20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the Commissioner to consider factors such as daily activities, the characteristics of pain or other symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, treatment, symptom-relief measures, and functional limitations when evaluating symptoms.

Lawrence v. Saul · filed 2020-07-31(c)(3)

In identical terms, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) list “Factors relevant to . . . symptoms, such as pain, which [the Commissioner] will consider”: (i) Your daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of your pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats medical evidence as a relevant factor in determining the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain.

Betsch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-25(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989). However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating reported symptoms to consider the claimant’s daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, other treatment, symptom-relief measures, and other factors concerning functional limitations.

Pizzarelli v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-01(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The ALJ must consider (1) the claimant’s daily activities, (2) the duration, location, frequency and intensity of the claimant’s pain, (3) precipitating and aggravating factors, (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any ... medications that the claimant takes, (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received, (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain, and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how symptoms affect the claimant when evaluating symptoms.

Jordan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5. ... Here, the ALJ complied with the regulations by “consider[ing] all symptoms” in light of the medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e); (Tr. 29). Further, the ALJ gave a thorough summary of Jordan’s subjective complaints, the objective medical evidence, and the medical opinion evidence – specifically discussing Jordan’s testimony and Dr. Khooblall’s findings related to his left shoulder. (Tr. 29-36).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider relevant factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, and other functional limitations.

Schillo v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ meaningfully addressed most of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3). ... It is clear after a review of the record evidence that the relevant factors were considered and did not need to be explicitly recited.

Section 404.1529(a) requires symptom evaluation to consider a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Sims v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-30(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication relevant to evaluating symptoms, but an ALJ must address a claimant’s legitimate explanation for declining prescription medication before relying on that choice to discount the symptoms.

Tuttle v. Saul · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s record of treatment for his impairment is similarly flawed. The record supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff did not treat his pain with prescription medications including opioids (A.R. at 55). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) ("[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication . . . taken to alleviate . . . pain or other symptoms" is one factor the ALJ considers in assessing symptoms such as pain); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (same). ... Plaintiff, however, had an eminently reasonable explanation for this choice. ... The ALJ never questioned Plaintiff about why he declined prescription medication and she did not address the legitimate explanation he offered for his choice.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to examine the entire case record, including objective evidence, the claimant’s statements, information from medical and other sources, and other relevant evidence.

Sullins v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-27(c)

In doing so, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” ; at *4-7 (elaborating on factors to consider); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (same). ... The ALJ properly assessed the consistency between Ms. Sullins’ reported symptoms and the medical evidence of record. Thus, reversal is not warranted.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) through (4) permit an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider objective medical evidence, treatment history, response to medication and other treatment, sources of pain relief, and daily activities.

Taylor v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2021-06-17(c)(1)-(4)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ may consider a variety of factors, including: objective medial evidence, treatment history, response to medication and other treatments, sources of pain relief, and the claimant’s daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(4). ... The ALJ’s reliance upon the objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s response to treatment are adequate reasons to partially reject Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) through (3) require an ALJ to evaluate symptom intensity and persistence using the claimant’s history and statements, medical evidence and opinions, daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional restrictions.

Wood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-25(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including, but not limited to, the claimant’s history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. § 404.1529(c)(1)–(3). Factors relevant to the ALJ’s consideration regarding a claimant’s allegations of pain include: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives for pain; (6) measures used for pain relief; and (7) other factors pertaining to functional limitations and restrictions to pain. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii). ... Because the ALJ provided adequate reasons for discounting Claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, Claimant’s first assignment of error is unpersuasive.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider treatment efforts, regular medical contact, the interaction of psychological and physical problems, daily activities, and medication effectiveness and side effects.

Nonnen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-30(c)(3)

Factors the ALJ should consider in this analysis include: • the claimant’s attempts to find relief and willingness to try any treatment prescribed; • a claimant’s regular contact with a doctor; • the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; • the claimant’s daily activities; and • the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication. , 695 F.3d 1156, 1167 (10th Cir. 2012); SSR 16-3p at *7 (listing similar factors); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider all available evidence and relevant factors including daily activities, pain characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and functional restrictions.

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

In doing so, an ALJ should consider subjective complaints in light of “all of the available evidence,” such as objective medical evidence and other evidence from medical and nonmedical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). An ALJ should consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8 (noting that relevant factors include daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; type of treatment received; any measures other than treatment; and any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions). ... In sum, the ALJ cited to multiple factors in support of his determination, and properly evaluated the consistency of plaintiffs statements according to the regulatory factors. The ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2), as construed by the court, requires an ALJ evaluating subjective pain to consider daily activities, pain characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, and other relief measures in relation to the medical and other evidence.

Paris v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-20(c)(2)

When analyzing the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must also consider the following factors and how they relate to the medical and other evidence in the record: the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of claimant’s pain; the precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage and effect of medication; and the other treatment or measures to relieve pain. See Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1039 (6th Cir. 1994), construing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). After evaluating these factors in conjunction with the evidence in the record, and by making personal observations of the claimant at the hearing, an ALJ may determine that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and other disabling symptoms are not credible. ... As can be seen, the ALJ’s decision specifically addresses in great detail not only the medical evidence, but also Plaintiff’s testimony and her subjective claims, clearly indicating that these factors were considered. Id. It is clear from the ALJ’s detailed articulated rationale that, although there is evidence which could support Plaintiff’s claims, the ALJ chose to rely on medical findings that were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations. This is within the ALJ’s province.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating the severity of a claimant's symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, the effectiveness of medication, and treatment other than medication.

Gang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

In addition, the regulations list a variety of factors an ALJ must consider in evaluating the severity of symptoms, including a claimant’s daily activities; the effectiveness of medication; and treatment other than medication. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (July 2, 1996); but see Ewing v. Astrue, No. 1:10-cv-1792, 2011 WL 3843692, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2011) (suggesting that although an ALJ is required to consider such factors, he or she is not required to discuss every factor within the written decision) report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 3843703, (N.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2011).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ assessing symptom intensity and persistence to consider the whole record, including specified nonmedical factors, and specifically explain why subjective pain statements are unsupported rather than cherry-picking isolated facts.

McCameron v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-27(c)(3)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ must consider all available evidence from a claimant’s medical sources and nonmedical sources. Notably, ALJs must “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.” Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p. at *5. The objective medical record is just one of several factors that ALJs must consider. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Other factors include the claimant’s daily activities, the “location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms,” precipitating and aggravating factors, the effectiveness of any prescribed medication, and any treatment the claimant has received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). In addition, the ALJ must specifically articulate why and on what basis he concludes that plaintiff’s subjective statements about pain are unsupported by the record. Id. ... Because the ALJ selected cherry-picked facts from the record that supported a finding of non-disability, but did not cite facts that supported a finding of disability, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not “specifically articulate why and on what basis . . . plaintiff’s subjective statements about pain are unsupported by the record” in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed symptom-evaluation factors but does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation if the ALJ identifies the specific evidence used to assess the claimant's statements.

Clements v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-30(c)(3)

Factors the ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include the claimant’s attempts to find relief and willingness to try any treatment prescribed; a claimant’s regular contact with a doctor; the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; the claimant’s daily activities; and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication. Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167; see also SSR 16-3p at *7 (listing similar factors); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... However, so long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (cleaned up). “[C]ommon sense, not technical perfection, is [the reviewing court’s] guide.” Id. ... Although the ALJ’s use of Plaintiff’s strong work history to discount her subjective symptoms is questionable, he made it clear in his decision that he did not base his consistency analysis on her work history alone. As set forth above, the ALJ provided a number of other reasons supported by the record to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and his consistency analysis is thus supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom-evaluation factors, but an ALJ need not recite every factor when the decision makes the reasoning and adherence to the regulation clear.

