20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical signs and laboratory findings showing a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's alleged pain before the pain complaint can support a finding of disability.

Mikol v. Barnhart · filed 2007-05-25(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 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and other limitations when determining residual functional capacity.

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-27

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and other limitations when making a determination of the claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”).

Section 404.1529(b) does not require a medical expert to testify at the claimant’s administrative hearing.

CIESLAK · filed 2025-12-22(b)

The ALJ’s decision not to seek additional medical expert testimony is entirely within the ALJ’s discretion. See Carin F. vy. O’Malley, No. 22-4193, 2024 WL 3949322, at *14 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2024) (“[A]n ALJ is vested with broad discretion in determining whether to consult with a medical expert.” (citing Hardee v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 188 F. App’x 127, 129 (3d Cir. 2006))). The ALJ, accordingly, did not err in her determinations regarding ADEM or her decision not to seek additional testimony outside of the record for ADEM. See, e.g., Miguel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 129 F. App’x 678, 680 (3d Cir. 2005) (“The regulations do not require that a medical expert testify at the claimant’s hearing.” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b))).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective support from physical examinations and test results when evaluating pain, but does not permit a decision based solely on the lack of objective corroboration.

Pierce v. Colvin · filed 2014-01-13(c)

Also, the lack of objective support from physical examinations and test results is still relevant even if an ALJ may not base a decision solely on the lack of objective corroboration of complaints of pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the specified factors, including objective medical evidence that substantiates the claimant’s allegations.

Garcia v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-23(c)(2)

In evaluating Garcia’s credibility, the ALJ did not consider all the factors set forth in sections 404.1529 and 416.929 of Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as required. He did not take into account that the objective medical evidence substantiated many of Garcia’s allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform the assessment of symptom severity, but it cannot be the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Berry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-31(c)(2)

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), 416.929(c)(2) (2011). Minimal objective evidence is a factor which may be relied upon to discount a claimant’s testimony, although it may not be the only factor.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity but prohibits rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements solely because they lack objective support.

Zayas v. Saul · filed 2019-08-02(c)(2)

The Court similarly rejects Adrian’s argument that the ALJ gave improper weight to the objective findings; although the law is clear that an ALJ cannot disbelieve a claimant’s testimony solely because it is not supported by objective medical evidence, the ALJ here was explicit that the objective findings were the primary, but not the only, cause of his credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of relevant factors when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but does not require discussion of every listed factor.

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

And, as argued by the Commissioner, there is no requirement that he discuss every factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and § 416.929(c)(3). Young v. Comm’r, No. 1:16 CV 1372, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112306 (N.D. Ohio July 19, 2017); White v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272, 287 (6th Cir. 2009); Roberts v. Astrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56685, 2010 WL 2342492, at *11 (N.D. Ohio). In compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and § 416.929(c)(3) and SSR 16-3, the ALJ discussed some of the factors he considered in assessing Hendrickson’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires a claimant’s subjective description of impairments to be considered in light of objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source showing an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Benfield v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-06(a)

Instead, Plaintiff’s subjective description of his impairments must be viewed in light of “objective medical evidence from . . . acceptable medical source[s] . . . show[ing that he has] a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the . . . symptoms alleged.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform the assessment of symptom severity and disabling effects, but it cannot alone justify rejecting a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Cornellier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-09(c)(2)

While subjective [symptom] testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s [symptoms] and [their] disabling effects.

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

Garbe v. Saul · filed 2019-09-13(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, an ALJ should consider the medications taken, functional limitations, allegations of pain, aggravating factors, objective medical evidence, and daily activities. Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires the Commissioner to consider a claimant’s underlying medical condition and either objective evidence confirming the alleged symptom severity or a condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, while considering all available evidence and the limitations associated with the claimant’s daily activities.

Collier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-06(c)(3)

In evaluating pain and other subjective complaints, the Commissioner must consider whether the claimant presented “‘evidence of an underlying medical condition’ and either ‘objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged pain [or other subjective symptoms] arising from that condition’ or ‘that the objectively determined medical condition is of such severity that it can be reasonably expected to give rise to the alleged pain [or other subjective symptoms].’” Taylor v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 18-11978, 2019 WL 581548, at *2 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 2019) (quoting Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p. ... all available evidence, including objective medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the type, dosage, and effectiveness of medications taken to alleviate the symptoms; and factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p. ... The claimant’s ability to do these daily activities with these limitations does not undermine her subjective statements about her pain. The ALJ cannot simply ignore these limitations and then claim substantial evidence supports his misconstrued conclusion about the claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing symptom limitations to consider the claimant’s history, medical signs and laboratory findings, statements, medical-source statements, and other evidence of effects on daily activities and ability to work.

DWIGGINS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-09-19(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.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, including daily activities, symptom duration, intensity and frequency, aggravating factors, medication, functional restrictions, work history, and objective medical evidence.

Bradley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

In examining the record, the Commissioner must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, intensity, and frequency of the symptoms; the precipitating and aggravating factors; the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; any functional restrictions; the claimant’s work history; and the objective medical evidence. See Moore v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 520, 524 (8th Cir. 2009) (citing Finch v. Astrue, 547 F.3d 933, 935 (8th Cir. 2008), and Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984)). See also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-*8 (describing several of the above factors, as well as evidence of treatment other than medication that an individual receives); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (same). Here, the ALJ conducted a proper assessment of Bradley’s symptoms, consistent with the relevant regulations and with SSR 16-3p, and that assessment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms against objective and other evidence, including the claimant’s prior work record.

McGuffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(a), (c)

Instead of using the term “credibility,” the Social Security regulations address “the extent to which [a claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a) (2019). The regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s “prior work record” in evaluating his symptoms. Id. §§ 404.1529(c); 416.929(c). ... Because the ALJ explicitly considered and acknowledged McGuffin’s work history as required, the Court finds the ALJ’s decision regarding the same was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source showing an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, considered with all other evidence, before those symptoms can establish disability.

Bhamidipati v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(a)

The regulation states, “There must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and that, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the severity of symptoms but does not allow an ALJ to reject symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not support it.

Madden Jr. v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

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). ... However, regardless of whether the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff’s symptom claims were not corroborated by objective testing and physical examinations, it is well-settled in the Ninth Circuit that 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.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom testimony against the objective medical and other evidence when determining how the symptoms affect the claimant's capacity for basic work activities, but forbids rejection merely because objective evidence does not support the testimony.

