20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or work effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Lewis v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-02(c)(2)

According to the regulations, the ALJ “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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). Thus, Lewis’ subjective evidence of pain intensity cannot be discounted solely based on objective medical findings. See id. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Klein v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-13(c)(2)

Insofar as plaintiff suggests the ALJ discounted his complaints regarding the effects of his mental impairments due to a lack of neurological findings, he misstates the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (ALJ 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”). The ALJ referenced a lack of neurological findings only in discussing plaintiffs allegedly disabling migraines.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Ortiz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-05-07(c)(2)

This finding, if considered on its own, would not constitute substantial evidence to uphold the ALJ's credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Lowe v. Saul · filed 2021-05-10(c)(2)

Although Plaintiff’s statements may be inconsistent with the objective record evidence, the ALJ erred in his credibility analysis because he is not permitted to reject Plaintiff’s subjective complaints “based solely on a lack of medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 680 (emphasis added).

An ALJ may not reject symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it, but may consider medical and other evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Sister-Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-09(c)(2)

An ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... However, the ALJ did not discredit Plaintiff’s alleged severity of pain because she failed to support her testimony with medical evidence.

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

Garza v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-28(c)(2)

The SSA may not “reject [the applicant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain and other symptoms or about the effect [his] symptoms have on [his] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his] statements.”

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

Tarbert · filed 2026-06-05(c)(2)

The records cited by Plaintiff to establish that her PTSD symptoms materially limit her ability to perform work activities do not establish error, as the ALJ did not discredit her symptom testimony based on a lack of objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an adjudicator to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms and to assess the claimant’s statements against objective and other evidence, including conflicts.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-06(c)(3)(i), (c)(4), (e)(3)(i)

The regulations state that a hearing officer will consider a claimant’s daily activities relevant to a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(e)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... Given Smith’s conflicting reports, as well as the observations of Smith engaging in activities that he specifically stated he was unable to do, the hearing officer had sufficient reasons to reject Smith’s credibility and properly identified his reasons for doing so. Further, there is substantial evidence to support the hearing officer’s finding, as well as his decision to discount Smith’s reported symptoms as being in conflict with the evidence in the record. Accordingly, the hearing officer properly considered Smith’s daily activities in coming to his final decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities as one factor, among others, when evaluating symptom complaints.

White v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-04(c)(3)(i)

But the ALJ did not rely on her activities of daily living as the sole basis for finding her not fully credible. Rather, the ALJ identified this evidence as one of several bases. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Wilson, 602 F.3d at 1146 (considering ALJ’s reliance on daily activities as a permissible part of substantial evidence supporting credibility determination).

The regulation requires ALJs to consider a claimant’s ability to perform activities of daily living when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence and how symptoms limit work.

Carteaux v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)(3)(i)

ALJs are required by statute to consider a claimant’s ability to perform ADLs in evaluating “the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, such as pain, and determining the extent to which your symptoms limit your capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Terry v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 2009). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s ADLs was appropriate.

Section 404.1529 permits considering a claimant’s daily activities when assessing the severity and limiting effects of alleged symptoms.

BALL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-26

Nevertheless, activities of daily living are a relevant consideration in assessing the severity and limiting effects of a claimant’s alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Thus, the ALJ considered the activities involved with Plaintiff raising her grandchildren among her many other daily activities, including doing household chores, driving, doing laundry and shopping. (R. 17). Moreover, the ALJ’s decision clearly shows that Plaintiff’s daily activities were only one of many factors considered in her analysis. As noted, supra, the ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s testimony, her treatment notes, the diagnostic findings in the record, and the medical opinions provided. The Court does not agree, however, that the ALJ’s consideration of the exertional level involved in raising young children resulted in Plaintiff being denied a fair hearing.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to evaluate alleged symptoms in light of daily activities, objective medical evidence, treatment, and treatment compliance, but daily activities alone do not establish an ability to perform substantial gainful activity.

WALLACE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-10-24(c)

The ALJ’s consideration of these activities are totally appropriate and are consistent with the regulations. See Simington v. Colvin, Civ. No. 13-178, 2014 WL 4829031, at * 5 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2014), citing, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c). ... While I agree with Wallace that activities of daily living cannot be used to show an ability to engage in substantial gainful activity,3 the ALJ did not do so here. Rather, the ALJ properly considered Wallace’s allegations in light of her activities of daily living, the objective medical evidence, the extent of Wallace’s treatment, and Wallace’s compliance with treatment. Consequently, I find no error in the ALJ’s conclusions in this regard.

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

Shirback v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-16(c)(3)(i)

Notably, the Plaintiff’s daily activities in general also were properly considered by the ALJ in finding his statements not entirely consistent with the evidence and not consistent with the two restrictive opinions. The ALJ noted that Plaintiff was able to maintain his own personal grooming, clean the house, prepare several meals per week, and walk and feed his dogs. ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (adjudicator properly considers the individual’s daily activities); SSR 16-3p; see also Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Cir. 2013) (holding that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living was an important indicator of her true level of both physical and mental functioning).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but an activity in daily living does not by itself establish the ability to perform strenuous work.

