20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and other evidence, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, and treatment.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-24(c)(2)-(3)

An ALJ is charged with considering all relevant factors when evaluating a Plaintiff’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)-(3), 416.929(c)(2)-(3) (explaining that an ALJ will consider objective medical evidence as well as other evidence, including a claimant’s “daily activities”; the “location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [her] pain or other symptoms”; and medication and non-medication treatment).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, medication, and other functional limitations, when determining their effect on the claimant's ability to work.

Snyder v. Saul · filed 2020-06-25(c)(3)

The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the evidence before him, and that substantial evidence supports his evaluation of Plaintiff’s symptoms, making remand on this issue unwarranted.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires objective medical evidence to be considered with the medical source’s information when assessing symptom severity and disabling effects, but it does not permit denial based solely on a lack of objective support.

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

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

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms using all available medical and nonmedical evidence to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Stancavage v. Saul · filed 2020-06-29(c)(1)

Second, when the record shows that the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] symptoms,” the ALJ “must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s symptoms]” to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). “In evaluating the intensity and persistence” of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ considers “all of the available evidence” from “medical sources and nonmedical sources” to determine how the symptoms affect the claimant. (Id.). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ fulfilled her duty in considering Stancavage’s symptom allegations and weighed them against the entire medical record. In doing so, the ALJ provided a thorough explanation for affording limiting weight to Stancavage’s symptom allegations, and thus her credibility. This is all that the law requires, and all that a claimant like Stancavage can demand in a disability proceeding.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) directs the adjudicator to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-22(c)(3)(i)

Plaintiff complains about the ALJ’s evaluation of her daily activities but again I find no error. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). The ALJ noted that Plaintiff performed many daily activities such as caring for her dog, preparing meals, making the bed, doing laundry, washing dishes, driving, shopping for groceries, shopping on-line for gifts, and attending church twice per week, and had no difficulty with personal care. (Tr. 24).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence, including objective medical evidence and statements from medical and nonmedical sources, when evaluating how a claimant's symptoms affect the ability to work.

Davis v. Saul · filed 2020-06-18(c)(4)

Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ must consider “all evidence, including subjective statements about the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of pain [as well as] the objective medical evidence, laboratory findings and statements from treating or nontreating sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant in deciding the issue of (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider their characteristics, aggravating factors, medication and treatment, functional restrictions, and the claimant’s daily activities.

Rhonda F v. Saul · filed 2020-06-25(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). In determining whether the medical signs and laboratory findings show medical impairments that reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, the ALJ must consider the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain; precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., movement, activity, environmental conditions); type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side- effects of any pain medication; treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; functional restrictions; and the claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of the effectiveness of treatment, including a favorable response to conservative treatment, when evaluating the severity of a claimant's symptoms.

Mitchell v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (2011); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits). A favorable response to “conservative treatment” is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of an impairment.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptoms using the claimant's complaints and factors including objective medical evidence, source statements, treatment received, and other evidence.

Music v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-29(c)

To evaluate the credibility of a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ considers the claimant’s complaints along with factors such as the objective medical evidence, treating or nontreating source statements, treatment received, and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. The ALJ’s decision “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” Id. at *4. ... The ALJ considered these statements, as well as her statement that she needs to use a walker or wheelchair if she “goes any distance.” Tr. 121. The ALJ found Music’s pain/symptoms not to be as severe as she alleged. Tr. 125. The ALJ commented that Music had full muscle strength in all extremities, walked with a normal gait, and received regular, but not frequent, treatment. Tr. 125. He also observed that the record did not support the need for a wheelchair. Tr. 126. This is an adequate explanation containing specific reasons for the weight the ALJ gave to Music’s statements regarding her symptoms. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms and their effects on a claimant's ability to work, but it does not permit rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Fink v. Saul · filed 2020-07-01(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of his symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” those statements, the regulations recognize that objective medical evidence is “a useful indicator to assist [the Commissioner] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on [the claimant’s] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

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

Clark v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-29(a)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements regarding pain and workplace limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

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

Paul v. Saul · filed 2020-06-30(c)(3)

Generally, the effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039-1040 (9th Cir. 2008); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, substantial evidence of effective treatment may provide a specific, clear, and convincing reason to discount a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony. See Youngblood v. Berryhill, 734 F. App’x 496, 499 (9th Cir. 2018).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the claimant’s medication and other treatment, including their effectiveness and side effects.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-01(c)(3)

Additionally, the ALJ may consider “whether the claimant takes medication or undergoes other treatment for the symptoms.” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1040; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Therefore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s pain was not as debilitating as alleged based on the apparent effectiveness of medications and injection treatments in controlling it.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider all symptoms, including pain, and assess their consistency with objective and other evidence, including how they affect daily activities and ability to work.

BURTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-06-24(a)

With regard to evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the regulations require the ALJ to consider all symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which such symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical and other evidence, including the claimant’s statements and descriptions from medical and non-medical sources regarding how the symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms against objective and other evidence, but not to reject symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Hernandez v. Saul · filed 2020-06-22(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms which can be reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(1). Symptoms will be determined to reduce a claimant’s functional capacity only to the extent that the alleged limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(4). However, an ALJ will not reject statements about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of a symptom solely because it is not substantiated by objective evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate symptoms, considering whether an impairment could produce them and then whether the symptoms are consistent with the record, without rejecting symptom intensity solely for lack of objective medical evidence.

Melendez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-10(b), (c), (c)(2)

“The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Genier, 606 F.3d at 49 (alterations in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “In determining whether [an individual is] disabled, [the ALJ will] consider all [of an individual’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [his or her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While statements of pain are insufficient, an ALJ may not reject statements of intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms affecting an individual’s ability to work because of a lack of substantiating medical evidence. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(2).

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

Travo v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(b), (c), (c)(2)

The ALJ examined plaintiff’s statements and the extent to which they were consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. As the ALJ noted, plaintiff routinely had normal exams which demonstrated normal strength and range of motion in her back and extremities. ... Despite plaintiff’s allegations that her fatigue and other symptoms prevented her from working, plaintiff worked as a nanny, cared for her elderly mother-in-law, and frequently traveled to places including Las Vegas, Nebraska, Florida, and Italy. ... The ALJ properly determined that plaintiff’s allegations of pain were not supported by the medical evidence and inconsistent with plaintiff’s activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate symptoms, considering whether an impairment could produce them and then whether the symptoms are consistent with the record, without rejecting symptom intensity solely for lack of objective medical evidence.