Lolic v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-02(c)(4)

However, while such evidence is required to show the existence of an underlying impairment, “the [ALJ] may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless, the ALJ evaluates the testimony in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence in determining the extent to which the pain or symptoms affect her capacity to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did tie-in characterization of the medical record with the symptom testimony. After listing the symptoms Plaintiff reported, the ALJ specifically discussed which medical evidence he found inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported limitations. Id. at 24. Further, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s self-reported improvement in her migraine headaches is inconsistent with her testimony of disabling limitations. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ committed materially harmful error in rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

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

DePrez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-09(c)(4)

In considering the above factors and a claimant’s subjective statements, the ALJ also must consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence,” including the claimant’s subjective statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); see also Joseph v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F. App’x 306, 312 (6th Cir. 2018). ... The ALJ faithfully adhered to her obligation, supported by substantial evidence, to determine any conflicts in the record that might weigh against a claimant’s subjective statements, and the Court must defer to her finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); see also Perry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 734 F. App’x 335, 340 (6th Cir. 2018); Jones, 392 F. Supp. 3d at 838 (internal citations and quotations omitted). ... Accordingly, having thoroughly reviewed the record, relevant regulations, and case law, the Court concludes that the ALJ properly considered DePrez’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to assess inconsistencies and conflicts in the evidence and limits work capacity to the extent alleged symptom restrictions can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective and other evidence.

Holbrook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(c)(4)

The ALJ considers whether there are inconsistencies or conflicts in the evidence, and a claimant’s symptoms will be determined to diminish the capacity for basic work activities to the extent that the alleged limitations and restrictions due to the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and work effects to consider inconsistencies within the evidence and conflicts between the claimant's statements and medical and other evidence.

Ford v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-31(c)(4)

While Ford argues the record supports her reported symptoms, because the ALJ fully evaluated the medical evidence in light of Ford’s subjective complaints of pain and clearly articulated inconsistences between Ford’s reported symptoms and the objective medical evidence, the ALJ properly applied the pain standard. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) & 416.929(c). Further, the ALJ’s reasoning for his findings are clear to this court. See Foote, 67 F.3d at 1562.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) and (4) requires examination of all available evidence and comparison of symptom statements with objective evidence when assessing intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Brewster v. Saul · filed 2021-09-08(c)(1), (4)

In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ examines all the available evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). The ALJ must consider whether the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence. See id. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(4). ... While this language would be “conclusory” on its own, the Court finds that the ALJ instead followed this language with a detailed explanation as to why he found Brewster’s allegations to be not entirely consistent with the evidence.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(2)–(3) asks whether reported symptoms are reasonably consistent—not entirely consistent—with objective and other evidence, and forbids rejecting pain testimony solely for lack of objective support.

Lewalski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-15(a), (c)(2)-(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the correct standard is whether the subjective symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). According to the regulations, “any symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions which you . . . report, which can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, will be taken into account.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... An “ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s testimony about [his] pain and limitations solely because there is no objective medical evidence to support it.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Lewalski is correct in identifying the standard for his subjective symptoms as “reasonably consistent” with the evidence, not “entirely consistent” with the evidence. However, that language alone is not enough to remand this case. I must consider the ALJ’s analysis to determine whether the standard was merely misstated rather than misapplied. ... After considering the ALJ’s analysis, I find that while the ALJ misstated the standard, she explained her conclusions with legally sufficient and specific reasons, which were supported by substantial evidence. Villano, 556 F.3d at 562. For these reasons, the ALJ’s use of the “entirely consistent” standard does not warrant remand.

Section 404.1529(a) leaves evaluation of subjective symptom complaints to the ALJ, whose findings receive deference when they are reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, including contradictions among medical reports, testimony, and other evidence.

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(a)

Ultimately, “credibility determinations regarding subjective complaints rest with the ALJ,” and “those determinations must be reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 249. “An ALJ’s findings based on the credibility of the applicant are to be accorded great weight and deference, particularly since an ALJ is charged with the duty of observing a witness’s demeanor and credibility.” Walters, 127 F.3d at 531; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Both the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge extensively examined instances where the objective medical evidence belied Mr. Rice’s subjective statements about his physical and mental health. (ECF No. 11, PageID #86–90; ECF No. 17, PageID #1737–40.) “Discounting credibility to a certain degree is appropriate where an ALJ finds contradictions among the medical reports, claimant’s testimony, and other evidence.” Walters, 127 F.3d at 531. The Magistrate Judge fairly considered the ALJ’s treatment of Mr. Rice’s testimony, and the ALJ afforded it the proper weight and sufficiently considered it. Therefore, the Court overrules Plaintiffs third objection.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a reasoned and supported assessment of symptom intensity and persistence, and use of boilerplate saying symptoms are not entirely consistent is not reversible when the ALJ actually applies the correct standard.

Schmidt v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-27(c)

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ applied an incorrect standard in assessing her symptoms. She challenges the following statement made in the ALJ’s decision: “[A]fter careful consideration of the evidence, the undersigned finds that the claimant’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, the statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” R. 586–87. Plaintiff contends that there is no requirement that a claimant’s symptoms be “entirely consistent” with the objective and other evidence in the record. Although the ALJ used this “boilerplate language,” the ALJ applied the correct standard in assessing Plaintiff’s symptoms and, as explained below, discussed the substantial evidence that supported his decision. See Harris v. Saul, 835 F. App’x 881, 886 (7th Cir. 2020); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ explained that the overall medical evidence, Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, and Plaintiff’s testimony contradicted Plaintiff’s statements about her symptoms. ... The ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record, is not patently wrong, and does not necessitate remand. Elder, 529 F.3d at 413–14.

Section 404.1529 requires full evaluation of subjective complaints against both objective medical evidence and other record evidence when objective evidence alone does not warrant a favorable decision.

Fox v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-30(c)

As such, on remand, if the ALJ determines that a fully favorable disability determination is not warranted based solely on objective medical evidence, he should then fully evaluate Claimant’s subjective complaints in making a final benefits determination, taking into account whether the complaints are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1529 and Social Security Ruling 16-3p.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) require evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and severity with the claimant's statements, daily activities, medical findings, and other relevant evidence.

