejecting competent lay testimony, and the Court concludes the error was not harmless, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s determination that Petitioner can perform work at the medium exertional level as set forth in the ALJ’s RFC determination. Accordingly, remand is warranted on this issue.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of treatment methods and how effectively treatment relieves pain or other symptoms.

Schroeder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-06(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The ALJ also discussed Plaintiff’s treatment modalities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)- (v) (adjudicator properly considers the treatment modalities utilized, and the effectiveness of treatment to relieve pain and other symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of whether a claimant's symptoms can be reasonably controlled by medication or other treatment when evaluating disability.

Wagner v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1999-11-16(c)(3)(iv)

Moreover, whether a symptom can be reasonably controlled by medication or other treatment is also considered in the disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v) (1999); Purdham v. Celebrezze, 349 F.2d 828, 830 (4th Cir. 1965). ... The ALJ also found that Wagner's hypertension did not preclude certain sedentary work because it could be adequately controlled with medication. ... Therefore, the ALJ's conclusion that Wagner does not suffer disabling physical impairments based on the amount of alleged pain is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider medication effectiveness, conservative treatment, and inadequately explained treatment gaps when evaluating symptom testimony.

Cobb Mutter v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-13(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount Mutter’s symptom testimony as inconsistent with and unsupported by the record and based on a lengthy gap in treatment, conservative treatment, and evidence that his conditions were managed with medication.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of treatment and gaps in treatment relevant to evaluating the severity of alleged symptoms.

Pearson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-07(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits considering medication effectiveness and conservative treatment when assessing subjective symptoms.

Kirker v. Saul · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)(iv)

Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, including evidence of improvement with medication or supplements.

East v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-02(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 permits objective evidence and treatment effectiveness to inform symptom severity and disabling effects, but objective evidence alone cannot support rejection.

Morris v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-15(c)(2)-(3)

The effectiveness of medication and treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permits considering the course of treatment and whether that treatment indicates disabling symptom severity.

Hughes v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-23(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

An ALJ can properly consider the course of treatment and whether that treatment is indicative of disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (ALJs may consider the claimant’s “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication. . . .”); (c)(3)(v) (ALJs may consider the claimant’s “[t]reatment, other than medication”).

Although § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom evaluation, an ALJ must evaluate improvement in the context of the claimant’s overall condition.

I. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

While the effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor an ALJ may consider when evaluating subjective symptom testimony, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv–v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv–v), “it is error to reject a claimant’s testimony merely because symptoms wax and wane in the course of treatment,” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017. Rather, reports of improvement in the mental health context “must be interpreted with an understanding of the patient’s overall well-being and the nature of h[is] symptoms.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of treatment relevant when determining the severity of symptoms.

Ivy v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

Furthermore, 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); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

Although § 404.1529(c)(3) makes improvement with treatment relevant, improvement in mental-health symptoms must be evaluated in the context of overall well-being and ability to function in a workplace.

Denzer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-01(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” ... “Reports of ‘improvement’ in the context of mental health issues must be interpreted with an understanding of the patient’s overall well-being and the nature of her symptoms and with an awareness that improved functioning while being treated and while limiting environmental stressors does not always mean that a claimant can function effectively in the workplace.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) permits an ALJ to discount symptom allegations when substantial evidence shows that treatment or medication effectively controlled the symptoms.

(SS) Deyon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-01(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

In evaluating a claimant’s claimed symptoms, an ALJ may find a plaintiff less credible when their symptoms can be controlled by treatment and/or medication. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v); see also Warre v. Comm’r, 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for [disability] benefits.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the amount of treatment and its effectiveness as important indicators of the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Scott v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-12(c)(3)

The ALJ also noted Scott had sought relatively conservative treatment including acupuncture, yoga and massage and reported being “happy with this” pain regimen. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (amount of treatment and its effectiveness is an important indicator of intensity and presence of symptoms); Cf. Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 667 (9th Cir. 2017) (describing significant variety of treatment methods tried by applicant).

An impairment controlled by treatment cannot support a finding of disability based on its symptoms.

Gant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-04-07(c)

Impairments that are controllable or amenable to treatment cannot support a finding of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); see also Houston v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 736 F.2d 365, 367 (6th Cir. 1984). Because the record indicates that Gant’s sleep apnea was being controlled with treatment, there is substantial evidence to conclude that he was not functionally limited by his sleep apnea.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider medication effectiveness and improvement with treatment when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Costley v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-18(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication and improvement with treatment are factors an ALJ may consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

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 reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, considered with all the other evidence.