Keovilay v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-15(b), (c), (c)(2)

“The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Genier, 606 F.3d at 49 (alterations in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “In determining whether [an individual is] disabled, [the ALJ will] consider all [of an individual’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [his or her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While statements of pain are insufficient, an ALJ may not reject statements of intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms affecting an individual’s ability to work because of a lack of substantiating medical evidence. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, considering the claimant’s testimony and inconsistencies with other evidence, after finding an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain.

Helms v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-21(c)(1), (c)(3)-(4)

When a claimant alleges disability through subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms, the Eleventh Circuit’s “pain standard” for evaluating these symptoms requires: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition, and either (2) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition, or (3) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221, 1223 (11th Cir. 1991); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. If the ALJ determines that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce their pain, he must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine if they limit their capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). During this assessment, an ALJ is to consider a claimant’s testimony and any inconsistency between the testimony of symptoms and any other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)-(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits the ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but objective evidence alone cannot be the sole basis for discounting testimony.

Romprey v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(c)(2)

The lack of supporting objective medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting testimony, but it is a factor that the ALJ may consider in making a credibility determination. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s statements are not supported by the objective medical evidence constitutes a specific, clear and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider the effectiveness and any side effects of medications taken to treat those symptoms.

Nelson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-15(c)(3)(iv)

As part of evaluating how claimant’s symptoms affect her ability to work, the ALJ must also consider the effectiveness and any side effects of medications claimant takes to treat those symptoms. See Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security, 404 F. App’x 362, 366 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)).

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

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-01(a)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including symptoms and whether they are consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Mendez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-23

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, such as all symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see also SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate the symptoms’ consistency with the objective and other evidence while considering relevant factors and statements.

Posey v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-27(a), (b), (c)(3)

At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. ... If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record. ... The applicable regulations also set out a seven-factor test to evaluate Plaintiff’s own subjective statements regarding pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... If the ALJ rejects plaintiff’s testimony after considering the objective medical evidence and any other factors deemed relevant, he must explain that decision with sufficient specificity to permit a reviewing court to decide whether there are legitimate reasons for the ALJ’s disbelief. ... The Court finds that remand is warranted because the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and reported limitations in his functionality.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and other evidence when evaluating symptom severity and limitations, but symptoms diminish residual functional capacity only to the extent the alleged limitations are reasonably consistent with that evidence.

(SS) Barone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-09(c)(2), (c)(4)

The law does not require an ALJ simply to ignore inconsistencies between objective medical evidence and a claimant’s testimony. “While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). As part of the analysis of the record as a whole, an ALJ properly considers whether the objective medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s pain testimony. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.1529(c)(4) (symptoms are determined to diminish residual functional capacity only to the extent that the alleged functional limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence”). “[O]bjective medical evidence is a useful indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms, including the effects those symptoms may have on the ability to perform work-related activities.” S.S.R. 16-3p at 6.

Section 404.1529 requires a disability claimant’s complaints of pain or other symptoms to be considered alongside objective medical evidence.

RAY v. SAUL · filed 2020-07-29

The ALJ must consider a disability claimant’s complaints of pain or other symptoms alongside objective medical evidence of pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process: determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then assess the symptoms’ severity using the record, including reported activities and treatment.

Apke v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ follows a two‐step process. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). First, the ALJ considers whether the claimant’s impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms she alleges, such as pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Second, the ALJ considers whether the record supports the severity of the symptoms the claimant alleges, such as debilitating pain preventing work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). To do so, the ALJ will look to the claimant’s reported activity levels and treatment received.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step analysis of subjective pain or symptom testimony, first determining whether an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms and then evaluating their severity.

Bailey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-02

In assessing a claimant’s testimony about subjective pain or the intensity of symptoms, the ALJ engages in a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. The first stage is a threshold test in which the claimant must present objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. ... At the second stage of this analysis, absent affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of the symptoms.

Section 404.1529 does not require an ALJ to make explicit findings on every factor listed for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Brandenberg v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-07(c)(3)

While the ALJ did not make findings on every factor, Plaintiff fails to show that any shortcoming amounts to reversible error. There is no requirement that the ALJ make findings on each factor in the regulation. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects; the ALJ need not expressly discuss every listed factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.

Smalley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-10(a), (c)(3)

The longstanding two-part analysis for evaluating symptoms applies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). “An ALJ must first determine ‘whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms.’ If such an impairment exists, the ALJ ‘must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities.’” ... Relevant factors to be considered in evaluating symptoms are listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). “It is well established that the ALJ is not required to discuss every factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.” ... Here, the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms complied with SSR 16-3p and was supported by substantial evidence. That the ALJ did not specifically mention the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), or did not discuss them all, does not undermine his analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate how the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms limit the ability to work after finding a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce those symptoms, considering specified evidence and factors.

Beard v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-07-14(c)(1)-(3)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ, after finding an impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence and how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work, considering specified evidence and inconsistencies.

McGrath v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2020-07-14(c), (c)(4)

Once the ALJ finds a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, she must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the entire record and factors including daily activities, the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, measures taken to relieve symptoms, and functional limitations.

Stearns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-06(c)(3)

The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider symptoms only when they arise from a medically demonstrated impairment, and then assess the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms against the entire case record.

Bonner v. Saul · filed 2020-07-17(b), (c)

First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant's ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, against objective medical evidence and other evidence about the claimant’s history, treatment, activities, and how impairments and symptoms affect work ability.

BORCHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-07-20

When making the RFC determination, the ALJ is required to: [C]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. By objective medical evidence, we mean medical signs and laboratory findings . . . . By other evidence, we mean . . . statements or reports from you, your treating or nontreating source, and others about your medical history, diagnosis, prescribed treatment, daily activities, efforts to work, and any other evidence showing how your impairment(s) and any related symptoms affect your ability to work. . . . 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

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

Schmitz v. Saul · filed 2020-07-24(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s statements about pain do not alone establish disability, while medical history, laboratory findings, and treatment improvement may be considered when evaluating pain.

Beach v. Saul · filed 2020-07-28(a)

Congress explicitly prohibits granting benefits based solely on subjective complaints. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (“An individual’s statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“[S]tatements about your pain will not alone establish that you are disabled.”). ... The ALJ considers medical history and laboratory findings as a baseline when evaluating pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Here, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff’s history of improvement with certain medical treatments was inconsistent with her alleged limitation due to pain.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ, after finding an impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms, to assess their intensity and persistence and their effect on the claimant's ability to work using the relevant evidence.

Truesdell v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(c)(1)-(4)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms and the severity of an impairment.