Burton v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-22(c)(1)-(3)

As shown above, the ALJ properly considered Claimant’s statements, her daily activities, and the medical evidence to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and severity of Claimant’s reported symptoms. Claimant offers nothing to rebut the ALJ’s well-reasoned conclusions and specific citations to the record. Therefore, the undersigned FINDS that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s subjective symptom analysis.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all available evidence and does not permit subjective complaints to be rejected solely because objective evidence fails to substantiate them, though inconsistent allegations need not be accepted.

Fulkerson v. Saul · filed 2021-11-05(c)

The ALJ must consider all of the available evidence, including medical history, objective medical evidence, and statements by Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Thus, the ALJ must not disregard Plaintiff's complaints of “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because objective evidence does not substantiate” them, see Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95 (emphasis added) (quoting SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5), but Plaintiff’s allegations “need not be accepted to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence, including objective evidence of the underlying impairment, and the extent to which that impairment can... reasonably be expected to cause” the alleged symptoms. See Lavinia R., 2021 WL 2661509, at *4 (quoting Craig, 76 F.3d at 595).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to compare symptom statements with objective evidence, medical opinions, treatment records, and nonmedical-source statements.

STITT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-12-21(c)

Nonetheless, after a review of the record, I find that the ALJ followed the proper method as set forth SSR 16-3p; 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), 416.929(c). (ECF No. 8-2, pp. 11-21). For example, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s statements and found them to be inconsistent with the medical and other evidence in the record. Id. Specifically, the ALJ compared her statements to the objective imagining evidence, the physical consultative and state agency opinions, the mental health treatment records, and Plaintiff’s statement as well as the statements of her friend, Ms. Klein. Id.

Section 404.1529(c) requires comparison of symptom statements with the whole record, including medical evidence, treatment, objective tests, opinions, work history, and daily activities.

BRUMFIELD v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-01-06(c)

After a review of the record, I find that the ALJ followed the proper method as set forth above. ... Specifically, the ALJ compared Plaintiff’s statements to the medical evidence of record, the treatment records, objective tests, the opinion evidence, Plaintiff’s work history, and Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. ... Based on the entire record as a whole, I find there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff’s statements were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) permit evaluating symptom statements against objective evidence, treatment history, daily activities, and other record evidence.

Kimbril v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-02-22(c)(3)-(4)

In support of this decision, the ALJ evaluated the objective medical evidence and Plaintiff’s treatment history and daily activities. ... The court concludes the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to assess symptom testimony against medical records, treatment, activities, and other evidence when determining RFC.

White v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2022-03-15

The ALJ considered White’s subjective testimony regarding her symptoms in determining her RFC. ... The decision correctly notes that White’s testimony demonstrated she had engaged in a level of activity which indicated she was not precluded from all work-related activities.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Mongelli v. Social Security · filed 2022-04-12

extent of the pain alleged by the claimant.” Mimms v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 180, 186 (2d Cir. 1984) (internal citation omitted). The intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms must be evaluated based on all the available evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a)-(c) and 416.929(a)- (c). Additionally, if an individual alleges impairment-related symptoms, ALJs must: First . . . consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Morfitt v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-12

of her alleged disabling symptoms and limitations. An ALJ may reject symptom allegations that are inconsistent with a claimant’s ability to perform normal activities of daily living (“ADLs”). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). Even when a claimant describes some limitations in ADLs, an ALJ does not err by making a non-disability finding if the claimant’s daily activities suggest that they are relatively functional. Burch, 400 F.3d at 680. The ALJ specifically addressed Plaintiff’s alleged limitations, including her claim that she has “bad days.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Lavarnway v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2022-04-12

The ALJ also relied on Plaintiff's positive response to conservative treatment. The effectiveness of treatment or medication is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). It is well settled that an ALJ may discount a claimant’s testimony based on evidence of conservative treatment. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007) (stating that “evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment”). “[I]n assessing a.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Trisha P. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-13

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

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

(SS) Simmons, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-18

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Hirschy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-18

Next, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to properly analyze his headaches. An ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s subjective allegations regarding pain or other symptoms is a two-step process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029; Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 505 (7th Cir. 2004). First, objective medical evidence must demonstrate the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-18

§§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a), they are still relevant when 2 “The PHQ-9 is a questionnaire used to assist a clinician in diagnosing depression, as well as to quantify.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

EAST v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-04-18

determinable impairment(s) could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate how the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms may affect their capacity for work. 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(1). An ALJ's credibility determinations are generally deferential unless "if, after examining the ALJ's reasons for discrediting testimony, we conclude that the finding is patently wrong." Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, at 751 (7th Cir. 2010). The ALJ's determination may be patently wrong where he fails to "'build an accurate and.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Bauer v. Saul · filed 2022-04-18

§ 404.1529 (analyzing a claimant’s credibility with the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication;.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-19

If the record shows that the claimant has a medically-determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant's capacity for work.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

BAKOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-19

techniques, considers whether any alleged symptoms are reasonably consistent with the impairment, and then evaluates the intensity and persistence of consistent symptoms to determine their limit on the plaintiff’s capacity for work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. The ALJ is not expected to present their analysis in a particular format, and their opinion should be read “as a whole.” Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2004). The RFC finding must “be accompanied by a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests.” Cotter.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the applicable regulatory factors.

J. Stephen B. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-19

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

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Wilson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-10

The ALJ reasonably evaluated Plaintiff’s medications and side effects when assessing Plaintiff’s mental RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Shafer v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-11

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints if the record shows effective treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Drayton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-12

The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount Drayton’s testimony, citing factors including lack of corroborating objective medical evidence, inconsistent claimant testimony, and inconsistent behavior.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Slanina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-12

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Haines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-16

The ALJ then must justify her assessment with “specific reasons supported by the record.”