Gorman, Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-05(c)(3)

At this second step, the ALJ must consider: (1) Plaintiff’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of Plaintiff’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication Plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (5) other treatment Plaintiff receives or has received to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures that Plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning Plaintiff’s functional limitations and restrictions due to his pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... The ALJ’s adherence to the regulations is clear and his reasoning can be gleaned from the record; therefore, any error in his evaluation statement was harmless. See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31-32 (2d Cir. 2004) (the courts require no such slavish recitation of each and every factor where the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear). ... Overall, the ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, including pain, and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms not fully supported by clinical evidence to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medications, treatment, and other symptom-relief measures.

Beard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-06(c)(3)(i)-(vi)

However, there are some impairments, like Plaintiff’s migraines, which cannot be proven by clinical evidence such as laboratory tests. In this case, the ALJ considers other factors. ... These factors include: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken; (5) other treatment received; and (6) other measures taken to relieve symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi); 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vi); see also Ortiz v. Astrue, 875 F.Supp. 2d 251 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).” Norman v. Astrue, 912 F. Supp. 2d 33, 43 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). ... The medical records show an improvement in Plaintiff’s migraines, and do not support the extreme limitations Plaintiff alleges in her subjective testimony. ... The ALJ sufficiently pointed to the inconsistency between Plaintiff’s subjective testimony and the record evidence; therefore, substantial evidence’ supports the ALJ’s findings regarding Plaintiff's subjective testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider objective and opinion evidence, the nature and efficacy of treatment, and the claimant's activities.

Stobbe v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)

In sum, the ALJ’s decision shows that he took plaintiff’s subjective claims seriously, despite the lack objective medical support, crafting a detailed RFC specifically addressing her claims. That discussion touched on the pertinent regulatory factors, including the objective medical and opinion evidence, the nature and efficacy of the treatment plaintiff received, and plaintiff’s activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). I find no reversible error in the ALJ’s symptom evaluation.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(4) requires an ALJ evaluating how symptoms affect work capacity to consider objective evidence, the nature of the symptoms, daily activities, aggravating factors, medication effectiveness, treatment and relief measures, and conflicts between the claimant's statements and other evidence.

Plott v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-10(c)(2)-(4)

In evaluating the extent to which the plaintiff’s symptoms, such as pain, affect his capacity to perform basic work activities, the ALJ will consider (1) objective medical evidence, (2) the nature of the plaintiff’s symptoms, (3) the plaintiff’s daily activities, (4) precipitating and aggravating factors, (5) the effectiveness of medication, (6) treatment sought for relief of symptoms, (7) any measures the plaintiff takes to relieve symptoms, and (8) any conflicts between a plaintiff’s statements and the rest of evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), (3), (4), 416.929(c)(2), (3), (4); SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49,463 n.3. In order to discredit a plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ must clearly “articulate explicit and adequate reasons.” See Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210. ... Overall, there was substantial evidence in the record from which the ALJ could draw the conclusion that Plott’s subjective symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence. (Tr. 15–17). ... It is this inconsistency between Plott’s claimed total disability on one hand, and the objective medical evidence and evidence of his daily activities on the other that justifies the ALJ discrediting his testimony. This explanation is adequate under the Eleventh Circuit’s standards.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider each listed symptom-evaluation factor but, unlike regulations expressly requiring articulation, does not require the ALJ to methodically discuss every factor.

Thomas v. Saul · filed 2021-08-12(c)

Other evidence includes: 1) the claimant’s daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptom; 3) precipitating and aggravating factors; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the symptom; 5) other treatment the complainant receives for his or her symptoms; 6) measures the claimant has taken to relieve the pain; and 7) functional limitations and restrictions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), vacated 476 U.S. 1167 (1986), adhered to on remand, 804 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1986). The ALJ must consider each factor but need not methodically discuss each. See Partee v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 860, 865 (8th Cir. 2011). ... However, ALJs need not expressly discuss each Polaski factor. See Partee, 638 F.3d at 865. When the Social Security Administration requires ALJs to express their thought process, it says so. Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (requiring ALJs to “consider” certain factors when weighing medical opinions and to “articulate” a subset of those factors) to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (only requiring ALJs to “consider” certain factors while evaluating symptoms). ... Here, the ALJ expressly discussed plaintiff’s daily activities, the location of her pain, and her medicine. (Tr. 19-20.) The Court is satisfied that the ALJ sufficiently considered objective medical evidence and other evidence of plaintiff’s pain, as required by Polaski and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Petitioner’s first argument is without merit.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) requires an ALJ evaluating unsupported symptom allegations to consider the seven listed factors and make a specific determination explaining how those factors were balanced and identifying inconsistencies with the record.

Calo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The ALJ must consider (1) the claimant’s daily activities, (2) the duration, location, frequency and intensity of the claimant’s pain, (3) precipitating and aggravating factors, (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications that the claimant takes, (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received, (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain, and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Although the ALJ determined that the plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of [her] symptoms [were] not entirely consistent with the medical evidence[,]” she did not explain how the plaintiff’s testimony was inconsistent with the record. (Tr. 254.) Observing that the plaintiff’s treatment “remained fairly conservative,” the ALJ did not consider the duration of the plaintiff’s treatment, the dosage change in her pain medication over time, or the recent intensity of her symptoms. (Tr. 254.) ... On remand, the ALJ should also include a specific credibility determination, explain how she balanced the various factors, and identify any inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s testimony and the rest of the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom-evaluation factors but does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ identifies the specific evidence used to assess consistency.

Burcham v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

Factors the ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include the claimant’s attempts to find relief and willingness to try any treatment prescribed; a claimant’s regular contact with a doctor; the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; the claimant’s daily activities; and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication. Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167; see also SSR 16-3p at *7 (listing similar factors); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... However, so long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (cleaned up). “[C]ommon sense, not technical perfection, is [the reviewing court’s] guide.” Id. ... The ALJ thus linked his consistency findings to the evidence and provided clear and specific reasons for his determination in compliance with the directives of Cowan and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to examine the claimant's daily activities, symptom duration, frequency and intensity, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, and functional restrictions, without requiring a methodical discussion of each factor.

Adams v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-08-20(c)(3)

The Court notes that in assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.3 See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). The factors to consider are as follows: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the functional restrictions. See Polaski, 739 at 1322. The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to assess subjective complaints under seven symptom-related factors, but failure to specifically reference one factor does not undermine an assessment supported by substantial evidence whose rationale can be gleaned from the record.

Schramm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating pain to consider medical-source evidence, observations, daily activities, symptom descriptions, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and other relief measures, and to discount statements inconsistent with the record.

DURBIANO v. SAUL · filed 2021-08-24(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s statements regarding pain, the ALJ will consider evidence from treating, examining, and consulting physicians; observations from agency employees; and other factors such as the claimant’s daily activities; descriptions of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications; treatment other than medication; and other measures used to relieve the pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. ... Here, the ALJ followed the two-step evaluation process and specifically stated that he considered “all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p.” (R. 20) He comprehensively discussed the medical evidence and record testimony supporting his findings and also considered Durbiano’s statements and testimony regarding his activities. (R. 20-21). ... In this Court’s view, the record provides substantial support for the ALJ’s decision to discount Durbiano’s subjective statements as inconsistent with the record is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and other relief measures in light of the entire record.

Tate v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: “(1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the ‘duration, frequency, and intensity’ of the claimant’s symptoms; (3) ‘[p]recipitating and aggravating factors’; (4) the effectiveness and side effects of any medications; and (5) treatment or other measures taken by the claimant to alleviate symptoms.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c)(3)). The ALJ must consider these factors given all of the evidence of record. Id. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ considered all of the evidence of record and clearly articulated reasons to find Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her alleged symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess symptom intensity and persistence using objective evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations, with specific record-supported reasons.