McGee v. Saul · filed 2020-07-21(c)(3)(i)

In addition to the medical evidence, the ALJ is to consider the claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the symptoms and severity of an impairment. Id. at 871 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)). A thorough review of the ALJ’s decision reveals that the ALJ in this case did take into consideration, not only medical opinion evidence, but the totality of the medical evidence, as well as McGee’s written and oral accounts of her daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an adjudicator from rejecting a claimant's subjective symptom complaints solely because objective medical evidence does not support them.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c)(2)

In conducting her analysis, the ALJ cannot disregard a claimant’s subjective complaints “solely because there is no objective medical evidence supporting [them].” Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)); see also Knight v. Chater, 55 F.3d 309, 314 (7th Cir. 1995). ... Instead, SSR 16-3p requires ALJs to evaluate other evidence, including “the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then to consider how consistently the symptoms can be accepted with the objective medical and other evidence; complete consistency is not required.

Antonetti v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-11(b)

Complete consistency between the medical evidence and a claimant’s description of symptoms, however, is not the relevant standard. To evaluate a claimant’s testimony regarding the intensity and persistence of her symptoms, the ALJ must first decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. ... If so, the ALJ next must consider “the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, among other factors, when evaluating the nature and severity of impairments and related symptoms.

Flanagan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ is permitted to consider Claimant’s daily activities, among other factors, when evaluating the nature and severity of Claimant’s impairments and related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); see, e.g., Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005); Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and the effectiveness of medication and other treatment when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Breckle v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)-(v)

An ALJ may properly consider the consistency of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints with the objective medical evidence. Bryant v. Colvin, 861 F.3d 779, 783 (8th Cir. 2017). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (providing that objective medical evidence is a useful indictor in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms). ... Cypress v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002)) (“An impairment which can be controlled by treatment or medication is not considered disabling.”). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (ALJ may consider effectiveness of medication and other treatment to control symptoms.).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the symptoms, then assess their consistency with objective and other evidence using relevant factors such as daily activities, treatment, and medication.

Franco v. Colvin · filed 2020-07-27(a), (b), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The regulations set forth a two-step process to assess a claimant's credibility. Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). At the initial step, the ALJ determines whether the claimant suffers from a "medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [his or her] symptoms, such as pain." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If that is the case, then second, the ALJ considers "the extent to which [the 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). However, the ALJ "is not required to accept the claimant's subjective complaints without question; he [or she] may exercise discretion in weighing the credibility of the claimant's testimony in light of the other evidence in the record." Genier, 606 F.3d at 49 (citation omitted). When rejecting subjective complaints, an ALJ "must do so explicitly and with sufficient specificity to enable the Court to decide whether there are legitimate reasons for the ALJ's disbelief and whether his [or her] determination is supported by substantial evidence." Brandon v. Bowen, 666 F. Supp. 604, 608 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). ... Although the ALJ did not expressly consider each factor listed in the regulations, he addressed those that were relevant to Plaintiff's claim. Thus, the ALJ noted the alleviative effects of medication and physical therapy, as reflected in Plaintiff's progress notes. Id. at 31; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv),(v) (SSA considers medication taken and other treatment received in evaluating credibility). He also cited Plaintiff's testimony as to his ability to perform numerous activities of daily living, such as grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning his apartment, reading, watching television, and taking public transportation by himself, which provided further support for the ALJ's conclusion that Plaintiff was not precluded from all work activity. Id. at 32; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (SSA considers evidence of claimant's daily activities in evaluating credibility). Accordingly, the Court finds no error in the ALJ's credibility analysis, as it was supported by substantial evidence, relied upon the relevant factors, and was set forth with "sufficient specificity to permit intelligible plenary review of the record." Williams ex rel. Williams v. Bowen, 859 F.2d 255, 260-61 (2d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted); see Cichocki, 534 F. App'x at 76 ("Because the ALJ thoroughly explained his credibility determination and the record evidence permits us to glean the rationale of the ALJ's decision, the ALJ's failure to discuss those factors not relevant to his credibility determination does not require remand.").

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and the medical and other evidence, including statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Ammons v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-28(c)(4)

While evaluating the evidence, the ALJ must consider whether inconsistencies exist within the evidence or between the claimant’s statements and the evidence, including his history, medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other sources about how his symptoms affect him. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) & 416.929(c)(4). ... In sum, the ALJ correctly considered “the consistency of [Ammons’s] statements” with the remainder of the evidence. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8. Her determination is supported by substantial evidence. This claim, therefore, is without merit.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider medical findings, medications, course of treatment, and daily activities.

Kies v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The ALJ was required to consider these medical findings, medications, and course of treatment when evaluating her subjective statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)-(v). ... Although Plaintiff disagrees with how the ALJ weighed her daily activities, ALJs are required to consider daily activities in assessing a claimant’s subjective allegations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), and this was only one factor in the ALJ’s analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the claimant's statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and functional limitations together with objective medical evidence, laboratory findings, and statements from treating or nontreating sources.

Carswell v. Saul · filed 2020-07-20(c)(4)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to account for medication side effects and treatment history rather than treating inconsistent steroid use as evidence of less severe symptoms without considering why the treatment varied.

Sweat v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-20(c)(3)

The ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective allegations does not reflect her comprehensive review of the record, as required pursuant to SSR 16-3p. She cited Plaintiff’s “inconsistent use of steroids throughout the record” as a reason to reject his subjective allegations. Tr. at 36. However, this reason is not justified, as the ALJ neglected to consider the significant side effects imposed by steroid use or to note that Plaintiff generally followed his physicians’ instructions as to use of steroids. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

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

Brown v. Saul · filed 2020-07-22(c)

When assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, his level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, *7-*8 (Oct. 25, 2017). Ultimately, “the ALJ must explain her [subjective symptom evaluation] in such a way that allows [the Court] to determine whether she reached her decision in a rational manner, logically based on her specific findings and the evidence in the record.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the claimant's symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire record, including relevant symptom factors.

Vargas v. Saul · filed 2020-07-23(a), (b), (c), (c)(3)

In the same fashion that medical opinion evidence is evaluated, the Social Security Rulings and Regulations provide a framework under which the severity of a claimant's reported symptoms are to be considered. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16–3p. ... When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must follow a two-step process in which the ALJ resolves whether a medically determinable impairment could be the cause of the symptoms alleged by the claimant, and subsequently must evaluate the alleged symptoms in consideration of the record as a whole. SSR 16-3p. First, symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, will only be considered to affect a claimant's ability to perform work activities if such symptoms result from an underlying physical or mental impairment that has been demonstrated to exist by medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16–3p. During the second step of this credibility assessment, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence or functionally limiting effects of his or her symptoms are substantiated based on the ALJ's evaluation of the entire case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16–3p.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate how the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s pain or other symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work when a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce them.

Franz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(c)(1)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of alleged symptoms and consideration of the factors listed in subsection (c)(3).