Betancourt v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-05(a)

Statements 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.

A court will not disturb a symptom finding that complies with subsection (c)’s procedure and is clearly articulated with substantial record support.

Btembke v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-22(c)

As the undersigned has previously addressed them, he will not revisit them at length here except to reiterate that subjective complaint evaluations are the province of the ALJ, and, so long as the ALJ’s finding complies with the procedure set forth by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), a court may not disturb it. See Moore, 405 F.3d at 1212.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints, including pain, and permits discounting the claimant’s account after weighing inconsistencies with the medical and other evidence, provided the rejection is explained explicitly and specifically.

Messmer v. Apfel · filed 2000-09-08(a), (c)(4)

In assessing a disability claim, the ALJ must consider all of claimant’s subjective complaints, including pain. ... After weighing any inconsistencies between the medical evidence and a claimant’s subjective complaints, the AlLJ may discount the claimant’s subjective opinion with respect to the degree of impairment. ... However, if the ALJ decides to “reject subjective testimony concerning pain and other symptoms[, he] ‘must do so explicitly and with sufficient specificity to enable the Court to decide whether there are legitimate reasons for the ALJ’s disbelief and whether his determination is supported by substantial evidence.’ ”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating complaints of pain to explain specifically whether the complaints are unsupported by objective medical evidence or by factors such as medical history, diagnosis, daily activities, work efforts, and functional limitations.

Cloutier v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-23

Moreover, the ALJ’s credibility finding is not set forth with sufficient specificity to enable the Court to determine whether it is supported by substantial evidence. It is impossible to determine whether the ALJ improperly discredited Cloutier’s complaints of debilitating pain on the grounds that they were not supported by objective medical evidence or because they were not supported by her medical history, diagnosis, daily activities, efforts to work and any functional limitations or restrictions caused by the pain.

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

Miocic v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-05(c)(4)

An ALJ must consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4); 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to assess credibility before determining residual functional capacity and consider seven specified factors.

Box v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-14(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

Rather, an ALJ is required to “assess a [claimant’s] credibility before determining his RFC and identify which statements about the intensity and persistence of his symptoms are consistent with specifically identified evidence in the record,” as well as “specify those statements [that the ALJ determines are inconsistent with medical evidence in the record] and explain why he chooses to discredit them with reference to the applicable regulatory factors.” ... Second, “the ALJ failed to consider all of the seven credibility factors pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii),” which also represents a serious flaw in the ALJ’s credibility determination. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ committed legal error in his assessment of the Plaintiffs credibility. On remand, the Court directs the ALJ to consider the Plaintiffs credibility prior to making his RFC assessment and to discuss the seven factors listed in 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3) while rendering his credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about pain and other symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them and requires consideration of inconsistencies with the record.

Valdez v. Colvin · filed 2017-02-03(c)(2), (c)(4)

The SSA has issued regulations relating to reports of pain or other symptoms affecting the ability to work by a claimant for disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). These regulations provide, inter alia, that the SSA “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [her] symptoms have on [her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” Id § 404.1529(c)(2); accord id. § 416.929(c)(2). The regulations also provide that the SSA “will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” Id, §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating the credibility of alleged disabling symptoms, including activities transferable to a work setting.

Campbell v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-28(c)

An ALJ may consider various factors in assessing the credibility of the allegedly disabling subjective symptoms, including the claimant's daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), § 416.929(c). "Engaging in daily activities that are incompatible with the severity of symptoms alleged can support an adverse credibility determination" if the claimant is engaged in activities that transfer to a work setting. See also Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1165 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). Here, the ALJ noted not only Plaintiff's ability to engage in various household tasks, but specifically cited Plaintiff being engaged in yard work, work, volunteer and caregiving activities after the alleged onset date that go beyond simple household chores and would be transferable to a work setting. Therefore, the ALJ properly relied on Plaintiff's daily activities in finding they detracted from Plaintiff's allegations of disabling symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, and subsection (c) requires evaluating the symptoms’ intensity and persistence to determine their impact on the claimant’s ability to work.