Ellis v. Saul · filed 2021-09-09(c)

In order to cohesively assess Claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ separated those complaints into three general categories: Claimant’s cardiac symptoms, his need to elevate his feet, and his respiratory issues. (R. 28-31). She then tackled whether each category was consistent with the objective medical evidence, activities of daily living, course of treatment, and functional limitations. In so doing, the ALJ considered the necessary factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and adequately justified her subjective symptom evaluation with “specific reasons supported by the record,” Pepper, 712 F.3d at 367, as discussed below.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) evaluates whether symptom statements are consistent with objective medical and other evidence but does not require an ALJ to discuss every relevant factor explicitly.

Hutson v. Saul · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)

This was once referred to as a credibility determination, but the agency has now eliminated use of the term “credibility” to clarify that subjective symptom evaluation is not an examination of an individual’s character. However, the analysis remains largely the same, so the Court’s use of the term credibility refers to the ALJ’s evaluation of whether a claimant’s “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record.” See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3); Lawrence v. Saul, 970 F.3d 989, 995 n.6 (8th Cir. 2020) (noting that SSR 16-3p “largely changes terminology rather than the substantive analysis to be applied” when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints). ... As the Commissioner correctly points out, an ALJ does not need to explicitly discuss every Polaski factor in his decision. Bryant v. Colvin, 861 F.3d 779, 782 (8th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). Here, it is clear that the ALJ “used numerous facts to assess [Hutson’s] credibility” before ultimately finding that the objective evidence in the record was not consistent with her subjective complaints. Id. The record supports the ALJ’s finding.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to specifically list and separately discuss every enumerated symptom-evaluation factor when the decision demonstrates appropriate consideration of the relevant areas.

Jennings v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

The undersigned finds the Commissioner’s arguments on this issue controlling in as much as there is no persuasive authority cited by Plaintiff for the proposition that the ALJ must specifically list and separately discuss each item identified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). As demonstrated by the Commissioner, the ALJ here appropriately cited to, and discussed many of the areas addressed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(3) requires an ALJ who finds an impairment capable of causing alleged symptoms to consider all evidence of their intensity, persistence, and functional effects, including the regulation’s listed factors.

Goodwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(a), (c)(3)

Once a claimant establishes that her pain is disabling through “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows . . . a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms,” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), “all evidence about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms must be considered in addition to the medical signs and laboratory findings in deciding the issue of disability,” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561. ... Here, the ALJ found that while Plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, her statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” (Tr. 30.) ... The ALJ provided explicit and adequate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for his evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ did not meaningfully address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) lacks merit.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the second step of symptom evaluation to assess intensity, persistence, and functional effects against the entire record, including medical findings, opinions, and information about how symptoms affect work.

Gregorio v. Saul · filed 2021-09-16(c)

During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire ... case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16–3p. This includes but is not limited to: medical signs and laboratory findings, diagnosis and other medical opinions provided by treating or examining sources, and other medical sources, as well as information concerning the claimant's symptoms and how they affect his or her ability to work. Id. ... While Gregorio notes that she has repeatedly complained of pain and limitations, her medical record, activities of daily living, and hearing testimony provided a basis for concluding that she could perform some work.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluating the intensity, persistence, and work-related effects of pain from all relevant evidence, but pain alone does not establish disability and an ALJ need not expressly analyze every factor when no evidence supports additional functional limitations.

Myers v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-03(c)(1), (c)(3)-(4)

When a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce pain, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how it limits the capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... The ALJ did not expressly analyze the other relevant factors, but Plaintiff points to no evidence in the record that the pain causes her any specific functional limitations, that her pain does not respond to pain medication, or that her pain medication or pain relief measures result in functional limitations inconsistent with sedentary work. The mere existence of pain does not automatically require a finding of disability; it must instead be determined whether substantial evidence indicates an applicant can work despite having pain. Mulet-Rivera v. Barnhart, 437 F. Supp. 2d 616, 634 (S.D. Tex. 2006). Based on the record, the Court does not doubt that Myers suffers from pain, but substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision that Myers can maintain sedentary employment despite her pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires evaluation of symptom testimony against all record evidence, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication effects, treatment, and other relief measures, with explicit reasons for discounting the testimony.

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

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: “(1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the ‘duration, frequency, and intensity’ of the claimant’s symptoms; (3) ‘[p]recipitating and aggravating factors’; (4) the effectiveness and side effects of any medications; and (5) treatment or other measures taken by the claimant to alleviate symptoms.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c)(3)). The ALJ must consider these factors given all of the evidence of record. Id. And if the ALJ discredits this testimony, then the ALJ “‘must clearly articulate explicit and adequate reasons for’ doing so.” Id. (quoting Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210). The ALJ may consider the consistency of the claimant’s statements along with the rest of the record to reach this determination. Id. ... Because the Court is remanding this action in part for the Commissioner to reconsider Plaintiff’s subjective complaints related to her fibromyalgia limitations, the Court will also require the Commissioner to reconsider Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms as they relate to all of Plaintiff’s limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) requires evaluating symptom intensity and persistence using all available evidence and permits symptoms to diminish work capacity to the extent they are reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

Vodrazka v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(c)(3)-(4)

“[S]ymptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish [a claimant's] capacity for basic work activities to the extent that ... [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms considering all of the available evidence; and, to the extent that the claimant's pain contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii); Taylor v. Barnhart, 83 Fed. Appx. 347, 350– 51 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary order). ... The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. In his decision, the ALJ made repeated, specific reference to Plaintiff’s complaints regarding her pain: he noted her testimony about constant spine and leg pain and her consequent surgeries (Tr. 16), her complaints of pain to her primary care physician (Tr. 18), her complaints of pain to her orthopedists (Tr. 17), and to the consultative examiners (Tr. 14, 17). Further, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s reports of her daily activities, and the various attempts at treatment and pain mitigation. Tr. 16 (noting Plaintiff’s four surgeries); Tr. 17 (noting Plaintiff’s reports that physical therapy made the pain worse, but narcotics improved her symptoms). Taking all of this evidence into account, as well as the other evidence in the record, the ALJ concluded that “the longitudinal medical record is not entirely supportive of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of Plaintiff’s allegations of pain. Tr. 18. For the reasons cited above, the Court finds that the ALJ’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of other information and factors when alleged symptoms suggest greater severity than objective evidence shows.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

When, as in this case, the reported pain and/or other symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the Administrative Law Judge will consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of objective evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures,, treatment, and other functional restrictions.

DAUS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing the following factors to consider: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, currently received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures currently used or have used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms).

Section 404.1529(a)–(c)(3) requires a two-step inquiry into whether an impairment could produce alleged symptoms and, if so, their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects under seven specified factors, with specific reasons for discounting testimony.

Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(a)-(c)(3)

The ALJ properly identified the required two-step process for evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements, first determining whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment “that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms,” and second, once such an impairment has been shown, “evaluat[ing] the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations.” (Tr. at 12.); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)-(b). Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p establishes that the ALJ must evaluate at step two using “the [seven] factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3).” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7 (October 25, 2017). ... The ALJ’s abbreviated analysis did not clearly evaluate the plaintiff’s credibility according to the seven factors above as required by the regulations and SSR 16-3p cited supra. For example, the ALJ neglected to consider the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of Plaintiff’s pain, as well as the factors that precipitate and aggravate Plaintiff’s symptoms (such as sitting for prolonged periods of time). The ALJ also failed to consider measures other than treatment Plaintiff uses to relieve pain (such as lying flat on his back). Accordingly, the ALJ’s incomplete analysis warrants remand. See, e.g., Wright v. Astrue, No. 06-cv-6014 (FB), 2008 WL 620733, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2008); Tornatore, 2006 WL 3714649, at *6; Valet, 2012 WL 194970, at *22 (remanding where the ALJ did not consider all seven of the factors required.) On remand, the ALJ must thoroughly evaluate plaintiff’s credibility with sufficient specificity, and specifically apply the seven factors.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using objective evidence and seven listed medical and nonmedical factors.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(c)

The record includes multiple impairments that meet the first two steps or sets of criteria under § 404.1529. The ALJ acknowledged that Ramírez has several impairments that can be shown by objective medical evidence from an accepted source. See, e.g., Tr. 116. Furthermore, it appears entirely reasonable that certain of these impairments, such as Ramírez’s lupus, hypertension, kidney disease, or anemia, could produce Ramírez’s relevant symptoms (such as the swelling that plays a role in her having difficulty sitting or standing for too long). As a result, the ALJ should have proceeded to consider both the objective medical evidence and the other factors cited at the third step within § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom factors but does not require explicit discussion of every factor before discounting complaints.