Barclay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(a), (c)(3)

When a claimant alleges impairment-related symptoms, the Commissioner follows a two-step process to evaluate those symptoms. ... Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. ... In addition to this evidence, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s alleged symptoms through a two-step process and, when objective evidence is insufficient, assess the claimant’s statements using the listed regulatory factors.

Melendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-24(a), (c)(1), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The ALJ must consider all of the Plaintiff’s statements about his symptoms and how those symptoms affect his daily activities and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (effective ... June 13, 2011 to Mar. 26, 2017). However, the claimant’s statements alone will not establish disability. Id. Thus, the ALJ must follow a two-step process when considering the claimant’s alleged symptoms and their effect on her ability to work. The ALJ must first consider whether the medical evidence shows any impairment that “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. at §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). If such an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity and persistence” of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit her work capacity. Id. at §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). 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) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures the claimant has taken to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. Id. at §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms, including pain, based on the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Harrison v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-03

In considering Plaintiff's symptoms as well as the medical evidence, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's allegations regarding the limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely credible. (Tr. 19-20); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 ("In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all of your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence."). ... The Court will not second-guess the ALJ's finding since the ALJ gave numerous reasons, supported by the record, for determining that Plaintiff's subjective allegations were not entirely credible.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms in two stages: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using all available evidence rather than objective evidence alone.

Kesselring v. Saul · filed 2020-08-06

At the second stage, the ALJ must consider all the available evidence, including the claimant’s medical history, medical signs, statements by the claimant and her treating or examining physicians, objective medical evidence of pain, and any other information proffered by the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)–(3), 416.929(c)(1)–(3). ... The ALJ, therefore, is required to make a finding regarding a claimant’s credibility and should specifically refer to the evidence supporting that finding, Hammond v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), but the ALJ cannot discount Plaintiff’s subjective evidence of pain solely based on objective medical findings, Lewis, 858 F.3d at 866 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using relevant factors.

Joseph v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)

An ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms. Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3 (2017), 2017 WL 5180304, outlines the process ALJs are required to employ in evaluating such statements to fulfil the ALJ’s obligations set out in the Commissioner’s applicable regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). ... The court finds that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons, supported by substantial evidence for his evaluation of the weight given Plaintiff’s reported symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess their intensity, persistence, and functional limitations.

Huff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13

An evaluation of subjective complaints 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 symptoms. See id. Next, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of [the] symptom[s].”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s subjective complaints in light of objective medical evidence and factors such as daily activities, pain, medication, aggravating factors, and functional restrictions.

Mayne v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-03

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ is required to assess the claimant’s credibility in light of the objective medical evidence and “any evidence relating to: a claimant’s daily activities; duration, frequency and intensity of pain; dosage and effectiveness of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors, and functional restrictions.” Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 16.929. Claimant’s subjective complaints may be discounted only if found to be inconsistent with the record taken as a whole.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant to establish an underlying medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and directs the ALJ to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects using the specified evidence.

Byers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-08-05(a), (b), (c), (c)(3), (c)(4)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory symptom-evaluation factors when assessing how a claimant’s symptoms limit residual functional capacity.

Beste v. Saul · filed 2020-08-04

In the case at bar, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff's residual functional capacity was arrived at with consideration of her symptoms based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. ... In the opinion of this Court, the ALJ’s finding of residual functional capacity is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and was arrived at by considering the factors set forth in the regulation and ruling discussed above. Discussion of Plaintiff's work record is required neither by the Commissioner’s regulations nor by case law. The Court finds no error on this issue.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then assess the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using specified factors.

Hochbrueckner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(a), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

“The ALJ’s credibility assessment must be based on a two[-]step analysis of pertinent evidence in the record. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has medically determinable impairments, ‘which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” ... Second, if medically determinable impairments are shown, then the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant's capacity to work. Because an individual's symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, an ALJ will consider the following factors in assessing a claimant's credibility: (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. ... Here, the ALJ determined that plaintiff's medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, but concluded that her statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not fully credible because “they [we]re . . . not substantiated or corroborated by the medical evidence of record.” ... Here, the ALJ thoroughly discussed plaintiff's subjective complaints, including he hearing testimony that she did not use pain medication or attend treatment, considered her activities of daily living, and properly concluded that her subjective complaints were not supported by the record. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an adjudicator evaluating subjective complaints to consider objective medical evidence and other evidence, including treating-physician information, medical opinions, medication effectiveness, and non-medication treatment.

Barrett v. Saul · filed 2020-08-18(c)

To evaluate his subjective complaints, the ALJ was required to consider both the objective medical evidence and other evidence, including information provided by his treating physician, other medical opinions, the effectiveness of any medication taken, and treatment received apart from medication. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (listing factors to consider in determining extent to which pain limits capacity to work); see also id. § 404.1520c(c) (listing factors to consider in reviewing medical opinions).

Section 404.1529 requires considering all symptoms, including pain, based on how consistently they accord with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Robinson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-04(c)(4)

In considering Plaintiff's symptoms as well as the medical evidence, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's allegations regarding the limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely credible. (Tr. 18); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 ("In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all of your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence."). ... The Court will not second-guess the ALJ's finding since the ALJ gave numerous reasons, supported by the record, for determining that Plaintiff's subjective allegations were not entirely credible. Remand is, therefore, unnecessary.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an adjudicator to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms.

Wieringa v. Saul · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)(i)

Clearly, the ALJ was permitted to consider whether plaintiff’s daily activities were inconsistent with alleged inability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Massaglia v. Saul, 805 F. App'x 406, 410 (7th Cir. 2020); Puchalski v. Colvin, 651 F. App'x 535, 538 (7th Cir. 2016); Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 368 (7th Cir. 2013).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the available evidence and specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and other measures used for relief.

Basque v. Saul · filed 2020-08-11(c)(3)(i)-(vi)

Specifically, in addition to the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must consider the following factors: “1) daily activities; 2) location, duration, frequency and intensity of any symptoms; 3) precipitating and aggravating factors; 4) type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medications taken; 5) other treatment received; and 6) other measures taken to relieve symptoms.” F.S. v. Astrue, No. 1:10-CV-444, 2012 WL 514944, at *19 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi)). ... Ultimately, the ALJ explicitly acknowledged consideration of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p when making his credibility determination, (Tr. at 15), and it is evident from his thorough discussion that the determination was free from legal error. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s credibility finding is free from legal error and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider specified factors concerning the claimant's pain and functional limitations.