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Ort v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-16

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about his or her symptoms, including pain, and how these symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Pittman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-16

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Solomon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-17

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about his or her symptoms, including pain, and how these symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Rockey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-17

The regulations require the ALJ to look at a variety of factors in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including the nature and intensity of pain, the effects of her pain on her ability to function, and daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

STAPP v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-05-17

or other symptoms, factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms, the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; and treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms. Id. at *7-8; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Not only did the ALJ fail to acknowledge virtually all the relevant evidence, the Court does not find any rationale advanced by the ALJ to support her conclusion that Claimant was not credible, other than she did not think the "physical examinations" with "largely normal results" supported his alleged exertional limitations from his neuropathy. [Dkt. 18-2 at 22.] An ALJ may not rely solely on a lack of objective verification of Claimant's allegations of pain. See, e.g., Adaire v. Colvin, 778 F.3d 685, 688 (7th Cir. 2015); see also Cole v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 411, 412 (7th Cir. 2016); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4-5. Accordingly, remand is necessary for further consideration of the entire record including Claimant's hypotension and hypoglycemia, his RFC, and his subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Helms v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-05-17

aggravating symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications taken to relieve symptoms; treatment for symptoms; measures Plaintiff has taken to relieve symptoms; and other factors concerning limitations or restrictions resulting from symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i-vii).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptom statements using objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the applicable symptom factors.

Kamper v. Saul · filed 2022-05-17

Per 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, when evaluating disability the SSA will “consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” The Eighth Circuit has held that the ALJ must consider the five Polaski factors when considering a claimant’s subjective descriptions of disabling pain: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) functional restrictions.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Bieber v. O'Malley · filed 2022-06-07

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes 6 suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the 7 objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) 8 describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must 9 consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the 10 credibility of an individual’s statements: 1.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Hightshoe, Eddie v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2022-06-07

In addition to the medical evidence, the ALJ examines factors such as the claimant’s daily activities, precipitating or aggravating factors, the claimant’s course of treatment, including medication, and “any other factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.”

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Pierman v. Saul · filed 2022-06-07

“First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014-15; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 (Mar. 27, 2017)).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

McDonald v. Saul · filed 2022-06-07

In determining Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ complied with the SSA’s two-step process, including considering Plaintiff’s statements about the intensity and limiting effects of her symptoms. 20 CFR § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

LAYTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-07

In evaluating symptoms such as pain, the ALJ should consider “all of the available evidence, including ... medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect him.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Danzy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-08

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ “must consider subjective evidence of pain, but it is within his discretion to determine the pain’s disabling nature.” Wren, 925 F.2d at 128 (internal citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Connell v. O'Malley · filed 2022-06-08

Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir. 2002). 7 In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes 8 suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the 9 objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) 10 describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must 11 consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the 12 credibility of an individual’s statements: 1.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Covey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-08

Second, the ALJ will consider “the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Sellards v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-08

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); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Holton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-08

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

McBride v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-09

Objective medical evidence is merely one factor to be considered, and an ALJ is not free to “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.”

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating symptom statements against objective medical evidence, other evidence, and the relevant regulatory factors.

Maddox v. Saul · filed 2022-06-09

First, the ALJ must determine whether objective evidence shows the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the actual alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of daily activities and other record evidence, including the claimant’s own account, so long as symptom testimony is not discounted solely for lack of objective support.

Gregory v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

The ALJ clearly did not discount Gregory’s testimony about the severity of his symptoms based on lack of objective evidence alone. He cited other evidence in the record, including Gregory’s own account.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to weigh objective evidence, daily activities, the claimant’s reports to providers, and treatment history together rather than relying on objective medical evidence alone.

Petreikis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-17(c)(3)

Therefore, John P.’s argument is incorrect, as the ALJ did not solely rely on objective medical evidence in finding his subjective symptoms less limiting than alleged.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to assess symptom severity using objective findings together with treatment history, medical observations, daily activities, and medication evidence.

Higgins v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-27(c)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ did not disregard Plaintiff’s statements about her symptoms based solely the failure of objective medical evidence to substantiate her statements.

A claimant’s symptom statements alone do not establish disability, but the agency must evaluate intensity and persistence using all available evidence, including medical history, signs, findings, and statements about functional effects.

McAlister v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-12(a)

In determining whether the claimant is disabled, the agency considers “all of [the claimant’s] statements about [his or her] symptoms, such as pain,” but such “statements … will not alone establish” disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). “In evaluating the intensity and persistence of … pain, [the agency] consider[s] all of the available evidence, including … medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [him or her].” Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to evaluate statements about symptoms against objective medical and other evidence, including any inconsistencies.

CIPRIANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-05-28(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider several factors during this analysis, and “evaluate [the individual’s] statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence” in the record, including to determine “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... After careful review of the record and the ALJ’s decision, it is clear that the ALJ not only properly articulated the above framework for evaluating Plaintiff's symptoms, but he applied it in a thorough and thoughtful manner.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom statements and assess their consistency with the evidence.

Kelli J v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-24(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... First, Plaintiff has shown no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of her subjective statements. The ALJ cites ample evidence in support of his conclusion that Plaintiff’s complaints were not entirely consistent with other evidence of record.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating pain-related symptoms to consider the regulation's listed factors, including the claimant's treatment history, when assessing credibility.

Loren v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-22(c)(3)

Administrative Law Judges are required to evaluate a claimant’s credibility concerning pain according to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which states in relevant part: ... The Court also agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiffs persistent attempts at treatment, in evaluating her credibility.

Section 404.1529 identifies treatment received and measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms as additional factors in assessing credibility, but the court declined to require their analysis in this case because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet required it.

Porter v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-01-18

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a claimant’s statements about pain and other symptoms.

Morseman v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-22(c)(3)

In making his credibility finding, the ALJ did not apply the required factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's credibility to consider the claimant's subjective complaints, work record, third-party observations, treating and examining physicians' reports, and factors including daily activities, pain, medication, and functional restrictions.

Dipple v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-14(c)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ must consider all of the evidence relating to the subjective complaints, the claimant’s work record, observations of third parties, and the reports of treating and examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). The ALJ should consider the claimant’s daily routine; duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and functional restrictions. Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. ... We conclude that the ALJ made adequate findings with respect to Dipple’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed symptom-related factors in addition to objective medical evidence when assessing a claimant's credibility.

Waters v. SSA · filed 2014-03-07(c)

Beyond that, the ALJ's decision says very little about the factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c), which an ALJ "must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual's statements."

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms: determine whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and functional effects, considering specified factors when objective evidence alone is insufficient.

Phelps v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-19

First, the ALJ considers whether the medical evidence shows any impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Second, if an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of a claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements considering the following 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)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective symptoms in two steps: determine whether an impairment could produce them, then assess their intensity and functional effects using the record as a whole and the specified factors.