Galloway v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

An ALJ need not explicitly discuss every Polaski factor, so long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines each consideration before discounting claimant’s subjective complaints. Ford v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2008); Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000). The ALJ may not discredit claimant’s statements solely based on the absence of objective medical evidence, but may discount claimant’s statements based on objective medical evidence to the contrary or inconsistency with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits considering daily activities and conservative treatment among other symptom factors, and an error as to one consideration is harmless when other evidence substantially supports the finding.

Schrichten v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-19(c)(3)

The ALJ reasonably considered these factors in evaluating plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... To the extent that any error occurred regarding the ALJ’s consideration of Waddell’s signs, the error was harmless given that the other evidence cited by the ALJ substantially support the ALJ’s decision to discount plaintiff’s complaints of disabling pain and limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven factors when objective evidence does not substantiate alleged pain and limitations.

Aponte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-22(c)(3)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires weighing daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication effectiveness, and other relief measures.

Nofire v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-23(c)(3)

In accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), the ALJ weighed factors such as Plaintiff’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of Plaintiff’s symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the effectiveness of the medication Plaintiff took to alleviate her symptoms; and the other measures Plaintiff has taken or used to relieve her symptoms.

Section 404.1529 does not require remand for an objective-evidence error when the ALJ gave some weight to testimony and considered opinion evidence, pain intensity, and treatment effectiveness.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-07(c)(2)-(3)

But the ALJ accorded some weight to Miller’s testimony and considered other available evidence in the record, including opinion evidence. The ALJ’s analysis also addressed some of the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), such as the intensity of Miller’s pain and the effectiveness of treatment in controlling his symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). We therefore do not remand on this basis.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all record evidence and the listed symptom factors before allegations are discounted.

Hunt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-07

He recognized that he needed to consider all of the record evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and listed each of the factors required by that regulation to be considered when assessing a claimant’s allegations of symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) requires considering daily activities, pain, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations and giving specific reasons for the symptom finding.

Dinkha v. Saul · filed 2022-03-16(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom statements, “[A]n ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 96-7p, and justify the finding with specific reasons.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom intensity, aggravating factors, medication effects, treatment, and functional limitations.

Terry v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-17(c)(3)

The factors an ALJ must consider in evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms are: “(1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the nature and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) effects of medications; (5) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms; and other factors concerning functional limitations.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom intensity, aggravating factors, medication effects, treatment, and functional limitations.

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

The Court finds that the ALJ’s subjective symptom evaluation is supported by substantial evidence and the ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1529 permits evaluating symptoms through objective evidence and treatment effectiveness as part of the whole record.

Cordova v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-23(c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ gave several well-supported reasons for concluding that Plaintiff’s reported symptoms were not as severe as she claimed.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) permit considering the listed factors when specific reasons support the symptom finding.

Waldrop v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-23(c)(3)-(4)

All of those factors constituted permissible considerations in assessing the consistency of Waldrop’s subjective complaints with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires examination of multiple factors rather than relying on an isolated diagnosis.

Houlihan v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Having done so, it was incumbent on the ALJ to determine whether the disorder was disabling, and the fact that it was only diagnosed once during the relevant period contributes only marginally to that determination, while the ALJ was required to examine numerous other factors.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence, work history, daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and restrictions in symptom analysis.

Gorman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(c)

To properly evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints, an “ALJ must consider objective medical evidence, the claimant’s work history, and other evidence relating to (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions.”

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis and, absent objective substantiation, reference to seven listed factors.

Nieves, Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(1)-(3)

“Second, if it does not, the ALJ must gauge a claimant’s credibility regarding the alleged symptoms by reference to the seven factors listed [in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)].”

An ALJ properly applies Section 404.1529 by considering improvement with treatment and medication, daily activities, objective medical evidence, and opinion evidence when evaluating subjective allegations.

Gibson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-06-29(c)(3)

The ALJ properly considered many of the § 404.1529 factors, including Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment and medication, Plaintiff’s reported daily activities, the objective medical evidence, and—as detailed above—the opinion evidence. The Court finds there is ample evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective allegations of disabling limitations. Plaintiff contends that other evidence in the record may contradict the ALJ’s findings regarding Plaintiff’s subjective allegations. Even if that were the case, that does not invalidate the ALJ’s analysis. The Court finds that the ALJ’s evaluation was reasonable, and the ALJ appropriately cited to evidence in the record to support his findings. The Court therefore will not disturb the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective allegations.

An ALJ’s residual-functional-capacity assessment considers symptom testimony, daily activities, pain frequency and intensity, medication effects, and all medical evidence and opinions.

Carson v. Saul, Commissioner of SSA · filed 2022-07-06

Unlike a medical opinion, the ALJ’s assessment includes consideration of a claimant’s statements and testimony concerning his symptoms, his activities of daily living, the frequency and intensity of pain, the effects of medication, and all medical evidence and opinion statements in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

In evaluating symptom severity, an ALJ may consider conservative treatment, generally normal examinations, and medical-opinion evidence together.

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

First, the ALJ’s decision and the record shows that he properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and SSR 16-3p. ... The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s conservative treatment in concluding that his mental limitations were not as limiting as Plaintiff alleged. ... The ALJ properly relied on this opinion in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, or credibility.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of medical evidence, treatment efficacy, work, daily activities, and inconsistent statements, without requiring discussion of every detail, so long as the ALJ gives specific, record-supported reasons and does not ignore a contrary line of evidence.

Farley v. Saul · filed 2022-08-02(c)(2)-(4)

When assessing subjective statements, ALJs are to consider a number of factors, including: (1) relevant medical evidence, including intensity and limiting effects of symptoms, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); (2) treatment and efficacy, id. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)-(v); (3) return to gainful activity, id. §§ 404.1571, 416.471; (4) work during disability period, id.; (5) daily activities, id. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(I), 416.929(c)(3)(I); and (6) statements inconsistent with the record, id. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Grotts, 27 F.4th at 1278. But, ALJs are not required to discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor. ... Nevetheless, an ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence contrary to her ruling. ... In this case, the ALJ gave valid reasons for finding the plaintiff’s allegations about the extent of her limitations were not entirely credible.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of objective evidence, work history, daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional restrictions, but it does not require discussion of every factor.

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

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ “must consider objective medical evidence, the claimant’s work history, and other evidence relating to (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions.” Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). The ALJ is not required to discuss each factor.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits discounting subjective complaints when specific record-based reasons show inconsistency with clinical assessments, treatment notes, medical opinions, and daily activities.

Roman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-21(c)(3)

In sum, the ALJ offered specific support for the decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, including a reasonable reading of the treatment notes, clinical assessments, and medical opinion evidence, along with proper consideration of the activities of daily living. This is sufficient to sustain the disability determination under the deferential standard of review applicable here.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Matthews v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

The ALJ should consider these factors along with all the evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate the enumerated symptom factors with all record evidence.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-22(c)(3)

The ALJ should consider these factors along with all the evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms, including pain, to the extent they are reasonably consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Rakoczy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-20(a)

The regulations provide that the ALJ must consider all the "symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider medical evidence, claimant statements, information from medical sources, and other relevant record evidence.