Orbin v. Barnhart · filed 2002-06-28(a), (c)

The ALJ must consider the extent to which a claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Accordingly, an ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine their impact on a claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires a two-step symptom analysis: determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on work capacity.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-04(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See e.g., Massey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 409 F. App’x 917, 921 (6th Cir. 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis: objective medical evidence must first document an impairment reasonably expected to cause the alleged symptoms, after which the adjudicator considers the entire record to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on work capacity.

Henry v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-29

Under Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 591-96 (4th Cir. 1996), subjective complaints are evaluated in two steps. First, there must be documentation by objective medical evidence of the presence of an underlying impairment that would reasonably be expected to cause the subjective complaints of the severity and persistence alleged. Not until such underlying impairment is deemed established does the fact-finder proceed to the second step: consideration of the entire record, including objective and subjective evidence, to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms to determine how symptoms limit capacity for work. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR16-3p, *4.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires a two-step process that first identifies a symptom-producing impairment and then evaluates symptom intensity, persistence, and effects on work capacity.

Goode v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-15(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See e.g., Massey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 409 F. App’x 917, 921 (6th Cir. 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c) evaluates the intensity and persistence of symptoms the claimant actually experiences, so symptoms merely associated with a diagnosis are irrelevant absent evidence the claimant experienced them.

Bach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-07(c)

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

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

Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-01(a)

When determining a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect her daily life and ability to work.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom statements, including pain, and how those symptoms affect daily life and the ability to work.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-03(a)

On remand, the ALJ is also reminded that she must consider the claimant’s statements about his symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect his daily life and ability to work.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c)(1) require objective evidence of a symptom-producing impairment followed by consideration of all available evidence to determine symptom persistence and intensity.

Meixner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-08(b)–(c)(1)

In evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony, the ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant presented objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If the claimant has presented such evidence, the ALJ proceeds to consider “all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements from [the claimant],” her doctors, and other persons to determine the persistence and intensity of these symptoms. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step process that identifies a symptom-producing impairment and then evaluates symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Quinn v. Saul · filed 2022-03-24

The governing regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s testimony about subjective complaints of pain and other limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ must determine if the claimant has medically determinable impairments that could produce the alleged symptoms; and second, if the impairments do exist, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work.

Section 404.1529 requires a symptom-producing impairment followed by evaluation of intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Cooper v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-31(a), (c)(1)

The social security regulations set forth a two-step procedure for evaluating a claimant’s statements about the symptoms allegedly caused by his impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ determines whether a medically determinable impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” § 404.1529(a). If so, the ALJ then “evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence” of a claimant’s symptoms and determines how they limit the claimant’s “capacity for work.” § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess symptom intensity and persistence to determine how symptoms restrict work capacity.

Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31

If a claimant meets the pain standard, the ALJ must then assess the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine how they restrict her capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess symptom intensity and persistence to determine how symptoms restrict work capacity.

Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31

If a claimant meets the pain standard, the ALJ must then assess the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine how they restrict his capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms and evaluation of their intensity, persistence, and work effects when a symptom-producing impairment is shown.

Treadway v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(a), (c)(1)

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

Section 404.1529(b) requires evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects after a symptom-producing impairment is shown.

Barreto v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(b)

Second, if an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects”of a claimant's pain or symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit a claimant's capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires a two-step process that identifies a symptom-producing impairment and evaluates symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Peck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-28(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See e.g., Massey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 409 F. App’x 917, 921 (6th Cir. 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires identification of a symptom-producing impairment followed by evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and functional limitations.

DANIELS v. SAUL · filed 2022-04-29(a), (c)

When evaluating subjective complaints, the ALJ must first determine whether a medically determinable impairment exists which could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a). If such an impairment exists and is consistent with the record, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of subjective symptoms to determine if they produce any functional limitation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step assessment of symptoms when determining residual functional capacity.

Snoddy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-18

The ALJ correctly assessed plaintiff’s symptoms following the two-step process required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. See AR 20.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms and evaluation of intensity, persistence, and work effects when a symptom-producing impairment is shown.

Gunther v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(a), (c)(1)

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

In evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, an ALJ must consider all evidence bearing on whether the symptoms are reasonable and how they affect the claimant’s work.