Lakhiani v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

An ALJ making a credibility determination must consider (1) the claimant’s daily activities, (2) the duration, location, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain, (3) precipitating and aggravating factors, (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications that the claimant takes, (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received, (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain, and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... In her credibility evaluation, the ALJ should also discuss the various credibility factors, and explain how she applies them in evaluating the plaintiff’s testimony. ... On remand, the ALJ should reevaluate the plaintiff’s testimony in the context of Dr. Ghaw’s opinion and include a specific credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider seven factors bearing on credibility, including daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and functional limitations.

Emerick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

When determining credibility, the ALJ considers the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication claimant takes to relieve symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received by claimant for relief of pain; (6) any other measures claimant takes to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... The ALJ noted the plaintiff’s subjective claims of pain, but did not discuss or refer to the other relevant credibility factors, such as the plaintiff’s account of his day-to-day activities. Nor did ALJ Kearns specify the extent to which he credited the plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s activities of daily living when evaluating the severity and limiting effects of alleged symptoms.

Fischer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14

These activities of daily living are consistent with light work and it was permissible for the ALJ to consider them in assessing Plaintiff’s RFC.

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

Glasser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-17(c)(3)(iv)

A finding that a claimant’s condition has improved with treatment can serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms if those activities contradict the claimant’s other testimony.

Fagg v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-05(c)(3)(i)

Daily activities can undermine a claimant’s credibility if they contradict the claimant’s other testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); see also Orn, 495 F.3d at 639; Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). ... These activities are reasonably inconsistent with Plaintiff’s allegations that “he has absolutely no strength for anything” and spends the majority of his time lying down. AR 64–65.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms, including pain, and assess whether their limiting effects are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Zatarain v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-03(a)

In considering Plaintiff's symptoms as well as the medical evidence, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's allegations regarding the limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely credible. (Tr. 26); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 ("In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all of 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."). As a basis for this finding, the ALJ found the lack of objective evidence to support Plaintiff's complaints, her activities of daily living, discrepancies within the record, and the medical opinions not being supportive of the alleged disability. (Tr. at 21, 23-28). ... The evidence regarding the severity of Plaintiff's impairments is inconsistent and can support more than one reasonable conclusion. The Court will not second-guess the ALJ's finding since the ALJ gave numerous reasons, supported by the record, for determining that Plaintiff's subjective allegations were not entirely credible.

Section 404.1529(a) does not permit symptoms alone to establish a severe impairment; the adjudicator must distinguish reported symptoms from clinical observations of physiological abnormalities.

Tejedor-Davila v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-06(a)

Although the ALJ was correct to explain that symptoms alone are insufficient to establish a severe impairment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), he did not explain whether Dr. Alvarez’s records reflected Tejedor’s description of her symptoms or clinical observations of physiological abnormalities (i.e. “signs”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's statements about how symptoms affect the claimant together with the claimant's medical history, medical signs, and laboratory findings when assessing the claimant's ability to work.

Winner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13(a)

Here, the ALJ complied with the regulations by expressly considering all of the evidence and all of Winner’s symptoms in evaluating his mental RFC; and he discussed Winner’s hearing testimony (including testimony that he had periodic panic attacks during which he called off work and became “loud and uncontrollable), exhaustively reviewing the medical records, and addressing and weighing each of the medical opinions. (Tr. 20-24); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 404.1529(a); SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5.

Section 404.1529(c) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Anderson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-14(c)

A claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of pain or its effect on the claimant’s ability to work may not be rejected solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate those statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(4) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and inconsistencies with the record, and requires consideration of the listed factors, when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Cole v. Saul · filed 2020-08-17(c)(2)-(4)

Under SSR 16-3p, the ALJ shall determine whether to credit a claimant’s statements about her pain and limitations by referring to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), which include: the claimant’s daily activities; the factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; the claimant’s treatment, other than medication, for the symptoms; any other measure that the individual uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and, finally, “any other factors concerning an individual’s functional imitations and restrictions.” SSR 16-3p. ... Inconsistencies between a claimant’s testimony and other evidence in the record is a specific reason for an adverse credibility determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... If properly substantiated, inconsistency with objective medical evidence may be an appropriate reason to reject a claimant’s testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 04.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms.”); Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 (“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”) Here, though, the objective evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination regarding Plaintiff’s ability to ambulate. ... In sum, the ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s subjective statements in accordance with the relevant factors set out in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Consequently, remand is not warranted on this issue.

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

Febus v. Saul · filed 2020-08-03(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see also Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for . . . benefits.”) Accordingly, substantial evidence of effective treatment provides a specific, clear, and convincing reason to discount a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony.

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

Book v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14(a)

When determining a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect his daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (October 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms to consider factors such as inconsistent statements, clinical findings, treatment, and daily activities.

Meeks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(c)(3)

An ALJ is entitled to discount a claimant’s symptom testimony where it is not well supported by the objective medical evidence or where it conflicts with the claimant’s prior statements to medical providers. See Summers v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 523, 528 (7th Cir. 2017); Arnold v. Barnhart, 473 F.3d 816, 823 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[S]ubjective complaints need not be accepted insofar as they clash with other objective medical evidence in the record.” (citation omitted)); Powers, 207 F.3d at 435-36 (“The discrepancy between the degree of [symptoms] attested to by the witness and that suggested by the medical evidence is probative that the witness may be exaggerating her condition.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Here, the ALJ properly considered that Meeks made inconsistent statements to providers, that several medical providers documented inconsistencies in her performance on clinical examinations, and that the providers considered such inconsistencies as indicative of exaggeration of her symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an adjudicator to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and, if so, assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Nunez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-01(a)-(c)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all claimant’s symptoms and “the extent to which [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). This involves a two-step inquiry according to which the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable mental impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms; and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)–(c), 416.929(b)-(c). ... The record does not reflect that the ALJ ascertained whether Nunez’s sleep-related issues and headaches, “in combination with h[er] other impairments, might result in any additional limitations in [her] residual functional capacity.” See Melius, 2013 WL 5467071, at *3.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities and treatment history when evaluating the limiting effects of symptoms.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-04(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s conservative course of treatment in his credibility determination. When the record shows minimal treatment for allegedly disabling conditions, this is a factor that the ALJ may permissibly consider. 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi). Here, physical therapy records reveal successful treatment for a number of discrete conditions and Dr. Slater does not appear to have treated Plaintiff for most of the issues he claimed were disabling on his opinion form. ... The ALJ also considered, as it was permitted to do, Plaintiff’s ability to perform tasks of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... It was not error for the ALJ to consider these facts in determining the extent to which Plaintiff was limited.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant to show an underlying medical condition plus objective evidence confirming the severity of alleged symptoms or evidence that the condition could reasonably cause them; if objective evidence does not confirm their severity, the ALJ must evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant's ability to work.