Hester v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-30(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must look to medical evidence, statements by the claimant, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence on the record. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.

After finding an impairment capable of producing symptoms, § 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence using history, clinical findings, claimant and source statements, and other evidence of daily and work effects.

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

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms, then the ALJ proceeds to step (3) and evaluates the extent to which the “intensity and persistence” of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)–(c). At this stage, the ALJ considers the claimant’s history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, statements by medical sources, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. § 404.1529(c).

Once an impairment could reasonably produce alleged symptoms, § 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence, including claimant statements, in the context of the entire record.

Casso v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-30(a), (c)(1)

Once it is found that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate evidence of the intensity and persistence of the symptoms, including statements from the claimant. ... The claimant's subjective claims about symptoms must be considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, including objective medical evidence.

Once objective evidence establishes an impairment reasonably capable of producing alleged symptoms, § 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all evidence about symptom intensity, persistence, and functional effects.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-19(a)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of all evidence, including subjective statements, objective findings, and treating and nontreating source statements.

Cummings v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-05-22(c)(4)

Under the applicable regulations, 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 non-treating 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) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(2) requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence and their work effects in light of objective evidence and claimant and doctor statements.

Hunter v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-08-12(c)(1)-(2)

If the record shows the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [his] symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant's capacity for work in light of the objective medical evidence and statements by the claimant and her doctors.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all evidence, including work history, claimant statements, medical-source evidence, and other observations.

Salmon v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-14(c)(3)

We 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ, when a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce a claimant’s symptoms, to consider objective medical evidence and other information the claimant submits about those symptoms.

King v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-25(c)

Section 404.1529(c) applies “[w]hen the medical signs or laboratory findings show that [the claimant] has a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] symptoms.” If that is the case, the ALJ must consider both “objective medical evidence” as well as “any other information [the claimant] may submit about [the claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven listed factors when assessing subjective allegations of pain and limitation that objective medical evidence does not substantiate.

Cleto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-23(c)(3)

If the claimant’s allegations of pain and limitation are “not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Meadors, 370 F. App’x at 184. This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications taken to alleviate the pain; (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received; (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider relevant symptom factors such as daily activities and pain, but does not rigidly require discussion of every piece of evidence.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-06(c)(3)

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ made unsupported findings regarding its consideration of the other factors found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) is incorrect. Plaintiff argues that “[n]othing in the record establishes that Plaintiff performs any daily activities inconsistent with her testimony,” (Doc. No. 8 at 13), however, in multiple instances, the ALJ noted how objective evidence established that Plaintiff can independently perform daily activities, (Tr. at 25–27). Plaintiff also contends that the ALJ failed to acknowledge or discuss Plaintiff’s pain ratings, (Doc. No. 8 at 14), but the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s pain throughout her decision, while noting objective evidence inconsistent with Plaintiff’s claims, (Tr. at 24–27). Further, “there is no rigid requirement that the ALJ specifically refer to every piece of evidence in his decision.” Reid v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 769 F.3d 861, 865 (4th Cir. 2014).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating symptoms such as pain to consider the claimant’s prior work and daily activities.

Connelly v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-09(c)

The ALJ also noted that Connelly’s symptom testimony was contrary to evidence indicating that he remained unemployed due to factors other than his cognitive impairments. This reason was another appropriate “clear and convincing” ground for discounting Connelly’s testimony. See, e.g., Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 493–94 (9th Cir. 2015) (ALJ must provide “clear and convincing” reasons for finding claimant’s testimony not credible, and remanding where requirement was not satisfied); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (grounds for evaluating symptoms like pain include prior work and daily activities, among other factors).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the regulatory factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication and other treatment, relief measures, and functional restrictions.

De La Cruz v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-01-21(c)(3)

Further, the ALJ is obliged to consider certain factors in symptom evaluation, including activities of daily living; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant's symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate his or her symptoms; treatment, other than medication that a claimant has received for relief; any measures the claimant has used to relieve his or her symptoms; and, any other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). In this case, the ALJ complied with the regulations governing symptom evaluation, following the two-step process, and considering the factors set forth in the regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; medication; other treatment and symptom-relief measures; and other factors concerning functional limitations.

Barron v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-13(c)(3)

On remand, the ALJ should likewise carefully evaluate Claimant’s pain, and the consistency of his statements with the evidence (including any additional evidence provided by a consultative examiner). As part of the symptom analysis, required under Soc. Sec. R. 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3 (October 25, 2017), the ALJ should consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3), including: (i) daily activities; (ii) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken; (v) treatment for pain relief aside from medication; (vi) any other measures Claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (vii) any other factors concerning functional limitations. See Soc. Sec. R. 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) require an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, treatment history and efficacy, and daily activities, including education and part-time employment.

MOE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2), (3)

The ALJ, in formulating Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”) and in otherwise considering whether she was disabled, considered the objective medical evidence, including medical imagining date, clinical findings, and mental status examination findings; the history and efficacy of Plaintiff’s treatment; and her activities of daily living, including her education and part-time employment. These were all appropriate factors; indeed, they are part of what an ALJ is required to consider. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3); Russo v. Astrue, 421 Fed. Appx. 184, 188-89 (3d Cir. 2011); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (S.S.A. 2016); Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 524 Fed. Appx. 191, 194 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that “the ALJ did not err by considering Miller's ability to maintain part-time employment as one factor relevant to the determination of whether he was disabled”); Mack v. Colvin, No. CV 15-688, 2016 WL 6039047, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2016) (holding that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's part-time work).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) require an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant’s treatment and consistent complaints of pain.

Flores v. Bisignano · filed 2025-06-12(c)(2), (3)

The ALJ erred by failing to consider the treatment sought by Plaintiff prior to October 28, 2022, as well as the consistent complaints made by Plaintiff of pain in his right knee.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating the consistency of a claimant’s symptoms to consider daily activities, the characteristics and triggers of symptoms, medication, other treatment, relief measures, and other functional limitations and restrictions.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-11(c)(3)

Additional factors for the ALJ to consider were: (1) Plaintiff’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of her pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) treatment, other than medication, Plaintiff has received; (6) any measures other than treatment Plaintiff uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions. Id. at *7-8; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). ... The ALJ here did not fully consider whether the treatment would restore Plaintiff’s ability to work and whether her reluctance or refusal to abide by the CPAP routine was justifiable. ... Although the ALJ tied his consistency findings to some specific evidence in the record, neither that evidence nor Plaintiffs ability to perform some daily activities, provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion.

Subsections 404.1529(c)(1)-(2) require evaluation of the entire case record when assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms.

Youngblood · filed 2025-12-30(c)(1)-(2)

SSR 16-3p provides, “[i]n considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, we examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” 2017 WL 5180304, at *4; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(c)(2), 416.929(c)(1)-(c)(2) (outlining evaluation of pain).

Subsections 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) require an ALJ, after finding a qualifying impairment, to consider objective medical evidence, reported daily activities, and other relevant factors in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of symptoms.

Burr · filed 2026-01-06(c)(1)-(3)

Next, the ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence and the claimant’s reported daily activities, as well as several other factors, to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of the claimant’s symptoms. See Curler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 561 F. App’x 464, 474 (6th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p. ... This thorough review of the factors delineated in SSR 16-3p satisfied the ALJ’s burden, and accordingly, the ALJ’s decision is affirmed with regard to this issue.

Section 404.1529 directs ALJs to consider symptom intensity and limiting effects, treatment efficacy, work during the disability period, daily activities, and statements inconsistent with the record.