Colegrove v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-13(a), (b), and (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The Social Security regulations require a two-step process for the ALJ to consider the extent to which subjective evidence of symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical and other objective evidence. ... First, the ALJ ... considers whether the medical evidence shows any impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.... ” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Second, if an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of a claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent'to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements considering the details of the case record as a whole. 20. C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors and explain how they were balanced when evaluating a claimant's credibility.

Henningsen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2015-06-08(c)(3)

In evaluating the plaintiffs credibility, the ALJ also failed to properly consider all the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) and explain how he balanced those factors.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors when assessing the credibility of a claimant’s symptom statements and to justify the credibility finding with specific reasons supported by the record.

Kaczmarek v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-28(c)

In making her determination, the ALJ must consider the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) “and must justify the credibility finding with specific reasons supported by the record.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptom and then to evaluate the symptom's intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the entire case record.

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

An ALJ’s credibility assessment should reflect a two-step analysis. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether the evidence reflects that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or impairments that could produce the relevant symptom. ... Next, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the symptom, which requires a credibility assessment based on the entire case record.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to analyze treatment other than medication and measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms, although the court declined to require those additional factors in this case.

Phillips v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-09-12

Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” ... Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires considering specified factors when assessing a claimant’s credibility.

Crowley v. Barnhart · filed 2002-08-02(c)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ considers various factors, including (i) the claimant’s daily activities, (ii) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; (iii) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (iv) other treatment that relieves pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Mimms v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 180, 186 (2d Cir.1984).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) identifies reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, and motor disruption as examples of objective medical findings.

Hughes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-10-30(c)(2)

Examples of objective medical findings are set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), including “reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit, or motor disruption.” ... Noticeably absent from this record is any documentation regarding the examples of objective medical findings cited in regulation § 404.1529(c)(2). We conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that Hughes did not have a medically determinable severe impairment that meets the 12-month duration requirement.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits objective medical evidence to serve as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of symptoms when evaluating testimony and treatment history.

Sweat v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-02(c)(4)

Evidence of conservative treatment “is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F. 3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007). Objective medical evidence, such as evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, can be an important indicator of intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1529(c)(4). ... For the reasons stated above, the ALJ correctly relied on conservative treatment to discount Plaintiff’s treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider lay-witness testimony about the severity of a claimant’s limitations and ability to work.

Page v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2009-03-16(c)(3)

In the process of determining whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ is required to consider lay witness testimony about the severity of the claimant’s limitations and her ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Willcockson v . Astrue, 540 F.3d 8 7 8 , 881 (8th Cir. 2008); Stout v . Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir. 2006). If an ALJ chooses to disregard lay witness testimony, he must give reasons for doing so that are specific to each witness. Bruce v . Astrue, --- F.3d ---, 2009 WL 539945, at *2 (9th Cir. Mar. 5 , 2009). It is error to ignore completely testimony from witnesses, such as family members, who may be the only ones who observe a claimant’s limitations. Willcockson, 540 F.3d at 881.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider testimony from a claimant’s family and friends but does not require separate express reasons for rejecting each individual lay witness’s testimony.

Irvine v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-16(c)(3)

The applicable regulations require the ALJ to consider testimony from a claimant’s family and friends. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 404.1545(a)(3). The regulations, however, “do not require the ALJ to provide express reasons for rejecting testimony from each lay witness.” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114 (clarifying that contrary to the statement in Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993), that “[i]f the ALJ wishes to discount the testimony of the lay witnesses, he must give reasons that are germane to each witness,” an ALJ is not required to “discuss every witness’s testimony on a individualized, witness-by-witness basis”). ... Further, because Plaintiff’s mother-in-law’s statements were similar in nature to Mr. Irvine’s, the ALJ did not need to specifically address her testimony to afford it little weight. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1114.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of claimant and lay-witness symptom evidence, and an ALJ must give supported reasons before partially rejecting substantially similar testimony from the claimant’s family.

Koch v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-03(c)(1)

The Court concludes on this record that the ALJ erred when she partially rejected Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms because the ALJ did not provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for doing so. ... The Court also concludes on the same basis that the ALJ erred when she rejected Christy K. and Vicki’s statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) permits an ALJ to reject lay symptom evidence on the same germane, well-supported grounds used for substantially similar claimant testimony.

Ryan v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-04(c)(1)

The Court has already concluded the ALJ did not err when he partially rejected Plaintiff’s testimony because the ALJ provided support for his opinion based on substantial evidence in the record. The Court also concludes on the same basis that the ALJ did not err when he partially rejected Doris P.’s statement.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider descriptions of a claimant’s limitations that nonmedical sources may provide.

Humphreys v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-05(a)

Those regulations did not remove the requirement, reflected throughout the regulations, that an ALJ consider lay witness statements. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will also consider descriptions and observations of your limitations from your impairment(s)...by you, your family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider any description ... your...nonmedical sources may provide....”); SSR 96-8p (“The RFC assessment must be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, such as: […] lay evidence[.]”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider statements from nonmedical sources and minimally explain how they were treated.

PAXSON, JR v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-08-31

In evaluating a plaintiff's allegations of pain and the intensity and persistence of symptoms, the ALJ is to consider all evidence presented, including statements of nonmedical ... sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of available evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating how symptoms affect a claimant.

Jepsen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-09(c)(1)

20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... The ALJ also erred in failing to address Plaintiff’s mother’s testimony about Plaintiff’s behavior and attitude toward others. These errors were not harmless.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) bars substituting a claimant’s symptom allegations for missing objective medical evidence to meet a listed impairment and does not require an explicit finding that such evidence is missing.

Curvin v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-11(d)(3)

The ALJ did not explicitly find that Curvin was missing objective medical evidence before he excluded a discussion of her symptoms and concluded she was not disabled at step 3. The regulation, however, does not require such an explicit finding, and it was not necessary to “build an ‘accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.’” McKinzey, 641 F.3d at 889.

Section 404.1529 recognizes that pain symptoms may be present in combination with the other criteria for a listed impairment.

Kastner v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-10

The regulations explicitly anticipate that pain symptoms will “be present in combination with the other criteria” for a listed impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider lay testimony about a claimant's symptoms or how an impairment affects the ability to work.

Lopez v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-25(a)

The ALJ also erred by failing to consider the testimony of Lopez’s daughter. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). “[L]ay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms or how an impairment affects ability to work is competent evidence . . . and therefore cannot be disregarded without comment.”