PRATER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-07-21(c)(1)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must consider all the evidence regarding the reasonableness of a claimant’s symptoms and the effect of those symptoms upon the claimant’s work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... After due consideration and a review of the relevant portions of the record, including Plaintiff’s testimony, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s assessment regarding the severity of Prater’s symptoms is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects after an impairment capable of causing the symptoms is established.

McCray v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-03-09(a)-(d)

Having reviewed this evidence, the Court agrees.

Section 404.1529(a) requires considering descriptions of how symptoms affect daily activities and the ability to work when determining disability.

Grecol v. Halter · filed 2002-08-29(a)

Even if Greed’s pain complaints “outweigh” the physiological findings, the psychological sources of his pain are relevant to his capacity to perform basic work functions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we will consider ... any description you, your physician, your psychologist, or other persons may provide about how the symptoms affect your activities of daily living and your ability to work.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider all evidence, including subjective statements, objective medical evidence, laboratory findings, and statements from treating or nontreating sources, when evaluating how symptoms affect disability.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-28(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider “all evidence, including subjective statements about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain [as well as] the objective medical evidence, laboratory findings and statements from treating or nontreating sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant in deciding the issue of disability.” Jarrell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 433 F. App’x 812, 814 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms and their effects, together with relevant objective medical evidence and factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and treatment.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(a), (c)(3)

In making a disability determination, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect her daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *2 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... The ALJ must weigh the claimant’s subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following factors: ... (vii) Other factors concerning functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7–8.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to carefully consider information a claimant submits about symptoms, including their effect on daily activities.

Henderson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-26(c)(3)

But all that § 404.1529(c)(3) requires is the ALJ to “carefully consider any other information you may submit about your symptoms,” including, among other things, how those symptoms affect activities of daily living. The ALJ did precisely that, but nevertheless found that the objective medical evidence outweighed Ms. Henderson’s testimony about her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(vi) allows an ALJ to consider measures a claimant uses to treat or relieve symptoms when evaluating their functional effects.

Champagne v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2002-11-14(c)(3)(vi)

These measures are relevant to the evaluation of her symptoms under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(vi).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(vii) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant's ability to work for years despite a preexisting condition as part of the symptom analysis.

Griffin v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-04(c)(3)(vii)

The ALJ may consider other factors when analyzing a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(vii). A claimant’s ability to work despite a pre-existing condition supports a finding of no disability.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to reject a claimant’s alleged need to lie down during the day when the ALJ considers the testimony, medical evidence, and daily activities and the medical record does not support that limitation.

McKenney v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-18(c)

However, the ALJ considered McKenney’s testimony, including that he naps several times per day, but found that McKenney was not as limited as he alleged. In doing so, the ALJ recounted the medical evidence, none of which indicated that McKenney needed to lie down during the day. The ALJ considered all of the medical evidence, which included both abnormal and unremarkable examination findings, as well as McKenney’s activities of daily living and concluded that McKenney was not as limited as he alleged.

Section 404.1529 does not require an RFC limitation for leg elevation based solely on claimant testimony when no medical evidence indicates that elevation is necessary.

Nackley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-10-10(a)

The ALJ was under no obligation to include a limitation as to leg elevation based solely on Plaintiff’s testimony when none of the medical evidence in the record indicated such a limitation was necessary.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work history as one of the factors bearing on the credibility of subjective complaints of disabling pain.

Campbell v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-24(c)(3)

A claimant’s prior work history is one of many factors an ALJ must consider in assessing the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints of disabling pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 allows ALJs to consider treatment, daily activities, and conflicts with other evidence when evaluating reported symptoms.

Taylor v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-08-14(c)(3)–(4)

ALJs may consider the nature of the claimant’s symptoms, the effectiveness of medication, a claimant’s treatment, a claimant’s daily activities, measures a claimant takes to relieve symptoms, and any conflicts between the claimant’s statements and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)–(4), 416.929(c)(3)–(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits the ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptom statements in relation to statements from treating and examining medical sources.

Eldred v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-03-06(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ was entitled to consider plaintiffs statements about his symptoms in relation to statements by his treating and examining sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an adjudicator evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, pain frequency, medication type, dosage and side effects, and other treatment that relieves pain.