Duck · filed 2026-01-27(c)

The regulations instruct ALJs to consider several factors in evaluating a claimant's subjective statements, including the intensity and limiting effects of symptoms, treatment and efficacy, work during disability period, daily activities, and statements inconsistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of objective and opinion evidence, daily activities, medication, and treatment history when assessing subjective symptom allegations.

Cavin · filed 2026-02-09(c)

When assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ considers several factors, including the objective medical evidence, opinion evidence, daily activities, medication, and course of treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5–8. ... The Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently followed the guidelines in SSR 16-3p when evaluating Plaintiff's subjective symptoms as a whole by adhering to the two-step process and considering various types of evidence as required.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the agency to consider objective medical evidence and other evidence when evaluating how an impairment affects daily activities and the ability to work.

Dunn v. Saul · filed 2019-11-26(a)

SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4 (Mar. 16, 2016) (emphasis added); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (explaining that the agency considers both “objective medical evidence and other evidence” in evaluating whether an impairment affects activities of daily living and the ability to work). ... On this evidence, the ALJ was not free to deny Dunn’s application for benefits without addressing the information in and takeaways available from his work records.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

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

In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. ... The record contains substantial evidence in support of the ALJ’s finding in this regard and, considering the wide discretion vested in an ALJ in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, see Jones, 336 F.3d at 476, this Court will not disturb her finding.

Section 404.1529 requires an administrative law judge evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms to consider all the evidence, including the claimant’s work record, statements, medical evidence, and other observations.

Caudill v. SSA · filed 2023-03-09(a), (c)(3)

During the second step, the Administrative Law Judge must “consider all the evidence presented,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), including information about [the claimant’s] prior work record, [his] statements about [his] other symptoms, evidence submitted by [his] medical sources, and observations by . . . other persons[.]” Id. at § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider evidence beyond objective medical findings, including daily activities and treatment, when evaluating reported symptoms.

Pumroy v. O'Malley · filed 2023-03-10(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... These are specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) calls for consideration of treatment history and precipitating or aggravating factors alongside objective findings when evaluating symptoms.

Worley v. Saul · filed 2020-06-18(c)

In doing so, the Appeals Council discussed Ms. Worley’s treatment history and precipitating or aggravating factors in addition to the objective findings in the record, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and determined that Ms. Worley could sustain the concentration, persistence, and pace required to perform simple, routine tasks (Tr. 12-23).

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, and other relief measures when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Adukpo v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-22(c)(4)

Evidence such as the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of her pain; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate symptoms; and other pain relief measures may also be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 directs the ALJ to consider medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, information from medical sources, and other relevant evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Savage · filed 2025-12-04

To evaluate the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms,” the ALJ considers medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, other information provided by medical sources, and any other relevant evidence in the record. See Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c) identifies evidence relevant to evaluating the intensity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms, including daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, and measures used for relief.

Thorman · filed 2025-11-19(c)

Other relevant evidence includes: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain; any measures used to relieve pain; and “[o]ther factors concerning … functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of factors including daily activities, medications, and treatment when evaluating symptoms of pain.

Michaels v. Apfel · filed 1999-03-29(c)(3)

Based upon the express requirements of the Regulations, these factors were appropriately considered by the ALJ, See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (outlining the factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms of pain that should be considered, including his daily activities; the medications being taken or that have been taken; treatment that was received, etc.).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the adjudicator to consider specified evidence and factors beyond objective medical evidence when assessing a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Stewart v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-04(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the adjudicator must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: 1. The individual’s daily activities; 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the individual’s pain or other symptoms; 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5. Treatment, other than medication, the individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6. Any measures other than treatment the individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every horn*, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Subsection (c) requires adjudicators to consider evidence beyond objective medical findings when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Gottier v. SSA · filed 2016-09-12(c)

20 CFR §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the adjudicator must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual's statements: ... 7. Any other factors concerning the individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider medical-source evidence and the claimant’s statements, among other information, when evaluating symptoms.

Snyder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-16(c)(3)

In the second step, the ALJ is to consider “all of the available evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), which includes “information about [the claimant’s] prior work record, [the claimant’s] statements about [his or her] symptoms, evidence submitted by [the claimant’s] medical sources, and observations by [SSA] employees and other persons,” id. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider multiple sources of evidence, including daily activities and the effectiveness of pain medication.

Shanahan v. Saul · filed 2021-02-16(c)(3)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider multiple sources of evidence in making a credibility determination, including the claimant’s daily activities and the efficacy of medications in relieving the claimant’s pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies factors for evaluating symptoms, but an ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor.

Tuttle v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2021-04-22(c)(3)

Although Ms. Tuttle faults the ALJ for not discussing any aggravating factors, an ALJ is not required to discuss every factor, see Qualls, 206 F.3d at 1372, and Ms. Tuttle has not explained how an express discussion of any aggravating factors would have altered the ALJ’s evaluation of her subjective complaints or undermined his RFC finding.

An ALJ evaluating symptoms considers factors including daily activities and medication use; the ALJ need not discuss every factor in one paragraph.

Ferrell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-05(c)(3)

Reading the ALJ’s decision as a whole, the Court finds he addressed several of the required factors from the regulations, including the objective medical evidence, Plaintiff’s daily activities, and Plaintiff’s medication usage. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of medical and nonmedical evidence about how a claimant’s symptoms affect them.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(c)(1)

As noted above, with respect to Plaintiff’s credibility, the ALJ reached his decision by considering Plaintiff’s physical examinations; her testimony regarding her physical capabilities and activities of daily living; and inconsistencies in the record which he reasonably explained. (R. at 33-35.) Accordingly, his evaluation was consistent with the regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors such as treatment history and medication effectiveness when evaluating symptoms.

Ukena v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ did not rely only on the objective medical evidence but considered other appropriate factors in evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider medical records and daily activities when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Trzebny, Tonya v. Kijakazi, Kilolo · filed 2022-09-29

The ALJ also discussed plaintiff’s medical records and daily activities, both of which were appropriate factors for the ALJ to consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

An ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms may consider past work, vocational services, and unemployment benefits when assessing the claimant’s statements about limitations.

Duffett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-16(c)

Instead, he properly considered the facts relating to Plaintiff’s past employment, use of vocational services, and application for unemployment benefits in connection with the credibility assessment and ultimate disability determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) distinguishes objective medical evidence from other information medical sources provide when evaluating symptoms.

WARD · filed 2025-10-30(c)(2)-(3)

Plaintiff’s suggestion that the Commissioner relied solely on “objective medical evidence” in violation of the regulations, (ECF No. 6 at 35), is without merit because SSR 16-3p outlines that “medical reports” and “treatment” notes—like the ones relied by the ALJ—constitute “[o]ther evidence” separate from “objective medical evidence.” See SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4-6; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) (differentiating “objective medical evidence” from “information that [] medical sources . . . provide about [an individual’s] pain”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication side effects when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms and resulting work limitations.

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2003-06-12(c)(3)(iv)

SSR 96-7p specifically requires consideration of the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms” in assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements. See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). ... Accordingly, an evaluation of medication side-effects and any impact on Brown’s RFC would have been appropriate in this case and the ALJ erred by .failing to make such an evaluation. ... Upon remand, the effect of medication side-effects should be considered in evaluating Brown’s credibility and RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, functional restrictions, treatment, and other measures when evaluating a claimant's subjective symptoms.

Dixon v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-22(c)(3)

Factors to be considered include the claimant's daily activities; the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and functional restrictions. Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (2003). Additional factors include treatments, other than medication, that the claimant has used to relieve pain or other symptoms, and any other measures that the claimant has used to relieve pain and other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v-vi) (2003). Furthermore, "[t]he ALJ may discount subjective complaints of physical and mental health problems that are inconsistent with medical reports, daily activities, and other such evidence." Gwathney v. Chater, 104 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1997). The ALJ expressly listed the Polaski factors in his discussion. Based on the Polaski factors, we agree that substantial evidence supports the decision to discredit Dixon's subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires the agency to evaluate a claimant’s subjective pain, and disabling pain is not disqualified merely because its source is psychological rather than physical.