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to assess the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms and evaluate the claimant's statements against medical and other evidence, including relevant aggravating factors, treatment, and daily activities.

Gould v. SSA · filed 2012-10-31(c), (c)(3)

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

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

Breen v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2012-11-14(c)(3)

The ALJ’s consideration of Breen’s testimony regarding his school attendance and activities as one probative factor in the disability determination was proper. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when a claimant’s pain allegations are not supported by objective medical evidence.

Sweet v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-20(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

According to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) and 416.929(e)(3)(i)-(vii), if the plaintiffs pain contentions are not supported by objective medical evidence, the ALJ must consider the following factors in order to make a determination regarding the plaintiffs credibility: ... 7. Other factors concerning [Plaintiffs] functional limitations and restric- ■ tions due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work after finding an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce them.

Andrews v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-09(c)(1)

When medical evidence shows that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, the ALJ then must evaluate the “intensity and persistence” of the claimant’s symptoms to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider daily activities as evidence bearing on the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms when evaluating symptom credibility.

Adams v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-20(c)(3)(i)

These daily activities, while not conclusive, were properly considered as factors in determining the extent of Ms. Adams’ claimed symptoms’. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (explaining that other evidence, including daily activities, is an “important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [claimant’s] symptoms.”).

Under section 404.1529(d)(3), allegations of pain or other symptoms cannot replace a required medical sign or laboratory finding when determining whether a claimant satisfies a listed impairment.

Tometczak v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-20(d)(3)

The ALJ is correct: when assessing whether a listing is satisfied, a claimant’s allegations of pain or other symptoms cannot replace a required sign or laboratory finding for listing criteria.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) does not permit pain or symptom allegations to substitute for a missing medical sign or laboratory finding needed to equal a listing.

(SS) Kilpatrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-15(d)(3)

However, we will not substitute your allegations of ... pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity ... of your impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment.

Section 404.1529(d) does not allow a claimant’s reported symptoms to substitute for the signs needed to meet a listing.

Varner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-01(d)

Plaintiff’s reported symptoms are not sufficient to prove the existence of the signs necessary to meet the listing.

Symptom testimony cannot replace missing medical signs or laboratory findings needed to meet a listing, but the absence of clinically observed seizures is not necessarily decisive.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(d)(3)

The Commissioner is, of course, correct that a claimant’s own symptom testimony or testimony of a lay witness is insufficient to make up for “a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding to raise the severity of [an] impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment.” ECF No. 13 at 4 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3)). If the medical record was replete with negative diagnostic evaluations ruling out epilepsy or long-term observations of Plaintiff without a single seizure, the absence of clinical evidence might have been sufficient to establish that Plaintiff’s seizure frequency did not meet the listing’s criteria. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(3). But the ALJ did not reach that conclusion, and the Court’s review of the record indicates he would not have been able to do so. Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ erred by assigning disproportionate weight to the absence of clinical observations of seizure activity.

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

Greathouse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-10-10(c)(3)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider things such as plaintiff’s current or past treatment; and any medication including the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of that medication. Furthermore, treatment that the ALJ deems conservative is an adequate basis for contradicting medical opinion evidence suggesting otherwise.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires consideration of the effectiveness of medications when evaluating how a claimant’s symptoms affect the ability to work.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-05(c)(3)-(4)

In evaluating how symptoms affect a claimant’s ability to work, the Social Security Administration considers the “effectiveness…of any medications” the claimant takes to alleviate symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)-(4). “Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility” for Social Security benefits. Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006). ... Accordingly, improvement with treatment was a clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence for the ALJ to discount Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication effectiveness and side effects, and an ALJ may not infer from limited medication or treatment that pain is less persistent or intense without explaining the connection.

TARPLEY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)(iv)

Another factor an ALJ must consider in evaluating the severity of claimants' symptoms and limitations is the "type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimants] take or have taken to alleviate [their] pain or other symptoms." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). ... However, the ALJ does not explain why limited medication and treatment correlates to Drew T.'s pain not being as persistent or intense as he testified.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of symptom medication relevant to evaluating symptom testimony.

Vox v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-30(c)(3)(iv)

Relevant factors for the ALJ to consider when evaluating symptom testimony include “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” the plaintiff takes to alleviate symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication effectiveness in evaluating symptoms.

Treadway v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-03-11(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ also appropriately considered that medication significantly reduced Treadway’s pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (Commissioner should consider the effectiveness of a claimant’s medications in assessing the claimant’s symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of medication effectiveness without requiring a finding that medication restored the ability to work.

Bradley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-20(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medications is a factor the ALJ may consider in assessing plaintiff testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ was not required to make a finding that the medication restored plaintiff’s ability to work in order to consider the inconsistencies between the record and his testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence relevant to the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Whitis v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-18(c)(2)

The medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (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).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs adjudicators to assess a claimant’s reported symptoms using factors including daily activities, functional restrictions, treatment, medication side effects, aggravating factors, and the characteristics of the reported pain.

Phaneuf v. SSA · filed 2014-06-24(c)(3)

The applicant’s credibility with regard to reports of symptoms such as pain is assessed based on several factors: his daily activities, functional restrictions, non-medical treatment, medications and side-effects, precipitating and aggravating factors, and the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of the pain he reports.

Section 404.1529 governs the evaluation of a disability claimant's subjective complaints and credibility.

Greer v. Apfel · filed 2000-02-08

Additionally, we find that the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of Greer's treating physicians, see Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996), made a proper credibility finding pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (1999), and suffi- ciently considered evidence of Greer's pulmonary impairment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the listed factors, including medications, daily activities, and the medical record, and boilerplate credibility language is acceptable when the ALJ adequately explains the finding.

Beckers v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-14(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The Social Security regulations require a two-step process for the ALJ to consider the extent to which subjective evidence of symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical and other objective evidence. ... When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements considering the details of the case record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Here, the ALJ properly explained why he found that Plaintiffs testimony was not entirely credible because he assessed Plaintiffs allegations in light of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). For example, the ALJ discussed Plaintiffs medications, daily activities, and evidence in the medical record. (Tr. 31). Despite the use of boilerplate language, the ALJ thoroughly discussed Plaintiffs testimony and the evidence in the medical record that the ALJ believed contradicted Plaintiffs testimony. As a result, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in utilizing boilerplate language.