Valder v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-25(c)

In so concluding, the ALJ properly considered plaintiffs testimony and weighed it in accordance with various factors, including plaintiffs daily activities, the frequency of pain, the type, dosage, and side effects of medication, and other treatment that relieves pain.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Hoffman v. Astrue · filed 2007-12-13(c)(3)(i)

Although a claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not necessarily disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1441, that does not mean it is improper for the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities at all. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (specifically listing the claimant’s daily activities as one of the factors to consider in evaluating the claimant’s symptoms).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and specified evidence about the claimant's pain, treatment, and functional limitations.

Torres v. Astrue · filed 2008-05-05

In assessing a claimant’s credibility, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence, as well as evidence concerning: (1) the plaintiffs daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the plaintiffs pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate or aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of plaintiffs medications; (5) other means of pain relief received by the plaintiff; (6) non-treatment measures used by plaintiff for pain relief; and (7) any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions. ... Accordingly, I find that the ALJ properly concluded that while the plaintiffs medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to result in some level of pain or discomfort, plaintiffs references to debilitating back and leg pain appeared exaggerated in light of the objective medical evidence, and were inconsistent with the level of impairment that plaintiff has alleged.

Section 404.1529(c) directs adjudicators evaluating symptoms and credibility to consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, treatment history, and the type, dosage, and side effects of medications, including all medications taken.

Brihn v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-16(c)

The ALJ’s credibility evaluation was not clearly incorrect. ALJs must substantiate their credibility findings with specific and logical reasons, based on the record as a whole, Giles ex rel. Giles v. Astrue, 483 F.3d 483, 488-89 (7th Cir. 2007), and should consider such factors as objective medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the claimant’s treatment history; and the type, dosage, and side effects of any medications, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). It is true that Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 2001) held that activities much like Brihn’s (including preparing children for school, cooking meals, cleaning up the house, shopping, and doing laundry and dishes) do not necessarily undermine a claim of disabling pain. And the ALJ should have mentioned all of the drugs that Brihn took, not just Ultram. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). But the ALJ offered other specific reasons for disbelieving Brihn’s account: there was little objective medical evidence (e.g., no record of muscle atrophy), and Brihn’s sparse treatment history—only four visits to Dr. Butwinick in six years—seemed inconsistent with disability.

Section 404.1529(c) identifies factors an ALJ should consider when evaluating a claimant’s self-reported symptoms, including objective medical evidence, treatment history, and medication type, dosage, and side effects.

BOLLAS v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-08(c)

An ALJ should consider such factors as objective medical evidence, claimant’s treatment history, and the type, dosage and side effects of any medication. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms against the medical and other evidence, apply a two-step analysis of the impairment and the symptoms' intensity and persistence, and assess their effect on the claimant's capacity to work.

Roat v. Barnhart · filed 2010-06-07

An ALJ must consider all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms are consistent with the medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2003). This is a two-step analysis whereby the ALJ “first determines] whether the claimant has medically determinable impairments which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged,” and then whether in light of those impairments, “the intensity and persistence of the symptoms ... limit the claimant’s capacity to work.”

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant's treatment and the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication when evaluating the credibility and limiting effects of symptoms.

SOLSBEE v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-23(c)(3)

In determining a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must also consider the treatment received, and the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) provides factors an ALJ must consider when evaluating alleged pain and other symptoms, and the ALJ need not make separate written findings on every factor.

Phelps v. SSA · filed 2011-07-07(c)(3)

In assessing credibility, the "regulations recognize that a person's symptoms may be more severe than the objective medical evidence suggests. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Therefore, the regulations provide six factors (known as the Avery factors) that will be considered when an applicant alleges pain." ... "In addition, to the extent the ALJ did not discuss every Averv factor, he did not err as a matter of law. "While the ALJ must consider each of these factors, there is no requirement that he make specific findings regarding each of the factors in his written decision." ... "the ALJ fulfilled his obligation to consider the Averv factors when he "thoroughly questioned the claimant regarding [her] daily activities, functional restrictions, medication, prior work record, and frequency and duration of pain . . . in conformity with . . . A v e r v ." Xd.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements in relation to objective medical evidence and consider signs, laboratory findings, and source statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Megginson v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-17(c)(4)

Third, we conclude that the ALJ’s thorough review of Mr. Megginson’s medical records supports his adverse credibility finding in this case. See Joint App. at A46-A50; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence,” and “[w]e will consider . . . the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your treating or nontreating source . . . about how your symptoms affect you”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence when evaluating symptoms and credibility.