Carradine v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-03-12(b)(2), (c)(4), (d)

While acknowledging as he had to that severe pain can be totally disabling, see, e.g., Zurawski v. Halter, 245 F.3d 881, 889 (7th Cir.2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), (d), the administrative law judge gave two reasons for disbelieving Carradine’s testimony about the severity of her pain. ... It implies no such thing. It implies merely that the source of Carradine’s pain is psychological rather than physical. If pain is disabling, the fact that its source is purely psychological does not disentitle the applicant to benefits.

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

Hardman v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-30(c)(2)

This basis alone is insufficient. 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 . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”); see also Luna , 834 F.2d at 165 (“If objective medical evidence must establish that severe pain exists, subjective testimony serves no purpose at all.”).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether alleged pain is substantiated by objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints of pain.

Samuel v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-23

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's credibility to consider objective medical evidence, treatment history, consistency of complaints, and the ALJ's own observations.

McCombs v. Barnhart · filed 2004-07-19

In assessing credibility an ALJ should consider, among other things, the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s treatment history, the consistency of her complaints, and his own observations of the claimant.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits the Commissioner to consider factors such as daily activities and medication type and dosage when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Workman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-07-29(c)(3)

The regulations indicate that if disabling severity cannot be shown by objective medical evidence alone, the Commissioner may also consider other factors, such as daily activities and the type and dosage of medication taken. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(d)(4) requires symptoms such as pain to be considered along with impairments when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Annie Bell Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2004-12-02(d)(4)

Symptoms such as pain are considered along with any impairments when determining a claimant's RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(4).

Section 404.1529(b) requires objective medical evidence beyond a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain before pain can support a finding of a severe impairment.

Sassone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-01-20(b)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), more than just Sassone’s subjective complaints of pain are needed to find that such pain constitutes a severe impairment. Here, Sassone’s subjective complaints of pain are not sufficiently supported by the necessary objective medical evidence to allow the ALJ to decide that Sassone’s back pain constitutes a severe impairment. ... Based on this evidence, a reasonable mind could conclude that Sassone’s back pain is not a severe impairment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of pain statements and their reasonable consistency with objective medical evidence under the First Circuit’s six-factor pain analysis.

Nancy T. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-07(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about pain and determine the extent to which is reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). In determining whether the medical signs and laboratory findings show medical impairments which reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, the ALJ must apply the First Circuit’s six-factor pain analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires evidence of an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation of severity or a condition reasonably expected to cause the alleged symptoms.

Taylor v. Kijakazi(CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-25(a)–(b)

To establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms, the claimant must provide evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged symptoms or pain, or (2) evidence establishing that the objectively determined medical condition could be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms or pain. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a)-(b), 416.929(a)-(b); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3.

Section 404.1529 requires an underlying condition and either objective confirmation of severity or a condition reasonably expected to cause the alleged symptoms.

Wright v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-31(a)–(b)

To establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms, the claimant must provide evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged symptoms or pain, or (2) evidence establishing that the objectively determined medical condition could be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms or pain. Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a)-(b), 416.929(a)-(b); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3.

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom statements and their effects on daily life and work, and may not disregard pain accounts merely because objective evidence does not corroborate them.

Sayers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-05(a)

When assessing 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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 2017 WL 5180304. ... “[T]he absence of objective medical corroboration for a complainant’s subjective accounts of pain does not permit an ALJ to disregard those accounts.”

Section 404.1529 continues to embody the Tenth Circuit's Luna three-step framework for evaluating subjective allegations of pain.

Smith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-10-24

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard.

Section 404.1529 continues to use the Tenth Circuit's Luna three-step framework.

Soellner v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-07-16

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on May 16, 2023, when this case was decided.

Section 404.1529 provides factors for evaluating a claimant’s reports of disabling pain against other evidence in the record.

Britt v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-20

Britt claims that the ALJ did not use the proper legal standard to assess Britt’s credibility, but that argument is without merit. The ALJ explicitly stated that he had considered the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 96-7p to determine that Britt’s reports of disabling levels of pain were inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires an explicit assessment of the credibility of alleged pain when evaluating symptoms and their effect on residual functional capacity.

Blaylock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-05-24

Given that Blaylock often described his pain to emergency room personnel as a 10 on a scale of 10 and given the strength of the pain medications with which he was treated, any assessment of Blaylock’s RFC deserves an explicit and thorough examination of the credibility of his allegations of pain. The ALJ has not performed such an analysis.

Section 404.1529 recognizes that pain may be disabling, but a physician’s diagnosis must have sufficient medical support to receive greater weight.

Kirk v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1981-12-22

It is true, as appellant alleges, that pain may be a sufficient disability for social security purposes, Glass v. Secretary of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 517 F.2d 224 (6th Cir. 1975); and while it is true that a treating physician’s diagnosis is to be given greater weight in the scales than the government’s physician, that is only appropriate if the treating physician supplies sufficient medical data to substantiate the diagnosis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1981).

Pain complaints must be grounded in medical signs or laboratory findings to be considered in determining medical equivalence.

Ostrowski v. Heckler · filed 1985-05-06

"Symptoms” include complaints of pain, which must be based in "signs” or "laboratory findings” to be considered in determining medical equivalence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1528, 1529 (1984).

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant alleging disabling pain to establish an underlying medical condition and show either that objective evidence confirms the extent of the pain or that the condition could reasonably produce it.

Bobby Massey, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-02-07

Rather, there is a two-part test to evaluate a claimant’s assertion of disability due to pain. A claimant must first establish an underlying medical condition. Then, he must establish either that objective medical evidence confirms the extent of the alleged pain or that the objective medical evidence could reasonably be expected to produce the pain. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged pain, but evaluating fibromyalgia symptoms does not require objective evidence of the pain itself.

Lim v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-22(a)

In requiring “objective” evidence to support Plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain arising from fibromyalgia, the ALJ applied the incorrect legal standard in analyzing Plaintiffs condition. Specifically, the ALJ’s analysis was appropriate for subjective complaints of pain as connected with musculoskeletal conditions, which Dr. Le.vine was able to speak to and which must generally be supported by “medical signs and laboratory findings which show that [the claimant has] a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A).

An ALJ may assess allegations of disabling pain using objective medical evidence and inconsistencies between the allegations and the record.

Chic Zoch v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(c)

To de- termine the credibility of allegations of disabling pain, an ALJ may consider several factors, including objective medical ev- idence and any inconsistencies between the allegations and the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires a supported reason to discredit pain testimony when a medically determinable condition could reasonably cause the alleged pain.

Frizzell v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-26

The ALJ correctly found that the plaintiff has an underlying medical “condition, or combination of conditions, which could reasonably be expected to produce the level of pain or other symptoms which the plaintiff alleges precludes her from working....” [R. 33]. However, his finding that “the plaintiffs allegations regarding her limitations are not totally credible,” [R. 39], is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not require objective medical evidence to fully substantiate a claimant’s pain complaints, but some objective evidence must establish an impairment.

White v. Shalala · filed 1993-05-19(c)(2)

However, in this circuit, even though the “available objective medical evidence” need not be of a nature to wholly substantiate the subjective complaint of pain, there should be some objective medical evidence present to establish the existence of an impairment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider evidence beyond objective medical findings when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s pain.

Blake v. SSA · filed 2000-01-28(c)(3)

An ALJ must not overemphasize the importance of objective medical findings when assessing the credibility of the claimant’s complaints regarding the intensity and persistence of his pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the Commissioner to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s reported pain and the other evidence.