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

Fiedler v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-30(c)(3)

When a plaintiff reports symptoms more severe than medical evidence alone would suggest, the ALJ must consider other factors in determining the claimant’s credibility. Thus, even assuming there was a lack of objective medical evidence in the record supporting the Plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain, an ALJ “must” consider a broad array of factors in “assessing] the credibility of [an] individual’s statements about symptoms and their effects.” ... These include: ... and (7) other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom statements and other available evidence, including objective medical evidence, when evaluating whether the statements are consistent with the record.

Perry v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-18(a), (c)

However, a claimant’s subjective description of symptoms alone cannot establish disability; the ALJ must also consider any other available evidence, including objective medical evidence, to determine whether the claimant’s testimony is consistent with the remainder of the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as one part of evaluating the credibility of symptom allegations.

Bainbridge v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-07(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ did not rely on Bainbridge’s ADLs to establish that he could work or as the sole basis for finding him not fully credible. Instead, the ALJ used them as one part of her adverse credibility finding, as the Commissioner’s regulations require and our case law recognizes. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (stating that an ALJ is to consider ADLs as part of credibility evaluation); Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1146 (10th Cir. 2010) (considering ALJ’s reliance on ADLs as permissible part of substantial evidence supporting credibility evaluation). The ALJ was entitled to base her adverse credibility finding, in part, on his performance of these activities, so the ALJ did not violate Frey.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate whether a claimant's symptoms are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence, and symptoms statements alone do not establish disability.

Dority v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2015-08-04(a)

In assessing an applicant’s credibility, an ALJ must consider “the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” including the opinions of medical experts. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(b)(1)(i)-(viii); 404.1529(a). “[S]tatements about [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ here fulfilled that mandate by considering Dority’s testimony in the context of the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a credibility determination to consider the claimant’s daily activities, pain or other symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations.

Vanover v. Colvin · filed 2015-11-19(c)

A credibility determination must take into account several factors, “including the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider regulatory factors beyond objective medical evidence and support the credibility finding with evidence in the record.

Slayton v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-07(c)

In determining credibility an ALJ must consider factors imposed by regulation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and must support his credibility finding with evidence in the record, see Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2009). ... The ALJ ultimately concluded, though, that Slayton’s allegations of limitations due to severe pain were not credible for several reasons: doctors had thought her reports of pain were disproportionate to exam findings, her pain appeared to respond to conservative treatment, she had never mentioned some of her symptoms to doctors, and her work history was sporadic before her alleged onset date. These reasons are sufficient to support the ALJ’s finding that Slayton’s allegations regarding her pain were not fully credible.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms and bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity and persistence solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Harris v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-25(c)(2)

An ALJ must follow the two-step process set forth in- the regulations for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms such as pain, fatigue, anxiety, or nervousness. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *6-9 (S.S.A July 2, 1996) (summarizing framework for assessing credibility). While the regulations note that objective medical evidence is useful to this inquiry, they do. not allow an ALJ to reject statements about the intensity and persistence of pain and other symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). The ALJ’s decision “must contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to the individual and to any subsequent reviewers the weight the [ALJ] gave to the individual’s statements and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the amount of treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of symptoms, but the court held that extensive treatment by a general-practice physician could not be discounted without an explanation that rheumatologic care was required.

Kline v. Colvin · filed 2016-01-12(c)(3)

The Commissioner is correct that the amount of treatment “is an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [Plaintiffs] symptoms.” Doc. 24 at 13 (citing 20 O.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)). ... Plaintiff received this treatment from his general practice physician and not a rheumatologist, but the ALJ fails to explain why that fact detracts from Plaintiffs credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: first whether a medically determinable impairment could cause them, then their intensity and limiting effects, with credibility assessed against the whole record when objective evidence alone is insufficient.

Covey v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-06(a), (b), and (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The Social Security regulations require a two-step process for the ALJ to consider the extent to which subjective evidence of symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical and other objective evidence. ... First, the ALJ considers whether the medical evidence shows any impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Second, if an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of a claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements considering the details of the case record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating the severity of a claimant's symptoms to consider the listed factors in totality, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Gleason v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-13(c)(3)

In determining a claimant’s credibility regarding the severity of symptoms, the ALJ must consider the following factors in totality: 1) the extent of daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3) precipitating and aggravating factors; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; 5) treatment other than medication for the symptoms; 6) measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and, 7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to discount a claimant’s allegations of disabling symptoms when they are inconsistent with the overall record, including objective and medical-opinion evidence, daily activities, pain characteristics, treatment, and self-imposed restrictions.

Tyson v. Colvin · filed 2015-08-19(c)

An ALJ may discredit a claimant’s subjective allegations of disabling symptoms to the extent they are inconsistent with the overall record as a whole, including: the objective medical evidence and medical opinion evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications and medical treatment; and the claimant’s self-imposed restrictions.

Section 404.1529(c) directs adjudicators evaluating symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and other relevant factors.

Seney v. Colvin · filed 2016-05-05(c)

Under this evaluation, a variety of factors are considered,, such as: (1) “objective medical evidence,” (2) “daily activities,” (3) “location, duration, frequency, and intensity,” (4) “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication,” (5) treatment (other than medication), (6) and “other factors” concerning plaintiffs limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... Here, the ALJ confirmed plaintiffs MS diagnosis, but found her credibility diminished due to “the conservative nature of her medical care, the limited objective medical findings, and [her] admitted [daily] activities.” D.I. 9 at 36. ... The ALJ’s decision to view plaintiffs testimony with diminished credibility should be upheld because it was supported by sufficient evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider evidence such as daily activities, the duration and frequency of pain, medication, and treatment when objective medical evidence alone does not show the alleged severity of impairment.

Evans v. Colvin · filed 2016-05-19(c)(3)

If a claimant’s subjective evidence of pain suggests a greater severity of impairment than can be demonstrated by objective evidence alone, the ALJ must consider other evidence, such as the claimant’s daily activities, duration and frequency of pain, medication, and treatment. ... We therefore remand for the ALJ to reassess Evans’s credibility in accordance with the factors set forth under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to reject subjective symptom allegations that do not reasonably flow from a medically determinable impairment and requires consideration of evidence consistency and information from the claimant, doctors, and others.