Gutierrez-Gonzalez v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-19(c)(4)

An ALJ must consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4); 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to apply its symptom-evaluation standards when assessing a claimant’s subjective testimony about pain.

Micheli v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-25

Additionally, this argument is without merit in any event because the ALJ complied with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 96-7p, Policy Interpretation Ruling Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims: Assessing the Credibility of an Individual’s Statements, July 2, 1996 (SSA 1996), in determining that Micheli’s testimony concerning his subjective experience of pain was not fully credible.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider regulatory factors and record evidence when evaluating a claimant’s credibility regarding symptoms.

Brent v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-17(c)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors imposed by the regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and must support a credibility finding with evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant's symptoms by considering their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, along with the listed regulatory factors.

Misener v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-20(a), (b), (c)(3)

Rather than stop there, however, the ALJ proceeded to discuss the entire record over the next seven pages of his decision in an analysis that proceeded through each of the factors found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... In short, the ALJ covered every one of the factors the Commissioner aims to consider when determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, and he covered them at a fair level of detail.

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

Boylan v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-24(b)

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.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs the ALJ to evaluate symptoms by considering inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence.

Weirback v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-09-04(c)(4)

Further, the doctor who performed the residual functional capacity assessment accounted for Weirback’s complaints and found that he could perform sedentary work with occasional stopping and crouching and that he had exaggerated the severity of his complaints. See Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 226 (11th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (evaluating symptoms based on “any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the] statements [of the claimant] and the rest of the evidence”).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistency between a claimant’s testimony about symptom limitations and other substantial evidence when evaluating that testimony.

Kaighn v. Colvin · filed 2014-02-06(c)

To be sure, inconsistency between a claimant’s testimony about the limiting effect of symptoms and other substantial evidence in the record can be a valid reason to discount the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). But the statements and medical evidence that the ALJ relied on to discount Mr. Kaighn’s testimony are not inconsistent.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms when the impairment could reasonably produce them, using medical and other evidence including aggravating factors, treatment, and daily activities.

McKinley v. SSA · filed 2014-02-26(c), (c)(3)

When a claimant demonstrates that her impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms she alleges, the ALJ is required to determine the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In making that determination, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant's "statements about the effects of her symptoms ... in light of the medical evidence and other evidence such as precipitating and aggravating factors, medications and treatment, and how the symptoms affect the applicant's daily living." Syms v. Astrue, 2011 WL 2972122, at *4 (D.N.H. July 21, 2011) (DiClerico, J.) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)).

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

Porter v. Astrue · filed 2013-06-28(c)(2)

This evaluation must be “based on a consideration of the entire record,” and statements “may not be disregarded solely because they are not substantiated by objective medical evidence.” SSR 96-7p at *1; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529 requires careful consideration of information about a claimant’s symptoms because symptoms may indicate greater impairment than objective medical evidence alone shows.

Henn v. Colvin · filed 2013-09-30

“Since symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone, we will carefully consider any other information you may submit about your symptoms.”

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

Suess v. Colvin · filed 2013-05-10(c)(3)

In determining credibility 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.

Section 404.1529 requires medical signs or laboratory findings establishing a medically determinable impairment before symptoms may be found to affect a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Frank Seeley, Jr. v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-01-23(d)

A claimant’s “symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, or nervousness, will not be found to affect [the claimant’s] ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate subjective symptoms: determine whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity and limiting effects using the record and specified factors.

Miller v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-12(a), (b), and (c)(3)

The Social Security regulations require a two-step process for the ALJ to consider the extent to which subjective evidence of symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical and other objective' evidence. ... First, the ALJ considers whether the medical evidence shows any impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Second, if an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of a claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). ... In the instant case, the ALJ properly applied the two step analysis.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider objective medical evidence, the claimant’s statements about symptom intensity and persistence, and other relevant evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Conde v. Colvin, SSA · filed 2016-01-25(c)

The ALJ then considers the objective medical evidence in the record, the claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of symptoms, and other evidence, such as the claimant’s daily activities, precipitating and aggravating factors, treatment, and medications. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). “It is the ALJ’s prerogative to resolve conflicting evidence, and [the court] must affirm such a determination, even if the record could justify a different conclusion so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.” Vazquez-Rosario v. Barnhart, 149 F. App’s 8, 10 (1st Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rodriguez v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 647 F.2d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1981) Conde appears to charge that the ALJ made only a conclusory statement about her lack of credibility. She is mistaken. The ALJ provided a thorough analysis to support her conclusion that Conde’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [her] symptoms are not entirely credible.” See Admin. Rec. 23-25. Therefore, Conde has not shown that the ALJ erred in assessing her credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom assessment: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence using objective and claimant-submitted evidence.