Quaglia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-07-23(c)(4)

The ALJ considered Quaglia’s symptoms of pain in conjunction with the objective medical evidence to diminish her capacity for work, as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(e) calls for considering daily activities, pain frequency, medication, and other treatment when evaluating complaints of pain.

Lee v. Barnhart · filed 2006-02-14(e)

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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(e); 416.429(e).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) limits the effect of alleged pain on a claimant’s ability to work to what is reasonably consistent with the medical and other evidence.

White v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-29(c)(4)

Not only is this explicit finding consistent with the relevant regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4), but also, this finding demonstrates that the ALJ applied the proper legal standard of our Circuit Court.

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to assess claimed pain and limitations using medical evidence, treatment history, and daily activities, so long as the ALJ gives sufficient reasons for the finding.

Schmidt v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-08

Here, contrary to Schmidt’s assertions, the ALJ specifically stated in his opinion that he considered Schmidt’s testimony and the entire records under Social Security Ruling 96-7p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Accordingly, we find that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons for his finding that Schmidt’s allegations regarding her limitations were not fully credible, and we will not disturb those findings.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of a claimant’s statements, medical evidence, daily activities, and treatment when evaluating the intensity and persistence of pain.

Shinaberry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2008-03-07(c)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the ALJ reviewed Shinaberry’s statements about his pain and limitations, his medical history, medical signs and laboratory findings, objective medical evidence of pain, his daily activities, his specific descriptions of the pain, and the medical treatment taken to alleviate it. ... The record is clear that the ALJ reviewed all of the evidence of record prior to making his credibility determination.

Subjective complaints of pain can support disability, but medical evidence must show an impairment that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain.

Miller v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-05(a)

Although subjective complaints of pain can support a finding of disability under certain circumstances, “the applicable regulations do require ‘medical signs and laboratory findings which show that [the claimant has] a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.’ ”

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of relevant factors beyond objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s pain.

Florence v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-22(c)

However, on the specific record in this case, the Court cannot say that the ALJ adequately considered the relevant factors or articulated good reasons for his assessment. It appears that the only substantial basis for the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain was the absence of objective medical evidence, which is not sufficient.

Subsection (b) gives an ALJ discretion, but imposes no duty, to obtain a medical or psychological expert’s opinion on whether an impairment could produce alleged symptoms.

ZLOTKOWSKI · filed 2025-10-15(b)

Similarly, an ALJ is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to consult a medical expert.

Section 404.1529(b) permits, but does not require, the administrative law judge or Appeals Council to request and consider a medical advisor's opinion about whether an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Miguel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-03-16(b)

The regulations do not require that a medical expert testify at the claimant’s hearing. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (“At the administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council level, the administrative law judge or the Appeals Council may ask for and consider the opinion of a medical advisor concerning whether your impairment(s) could reasonably be expected to produce your alleged symptoms.”) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating the effect of symptoms on work capacity to consider all available evidence, including the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication.

Bruso v. SSA · filed 2005-06-29(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(3)(iv)

In determining the extent to which a claimant's symptoms affect his or her capacity to work, an ALJ must consider all of the available evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); S.S.R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (S.S.A.). "Since symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone, [an ALJ] will carefully consider any other information [a claimant] may submit about [their] symptoms." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). One factor that must always be considered is the "type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication" a claimant has taken to alleviate her pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider seven specified factors when evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints, but does not require discussion of each factor in a rigid, mechanical format.

Prince v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-09(c)(3)

Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), instructs adjudicators to conduct a seven-factor analysis when determining the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. ... Since substantive regulations have the force and effect of law, failure to employ the seven-factor analysis when assessing credibility of subjective complaints constitutes legal error. ... ALJ Jarrett did not parse the evidence into discrete segments corresponding with the seven factors of Regulation 404.1529(c)(3). However, neither the regulation nor interpretive case law requires that an ALJ name, enumerate, and discuss each factor in outline or other rigid, mechanical form. It suffices when the administrative decision is sufficiently specific to make clear that the regulatory factors were considered.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints when the record contains inconsistencies and requires consideration of objective medical evidence and factors including daily activities, pain, medication, and functional restrictions.

Guilliams v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2005-01-04

A claimant’s subjective complaints may be discounted if there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole. ... In evaluating subjective complaints, however, the ALJ must consider objective medical evidence, as well as any evidence relating to the so-called ... Pola-ski ... factors, namely: (i) a claimant’s daily activities; (ii) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (v) functional restrictions. ... In rejecting a claimant’s complaints of pain as not credible, we expect an ALJ to “detail the reasons for discrediting the testimony and set forth the inconsistencies found.”

Subsection (c)(3) specifies seven factors for evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Washington v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-06(c)(3)

Finally, his decision reflects that he evaluated plaintiffs subjective complaints in accordance with the seven factors specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and he evaluated Dr. Walkes’s opinions in accordance with the six factors specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires adjudicators to apply a seven-factor analysis when assessing the credibility of a claimant's subjective complaints of pain, and failure to do so is legal error.

Parker v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-19(c)(3)

Since substantive regulations have the force and effect of law, failure to employ the seven-factor analysis when assessing credibility of subjective complaints constitutes legal error.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to give specific reasons for the weight assigned to a claimant's credibility and permits discounting subjective pain complaints when they conflict with other record evidence.

Neely v. Barnhart · filed 2007-03-27

Specific reasons for the weight given to a claimant's credibility must be provided by the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Social Security Ruling 96-7p. An ALJ may discount subjective complaints of pain if they are inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

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

Blanks v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-14

In this circuit medical evidence of pain itself, or of its intensity, is not required. While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself. Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011. Elam v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 921 F.2d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir.1991)(parenthetical information omitted)(emphasis added).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant's statements about symptoms and the objective and other evidence when evaluating symptom severity.

Goodwater v. Barnhart · filed 2007-03-30(c)(4)

The ALJ was entitled to rely upon inconsistencies between the medical evidence and plaintiffs alleged severity of symptoms in assessing the extent and severity of plaintiffs subjective complaints. ... (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)) (The ALJ should “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [plaintiffs] statements and the rest of the evidence, including ... statements by [plaintiffs] treating or examining physician or psychologist or other persons about how” the symptoms affect the plaintiff.).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all available evidence, including daily activities and medical evidence, and prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

May v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2007-04-06(a), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)(i)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ considers “all available evidence,” including objective medical evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, statements of the claimant and others about the claimant’s symptoms, the medical opinions of treating physicians and nontreating physicians, and evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(1), 416.929(a), (c)(1). However, the ALJ cannot reject the claimant’s statements as to the intensity and persistence of her symptoms solely because they are not substantiated by objective medical evidence 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); see also SSR 96-7p. ... In addition, although a claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not necessarily disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), 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). Therefore, the ALJ properly considered May’s self-reported limited daily life activities, along with all the other evidence in the record, in concluding that her testimony regarding her subjective symptoms could not be fully credited.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against objective and other evidence.

Hogan v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-19(a)-(c)

I find that the ALJ improperly assessed plaintiffs credibility in accordance with the Commissioner’s Regulations and Rulings, found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186 (S.S.A.). The Commissioner has established a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s testimony regarding her symptoms, including pain. “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 [her] symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must make a finding as to the claimant’s credibility.”

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

Stricklin v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-25

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

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the Commissioner to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms using all available evidence, including the claimant's history, signs and laboratory findings, and statements from the claimant.

West v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2007-07-05(c)(1)

A claimant seeking to establish disability from weakness or fatigue must introduce both objective evidence and subjective complaints. See Buxton, 246 F.3d at 773 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 423 (d)(5)(a)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms, [the Commissioner] consider[s] all of the available evidence, including [claimant’s] history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements from [claimant] . . . .”).

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

Haugen v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-18

Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011.