Aguiniga v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-15(b) and (c)

An ALJ may discredit any subjective allegations that cannot reasonably be expected to flow from an established, medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Once a claimant has demonstrated the existence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, the question becomes whether the claimant's subjective allegations regarding the extent of her symptoms are credible. See id. §§ 404.1528, 404.1545(e). The ALJ must consider the consistency of the evidence, and consider information provided by the claimant, her doctors, and others with knowledge of her circumstances. Id. § 404.1529(c); Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between a claimant's statements and the rest of the evidence when evaluating symptom severity.

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-15(c)(4)

Brooks failed to provide any explanation at all as to why she had not visited Dr. Li to pursue treatment for her Hepatitis C, when she regularly visited Dr. Tan, whose office was “right around the corner” from Dr. Li’s. R. 54. She originally ascribed this to her back pain, but when the ALJ pressed her on this inconsistency, she replied that she “really ha[d] no answer for that. I just haven’t gone.” R. 55. The ALJ could properly take this “inconsistency” regarding the severity of her pain—i.e., that her back hurt too much to visit Dr. Li, but not Dr. Tan—into account. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) provides the framework for evaluating the intensity, persistence, and functional effects of symptoms to determine their impact on a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.

Paulsen v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-01(c)

The framework for evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms and their functional effects is provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an adjudicator evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medications and treatment, and measures used for relief, in addition to objective medical evidence.

Eaton v. Colvin · filed 2016-04-04(c)(3)

In other words, once the issue becomes one of credibility and, as set forth in SSR 96-7p, in recognition of the fact that a claimant’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone, the adjudicator (ALJ) in assessing credibility must consider, in addition to the objective medical evidence, the other factors/evidence set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom severity to explain how the claimant’s symptom testimony relates to the evidence and resulting work limitations.

Payne v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-19(c)

By not addressing ... this testimony or explaining why he discounted it, the Administrative Law Judge failed to build a logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusion that Payne’s testimony about his daily activities, level of pain, and limitations was not credible, as is required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant’s activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating factors, medication effects, and other relevant factors.

Cooper v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-21(c)

The ALJ must consider factors such as the. claimant’s ... work-related activities and those of daily-living, the duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors of the symptoms, the effects of medication, and any other relevant factors.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the credibility and functional effects of a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms by considering the relevant record evidence, including medication side effects and daily activities, and to explain the reasons for the credibility finding.

Thompson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-04

Social Security Ruling 96-7p7 clarifies the evaluation of symptoms, including pain: 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 require a finding about the credibility of an individual’s statements about pain or other symptom(s) and its functional effects; explains the factors to be considered in assessing the credibility of the individual’s statements about symptoms; and states the importance of explaining the reasons for the finding about the credibility of the individual’s statements. ... In sum, contrary to Claimant’s argument otherwise, the ALJ’s credibility analysis was not “almost entirely” reliant upon the objective medical evidence, the lack of certain evidence was noted and considered, and further, the ALJ’s consideration of Claimant’s side effects from medications and her daily activities were not mere “pretense.” Accordingly, the undersigned FINDS the ALJ’s assessment of Claimant’s credibility complied with the Regulations and is based upon substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints by examining the listed symptom factors and applying them to the complaints, although this court did not require analysis of the two additional regulatory factors because the Eighth Circuit had not required them.

White v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2017-12-20

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. § 416.929.2 See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). ... 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. ... 2 Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” However, under Polaski and its progeny, the Eighth Circuit has not yet required the analysis of these additional factors. ... Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case. ... As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints are not entirely credible, the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to deference. See id.; Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints to consider the listed factors, including daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, and measures used for relief, although this court did not require separate analysis of the two additional factors in this case.

Callans v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-02-14(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of factors bearing on a claimant's pain and other symptoms, including treatment other than medication and measures used for relief, although the court did not require analysis of those two additional factors under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Gulley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-04-23

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

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Hopson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-05-07(c)

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. ... In his opinion, the ALJ addressed the factors from Polaski, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929, and stated inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony and the record. ... These findings are valid reasons supporting the ALJ’s credibility determination, and this Court finds the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's subjective complaints to examine and apply the listed symptom factors, but the ALJ need not methodically discuss each factor if the factors are acknowledged and examined before the complaints are discounted.

Taylor v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-06-07

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. § 416.929.1 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 requires the adjudicator to consider all symptoms, including pain, and evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against objective medical and other evidence.

Armata v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-04(a)

"In determining whether [an individual] is disabled, [the ALJ] consider[s] all . . . symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence." ... "A claimant's failure to follow treatment recommendations is a recognized factor in assessing credibility." ... "The ALJ adequately explained the basis for discounting Plaintiff's credibility and his reasons are supported by the record. Accordingly, the aspect of the opinion presents no basis for a remand."

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the claimant’s symptoms and then to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence using all available evidence.

Pollino v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-03-06(c)(1)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant's subjective complaints, the Commissioner's regulations require ALJs to employ a two-step inquiry. ... "First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a 'medically determinable impairment[ ] that could reasonably be expected to produce' " her symptoms. ... "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 [subjective] contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry."

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the entire record, including the claimant’s work record, symptom statements, medical-source evidence, and observations by others.

Cheasebro v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-22(c)(3)

In evaluating Mr. Cheasebro’s allegations regarding disabling pain, the ALJ was required to consider the evidence as a whole along with numerous factors listed in the Commissioner’s regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). These factors include Mr. Cheasebro’s prior work record, his statements regarding his symptoms, evidence submitted by medical sources, and observations by others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the entire record and specified symptom-related factors.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

“First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a ‘medically determinable impairment[ ] that could reasonably be expected to produce’ the alleged symptoms. Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(1)). “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 [subjective] contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Id. The ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the entire 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. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii); 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms if objective medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s allegations.

Lovell v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)(i)–(vii)

“Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms considering all of the available evidence; 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.” Meadors v. Astrue, 370 F. App’x 179, 183–84 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii); Taylor v. Barnhart, 83 F. App’x 347, 350–51 (2d Cir. 2003)). ... Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s testimony regarding her back pain to be credible.

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ to determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms as the first step in evaluating subjective symptom testimony.

Park v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-31(b)

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 (citations omitted). First, the ALJ must determine whether or not there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) evaluates consistency of symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting-effect statements rather than claimant character.

Seyb v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-29(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.