PELHAM v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2020-08-06(a)-(d)

A claimant, like Pelham, who attempts to prove disability based on subjective complaints must provide evidence of an underlying medical condition and either objective medical evidence confirming the severity of her alleged symptoms or evidence establishing her medical condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b), 416.929(a), (b); SSR 96-7p; Wilson v Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2002). If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the claimant’s alleged symptoms but the claimant establishes he has an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s alleged symptoms and their effect on claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), (d), 416.929(c), (d); SSR 96-7p; Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225-26.

Section 404.1529 requires an underlying medical condition and directs the adjudicator to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using objective and other specified evidence.

Garner v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-08-05(a), (b), (c), (c)(3), (c)(4)

The Eleventh Circuit applies a two-part pain standard when a plaintiff claims disability due to pain or other subjective symptoms. The plaintiff must show evidence of the underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged symptoms arising from the condition, or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such a severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b), 416.929(a), (b); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029; Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002).

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

Dan Cameron Geddes, Jr. v. Saul · filed 2020-08-05(c)(2)

However, the lack of objective medical evidence supporting a claimant’s allegations cannot provide the sole basis for rejecting his statements about the severity of his symptoms and limitations. Id.; see also Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 679; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Subsection (c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, symptom frequency and intensity, medication dosage and side effects, treatment, aggravating factors, and resulting functional restrictions.

Suelflow (Spangler) v. Saul · filed 2020-08-10(c)

Once an ALJ determines that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms that can reasonably be expected to stem from it. ... An ALJ’s analysis should consider the claimant’s daily activities; the frequency and intensity of his symptoms; the dosage and side effects of medications; non-medication treatment; factors that aggravate the condition; and functional restrictions that result from or are used to treat the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ to consider medication side effects and treatment effectiveness when evaluating alleged pain or other symptoms.

Setzer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(c)(3)(iv)

Further, the ALJ did not consider the significant side effects Plaintiff experienced when taking Lyrica, which caused cognitive difficulties, or Gabapentin, which caused severe memory problems and blackouts. AR 58, 330, 346, 356, 533, 664. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (noting that an ALJ must consider side effects of medication taken for pain or other symptoms when assessing allegations of disabling symptoms); see also SSR 16-3p (noting that a claimant may not agree to take prescription medications because the side effects are less tolerable than the symptoms). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s treatment relieved her symptoms cannot serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting Dr. Puttmann’s opinions.

Section 404.1529(c) directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the relevant evidence, including the claimant’s reported symptoms and other evidence bearing on their nature, severity, and effects.

Deguzman v. Saul · filed 2020-08-14(c)

An ALJ also may consider the claimant’s work record and testimony from doctors and third parties regarding the “nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms” of which the claimant complains. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958–59 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The Court finds that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to identify the specific testimony found not credible and by failing to identify the specific evidence that undermined the identified testimony. ... The fact that Plaintiff can perform these limited activities with difficulty and pain does not constitute a clear and convincing reason for negating any specific statement made by Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s general claim that she is unable to work.

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ evaluating pain to first determine whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms.

McPherson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-17(b)

In evaluating a claimant’s pain, an ALJ must first determine “whether objective medical evidence presents a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.” Arakas v. Comm., Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, against objective medical and other evidence when making a disability determination.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-07-31

In making a disability determination, the ... ALJ is required to “consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical and clinical findings supporting that an impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or other symptoms, which alone do not establish disability.

Pena v. Chater · filed 1997-06-30(a)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating pain symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom details, relief measures, and other relevant functional limitations.

S t . Onge v. SSA · filed 1997-08-20(c)(3)

The ALJ must inquire about the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and inten-sity of pain and other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the characteristics and effectiveness of any medication, treatments, or other measures the claimant is taking or has taken to relieve pain; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations due to pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (1997); Avery, 797 F.2d at 2 3.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of listed factors when evaluating a claimant's pain and other symptoms.

Minichino v. Callahan · filed 1997-12-12(c)(3)

On the contrary, the ALJ’s decision specifically lists the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and mentions several of these factors as they pertain to Mr. Miniehino. ... Thus, rather than rejecting Mr. Minichino’s symptoms solely because she believed they were not substantiated by medical evidence, as claimed by Mr. Miniehi-no, the court finds that the ALJ appropriately based her assessment of the claimant’s abilities upon a review of the entire record before her.

Section 404.1529 sets out standards for evaluating a claimant’s pain and other symptoms in a disability claim.

Young v. Apfel · filed 1999-01-22

The legal standards for evaluating pain are outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, and were addressed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Luna v. Bowen, 834 F.2d 161 (10th Cir.1987). ... In this case, the ALJ discounted Plaintiffs credibility based on the level of Plaintiffs activities, the absence of any restrictions placed on Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs testimony regarding his medications, Plaintiffs reported activities, and the lack of strong pain medication. Although the ALJ’s analysis could have provided additional detail, the Court concludes that it is sufficient in accordance with Kepler.

Section 404.1529(a) requires considering evidence and relevant factors when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, including pain.

Jacobs v. Chater · filed 1997-02-24(a)

The ALJ set out the factors to be considered when assessing evidence of pain and other subjective symptoms. See Luna v. Bowen, 884 F.2d 161 (10th Cir.1987); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) and 416.929(a). Regard is had to all evidence presented relating to subjective complaints, including the claimant’s work record and information and observations by treating and examining physicians and third parties. Consideration is given to matters such as the nature, duration and frequency of pain, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, treatment, functional restrictions and the claimant’s daily activities. Luna, 834 F.2d at 166. ... Contrary to Jacobs’ assertions, the ALJ evaluated his subjective complaints of disabling pain in accordance with the relevant regulations and ease law precedent.

Section 404.1529(c) directs the ALJ to consider objective medical evidence, treatment, pain descriptions, and daily activities when evaluating pain.

Hammond v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 2001-02-01(c)

The ALJ should consider the objective medical evidence of pain, medical treatments taken to alleviate the pain, specific descriptions of pain, and the ... claimant’s daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(b) requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimed pain or other symptoms.

Parker v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-09(b)

Under the regulations, the determination of whether a person is disabled by pain or other symptoms is a two-step process. First, there must be objective medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment that results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider factors including daily activities, treatment, and medication when assessing pain allegations that objective medical evidence does not support.

Petersen v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-25(c)(3)

The ALJ’s credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence and must be revisited on remand. The ALJ made no mention of the testimony provided by Ms. Boyea and Ms. Jumper, which supported Plaintiffs allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of daily activities, treatment, medication, and other relevant factors when evaluating a claimant’s reported pain.