Vega v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-02(b), (c)

A hearing officer’s credibility assessment involves two steps. See Amaral v. Comm’r of Social Security, 797 F.Supp.2d 154, 161 (D.Mass.2010). First, the hearing officer must establish whether a claimant has “a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [his or her] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If the hearing officer concludes that such impairment exists, she then proceeds to “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [those] symptoms” in order to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). This necessarily involves consideration of “objective medical evidence” as well as evidence submitted by the claimant concerning the claimant’s “daily activities;” the “location, duration, frequency, and intensity” of the symptoms; “precipitating and aggravating factors;” and any treatment the claimant has used for his or her symptoms (including medications and other forms of treatment or practical measures). Id.; see also Avery v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 797 F.2d 19, 29 (1st Cir.1986).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs the ALJ to focus symptom-credibility analysis on inconsistencies related to the claimant’s symptoms and their effects, not unrelated inconsistencies.

Martinez v. Berryhill · filed 2017-12-07(c)(4)

A large part of the ALJ’s discussion of Martinez’s credibility concerned apparent inconsistencies unrelated to her symptoms, when the ALJ should have focused on testimony as to Martinez’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996); see also SSR 16-3P, 2016 WL 1119029, at *1 (Mar. 16, 2016).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms with the medical evidence and not base an impairment or disability finding solely on the claimant’s description of symptoms.

Obryk v. Colvin · filed 2017-12-20

These evaluation requirements stem from 20 CFR § 404.1529, as well as Social Security Ruling 96-7p, which was the policy ruling in effect at the time of this Agency decision. The SSR supports the requirements set out in the regulation that state the existence of a physical or mental impairment, or the determination that a claimant is disabled, cannot be based solely on the claimant’s description of symptoms. See SSR 96-7p, WL 374186 (S.S.A.), *2-3 (July 2, 1996). These symptoms assessments are used by the ALJ in conjunction with credibility determinations to assist in making a finding on the existence, or non-existence of a physical or mental impairment rising to the level of a disability. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s current or past treatment and medication dosage, effectiveness, and side effects when evaluating symptoms.

Ashcraft v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-10-02(c)(3)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider things such as plaintiff’s current or past treatment; and any medication including the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of that medication.

Section 404.1529’s symptom-evaluation analysis largely mirrors the Polaski factors, and an ALJ’s credibility determination need not expressly recite those factors if it is sufficient under circuit precedent.

Dixon v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-03-02

While the Eighth Circuit prefers that the ALJ’s analysis expressly cites the Polaski factors, “an analysis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, … largely mirror[s] the Polaski factors.” ... The ALJ’s credibility determination, though it is less thorough than a reviewing court would desire, and though it fails to expressly discuss the Polaski factors, is sufficient under the precedent of this Circuit to support the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to determine whether a claimant's allegations can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Lopez v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-03(a)

As the Commissioner seemingly concedes [Dkt. # 14, at 9], this is a misstatement of the applicable law, which requires that the ALJ determine whether a claimant's allegations "can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence."

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

Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-12-12(c)

An ALJ’s analysis should consider the claimant’s daily activities; the frequency and intensity of her symptoms; the dosage and side effects of medications; non-medication treatment; factors that aggravate her condition; and functional restrictions that result from, or are used to treat, the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p. When considering a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must build a logical bridge between his or her statements and the record.

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

Burgos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-29(c)(4)

This was also a permissible factor for the ALJ to consider in evaluating Claimant’s symptoms, as inconsistencies between the evidence and Claimant’s allegations “may suggest symptom exaggeration.” Jones v. Astrue, 623 F.3d 1155, 1161 (7th Cir. 2010); see Curvin, 778 F.3d at 651 (upholding subjective symptom evaluation based on various inconsistencies between the claimant’s alleged symptoms and other evidence); Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 314 (7th Cir. 1995) (finding that “[a]n ALJ may discount subjective complaints of pain that are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (June 13, 2011 to Mar. 26, 2017) (explaining that in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ “will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence”).