Cookson v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-01(c)(3)

Considerations capable of substantiating subjective complaints of pain include evidence of: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received for relief of pain; (6) any other measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors relating to claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions attributable to pain. See id. at 22; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Therefore, based on the considerations the ALJ set forth in detail in his decision, the Court finds that his credibility determination deserves deference as he made his decision based on the record as a whole and in light of the factors set forth in the statute and regulations.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s pain and give specific, evidence-supported reasons for the assessment.

Contreras v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-03-09

Under Butler, when an ALJ must assess the Plaintiffs credibility with regard to his pain, the “applicable regulations prescribe a two-step process to determine whether a claimant suffers from symptoms (including pain) that affect [his] ability to perform basic work activities.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1004 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929). ... The undersigned finds, therefore, that the ALJ's decision did not “contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by the evidence in the case record” as required by Butler, 353 F.3d at 1005.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to assess whether a claimant’s statements about pain and its limiting effects are consistent with the medical and other evidence.

Scognamiglio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-09(c)(4)

Besides mischaracterizing Plaintiff’s testimony about her pain and limited functionality, the ALJ also failed to determine whether this testimony was consistent with the record evidence, instead assessing Plaintiff’s limitations based on whether she could perform any activity of daily living. This, too, was improper.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities and objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s reported pain.

Steele v. Saul · filed 2020-12-23(c)

While certainly modest, these activities further cut against Steele’s subjective complaints of disabling pain. Finally, the ALJ also compared Steele’s subjective complaints to the objective medical evidence, finding that it did not fully support those subjective complaints in much the same way it did not fully support the most disabling aspects of Dr. Allen’s opinions. In sum, the ALJ clearly articulated a credibility finding that is supported by substantial evidence.

When reported symptoms suggest greater impairment than objective medical evidence shows, the ALJ considers other relevant information to assess their severity.

Morris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-14(c)(3)

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

A claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms cannot alone establish disability; the ALJ may consider daily activities alongside medical evidence when evaluating those statements.

STEVENSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-04-23(a)

Statements about pain or other symptoms cannot alone establish that an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... As such, the ALJ was entitled to consider Plaintiff’s daily activities in weighing the credibility of Plaintiff’s pain testimony. Further, as discussed above, the ALJ cited and relied upon medical evidence in combination with Plaintiff’s daily activities when making the credibility determination. As the ALJ relied upon Plaintiff’s daily activities in combination with the medical evidence, the Court cannot say that the ALJ’s credibility determination is unreasonable.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant’s alleged symptoms to be consistent with medical evidence, but does not require medical evidence to prove their full severity.

Youney v. Barnhart · filed 2003-08-06(b)

It is important to note that plaintiffs allegations need not be substantiated by medical evidence, but simply consistent with it. The entire purpose of sections 404.1529 and 416.929 is to provide a means for claimants to offer proof that is not wholly demonstrable by medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors including daily activities, medication, treatment, and other evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Curtis v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-18(c)(3)

The court concludes that this rationale is inconsistent with the requirements of SSR 96-7p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529 calls for consideration of treatment other than medication and measures used to relieve pain when evaluating symptoms.

Warner v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-02-06

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) directs the ALJ to consider daily activities, pain characteristics, treatment, medication, and other factors when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

LINN v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-28(c)

Additionally, the ALJ will also consider daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for considering other information and factors relevant to the severity of pain when objective medical evidence does not fully show the alleged severity.

Faught v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Because the reported pain and other symptoms suggested an impairment of greater severity than could be shown by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ appropriately considered other information and factors that may be relevant to assessing Plaintiff’s pain and other symptoms (Id.). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

When an impairment could reasonably produce a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must assess their intensity and persistence to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Merritt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18(c)(1)

If the ALJ finds that there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must then assess the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms to determine how those symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... However, the ALJ determined that Merritt has not shown she is disabled as a result of her worsened condition in light of her activities of daily living and her testimony. This determination is within the zone of choice of the ALJ. As it is supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Court may not disturb this finding.

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

Faulkner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-23

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate, are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id. The regulations define “objective evidence” to include medical signs shown by medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. ... With this standard in mind, after considering the entire record, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff's allegations of subjective pain.

Section 404.1529(b) requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain or other symptoms.

Emanuele v. Saul · filed 2022-07-01(b)

First, an ALJ must determine if there is objective medical evidence showing the existence of medical impairments resulting from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). ... The ALJ properly implemented the appropriate two-step analysis when assessing whether Emanuele was disabled by non-exertional pain.

Section 404.1529 requires the SSA to consider pain and other symptoms in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Eoff v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-22

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 Court finds that the ALJ appropriately discounted Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling pain based on the objective medical evidence and nature of treatment, which includes a course of conservative treatment.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of symptoms using the medical record and other evidence.

Singletary v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-01(c)

Here, the ALJ did not require Plaintiff to support his subjective statements with objective medical evidence; rather, the ALJ found that Plaintiff?s statements were inconsistent (in some respects) with the medical record and other evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the ALJ to evaluate how pain and other symptoms limit a claimant’s ability to work in light of the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Anguiano v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-03-21(c)(1)

The ALJ will determine that a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, affect his ability to perform work-related activities only to the extent that the ALJ can reasonably accept that the claimant’s alleged functional limitations and restrictions resulting from the symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... The ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s functional limitations evinces her thorough consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and the resulting effect on his ability to perform work-related activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of factors such as daily activities, the nature of the pain, treatment, and functional limits when evaluating symptoms.

SCHWARTZ v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-08-24(c)(3)

The ALJ will consider factors relevant to a claimant's symptoms including: "(a) the claimant's daily activities; (b) the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (c) precipitating and aggravating factors; (d) type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; (e) treatment other than medication; (f) any measures the claimant has used to relieve the pain or other symptoms; and, (g) functional limitations and restrictions." Knight, 55 F.3d at 314 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)). ... The Court accordingly finds that the ALJ properly analyzed Julie's pain and that remand is not appropriate.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of a medically determinable condition reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms, but does not require objective proof of the pain itself.

Elam v. Railroad Retirement Board · filed 1991-01-22

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

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

Rutledge v. Barnhart · filed 2005-08-22

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself. Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale [v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007] at 1011.

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

Holt v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-03

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant tuho can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale at 1011. Elam v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 921 F.2d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir.1991)(parenthetical information omitted)(emphasis added). Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that “[a] claimant’s subjective testimony supported by medical evidence that satisfies the pain standard is itself sufficient to support a finding of disability.”

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

Lewis v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-11

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself. Thus under both the regulations and the first (objectively identifiable condition) and third (reasonably expected to cause pain alleged) parts of the Hand standard a claimant who can show that his condition could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain he alleges has established a claim of disability and is not required to produce additional, objective proof of the pain itself. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529 and 416.929; Hale [v. Bowen, 831 F.2d 1007] at 1011.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence of a claimant’s impairments and related symptoms, including pain; objective proof of the pain itself is not required.

Hines v. Barnhart, Comm · filed 2006-07-11(a)

RFC is to be determined by the ALJ only after he considers all relevant evidence of a claimant’s impairments and any related symptoms (e.g., pain). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard when he required objective evidence of pain. Essentially, the ALJ required objective evidence that Mr. Hines’ pain was so intense as to prevent him from working an eight hour day. This was in error.

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

Horton v. Barnhart · filed 2006-12-14

While both the regulations and the Hand standard require objective medical evidence of a condition that could reasonably be expected to cause the pain alleged, neither requires objective proof of the pain itself.

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

Green v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-04

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

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

Dunn v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-01

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

Section 404.1529(a) requires objective evidence of a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Boyd v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-03-28(a)

Rather, a claimant must also present objective medical evidence establishing a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that one would reasonably expect to produce the pain or other symptoms that the claimant alleges.

A claimant must provide objective evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce pain, but need not provide objective evidence of the pain itself.

Haynes v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-15

There must be objective evidence of a condition that could reasonably produce pain, but there is no requirement of objective evidence of the pain itself. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989).

At the second step of § 404.1529, objective evidence is not required to establish disabling intensity, and normal range of motion or strength cannot substitute for considering documented pain and its work-related effects.

Ferry v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-05(c)

In making that determination, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” ... “At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled.” ... Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. ... However, the ALJ does not discuss, nor does he account for the documented pain Timothy experienced in his right shoulder, despite his “normal” objective findings.

Although subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(v)-(vi) call for analysis of non-medication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, this court declined to require those two factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet done so.

Lynn · filed 2026-05-07(c)(3)(v)-(vi)

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 (8th Cir. 2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Although subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(v)-(vi) call for analysis of non-medication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, this court declined to require those two factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet done so.

Covington · filed 2026-05-26(c)(3)(v)-(vi)

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.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom statements against daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication and side effects, other treatment, relief measures, and functional restrictions.

Rowan · filed 2026-05-27(c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective allegations of pain, the ALJ first must determine whether there are medically determinable impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. Next, if such impairments exist, the ALJ “will consider [the claimant’s] statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [the] symptoms” and “evaluate [the claimant’s] statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence” in determining whether a claimant is disabled. Id. § 416.929(4). In doing so, the ALJ evaluates the claimant’s statements against factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). ... In conclusion, ALJ McDaniel’s analysis of Claimant’s subjective symptoms covered at least five of the § 404.1529(c)(3) factors.

Although subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(v)-(vi) call for analysis of non-medication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, this court declined to require those two factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet done so.

Johnson v. Bisignano · filed 2026-06-05(c)(3)(v)-(vi)

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 (8th Cir. 2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Although subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(v)-(vi) call for analysis of non-medication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, this court declined to require those two factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet done so.

Skipper · filed 2026-03-19(c)(3)(v)-(vi)

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 (8th Cir. 2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Although subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(v)-(vi) call for analysis of non-medication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, this court declined to require those two factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet done so.

Ulmer · filed 2026-02-05(c)(3)(v)-(vi)

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.

Although subsections 404.1529(c)(3)(v)-(vi) call for analysis of non-medication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, this court declined to require those two factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not yet done so.

Salmen · filed 2026-01-09(c)(3)(v)-(vi)

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.

In the Eighth Circuit, an ALJ applying Polaski need not separately analyze § 404.1529’s additional factors concerning nonmedication treatment and other symptom-relief measures.

Going v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-04-10(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 identifies additional treatment and symptom-relief factors for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but this court held that their analysis was not required in this case under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Farmer v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2017-11-20

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 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider the claimant’s daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, and functional restrictions, while this court did not require the regulation’s additional treatment and symptom-relief-measure factors under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Couture v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-04-11

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 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. ... 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 an ALJ to analyze subjective pain complaints using factors including daily activities, pain characteristics, precipitating factors, medication, and functional restrictions; the court did not require methodical discussion of each factor or the two additional factors concerning non-medication treatment and relief measures.

Formby v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-04-11

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). ... 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 an ALJ to analyze a claimant’s subjective complaints using specified factors, including treatment and other measures used to relieve pain or symptoms, although this court does not require the two additional factors under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Bates v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-05-07(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 a claimant’s symptoms through specified credibility factors, including treatment and measures used for relief, although this court followed Eighth Circuit precedent not requiring those two additional factors.

Edwards v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-06-29

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. 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. ... 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 treatment other than medication and measures used to relieve pain or symptoms when assessing a claimant’s subjective complaints, although the court held it would not require analysis of those additional factors under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Kennel v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-02-09

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.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of treatment and measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms, but the court held that it would not require separate analysis of those additional factors under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Dean v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-11-07

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 an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider five credibility factors and two additional factors concerning non-medication treatment and measures used to relieve symptoms, although this court did not require the additional factors because Eighth Circuit precedent had not required them.

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

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. ... 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.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of treatment other than medication and measures used to relieve pain or symptoms when assessing subjective complaints, although the court does not require analysis of those additional factors under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Heath v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-02-06

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.

Section 404.1529 requires analysis of treatment other than medication and measures used to relieve pain or symptoms, but those additional factors were not required in this application under the cited Eighth Circuit precedent.

West v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-04-28

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 an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the listed factors, including daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, functional restrictions, treatment, and measures used for relief, although this court follows Eighth Circuit precedent not requiring analysis of the last two.

Reid v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-07-01

The Court notes that in assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929.2 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.

Under Eighth Circuit precedent, courts did not require analysis of Section 404.1529’s additional factors concerning nonmedication treatment and other symptom-relief measures.

Cass v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-08-25

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.

Although § 404.1529(c)(3) lists treatment other than medication and other symptom-relief measures as factors, this court concluded that Eighth Circuit precedent did not require analysis of those two additional regulatory factors.

VanWinkle v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-10-18(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.

Although § 404.1529(c)(3) lists two additional treatment and relief-measure factors, this court concluded Eighth Circuit precedent did not require their analysis.

Udouj v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-03-27(c)(3)

Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Although § 404.1529 requires analysis of nonmedication treatment and other symptom-relief measures, this court held that Eighth Circuit precedent does not yet require ALJs to analyze those two additional factors.

Dunn v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-04-13(c)(3)(v)-(vi)

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.

Although § 404.1529 adds treatment other than medication and measures used for relief to the symptom factors, the Eighth Circuit’s Polaski line does not require separate analysis of those two additional factors.

Wingert · filed 2025-10-09(c)(3)(v), (c)(3)(vi)

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 (8th Cir. 2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.