Holmes v. Saul · filed 2020-02-20(c)(3)(i)

While an ALJ looks to “daily activities” to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), he must be careful to not assume that, just because a claimant does an activity in daily living, he can perform strenuous tasks at work.

Section 404.1529(a), (c)(3) instructs that an assessment of a claimant’s symptoms includes descriptions of the claimant’s daily-living activities.

Jeske v. Saul · filed 2020-04-02(a), (c)(3)

In fact, agency regulations instruct that, in an assessment of a claimant’s symptoms, the evidence considered includes descriptions of daily-living activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating how symptoms limit the ability to work, but household chores and work activities are not necessarily interchangeable.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2020-04-22(c)(3)(i)

While an ALJ can consider a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating how her symptoms may limit her ability to work, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), household chores and work activities are not necessarily interchangeable.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating the severity and credibility of reported symptoms.

DOWNING v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-14(c)(3)(i)

However, an ALJ may consider the claimant's "description of [her] daily activities in assessing whether [her] testimony about the effects of [her] impairments was credible or exaggerated."

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, even though the ability to perform such activities is not inherently inconsistent with disability.

Booker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-30(c)(3)(i)

While it is true that the capability to perform activities of daily living is not inherently inconsistent with a finding of disability, “[t]he law is clear that the ALJ may consider . . . [a claimant’s] purported activities of daily living for the purposes of a credibility determination.” Cahill v. Astrue, No. 1:11-CV-148, 2012 WL 3777072, at *5 (D. Vt. Aug. 29, 2012). Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify “daily activities” as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of daily activities as one symptom-evaluation factor in combination with other factors, even though daily activities do not necessarily preclude disability.

Acevedo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-02(c)

Claimant is correct that participation in activities of daily living does not necessarily preclude a finding of disability. See Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1441. Nonetheless, Claimant has not explained how any of the specific activities of daily living listed by the ALJ “are inconsistent with the RFC and/or consistent with his alleged disabling symptoms.” See Bliven v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:13-cv-1150-Orl-18TBS, 2014 WL 4674201, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2014). In addition, the ALJ did not solely consider Claimant’s activities of daily living in reaching the credibility determination. See id. (citation omitted) (“Lewis does not stand for the notion that an ALJ must never consider a claimant’s daily activities, or that an ALJ’s consideration of such activities warrants remand. The ALJ is meant to consider a claimant’s daily activities in combination with other factors, as stated in 20 CFR § 404.1529(c).”). Accordingly, I find no error in the ALJ’s consideration of Claimant’s activities of daily living as one factor in the consideration regarding the credibility of Claimant’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective complaints and their consistency with the record.

BENNETTE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3)(i)

However, it was not improper for the ALJ to take these activities into account when assessing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (providing that the ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (same); see also Hoyman v. Colvin, 606 F. App'x 678, 681 (3d Cir. 2015) (“The evidence from [the claimant’s] doctors and the evidence regarding his daily activities . . . support the ALJ's finding with respect to [the claimant’s] credibility.”); Loneker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 17-2006, 2018 WL 5784996, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 5, 2018) (“The ALJ’s decision is consistent with the Third Circuit’s recognition that “[a]lthough ‘any statements of the individual concerning his or her symptoms must be carefully considered,’ the ALJ is not required to credit them,” particularly where such statements are undermined by evidence of a more active lifestyle.”) (quoting Chandler v. Comm’r, 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider the nature of daily activities when evaluating whether disability allegations are consistent with the record as a whole.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-20(c)(3)(i)

While these activities were not explicitly considered by the ALJ in determining Plaintiff’s RFC, it was certainly within his authority to do so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (An ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the consistency of allegations of disability with the record as a whole.); see also Lewis v. Colvin, 548 F. App’x 675, 677 (2d Cir. 2013) (ALJ’s RFC finding supported by substantial evidence including activities of daily living). Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ could reasonably have found that these reported activities undermined Plaintiff’s claims of disabling symptoms and limitations and supported an RFC for light work. Tr. 25-26.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) does not permit an ALJ to find symptom statements inconsistent with daily activities by overstating those activities or omitting the claimant’s qualifying limitations.

Jenkins v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-02(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). ... Although the ALJ did not rely solely on Jenkins’ daily activities to conclude that his subjective complaints were inconsistent with the record, the ALJ overstated Jenkins’ activity level and improperly dismissed the qualifying limitations Jenkins placed on many of his activities. The perceived inconsistencies between Jenkins’ allegations of disability symptoms and his statements about his daily activities are not instructive because the ALJ did not accurately describe Jenkins’ reported daily activities. ... Thus, the ALJ’s reliance on Jenkins’ daily activities is not supported by substantial evidence. The court will not reweigh the remaining evidence. On remand, the ALJ should reconsider Jenkins’ subjective complaints based on his reported daily activities, including the limitations he describes.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits daily activities to be compared with alleged symptom severity, but does not equate the ability to perform those activities with the ability to work consistently.

Vanessa C. v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-02(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Far from finding that the ability to perform daily activities translates into the ability to work, the ALJ found that “the claimant’s activities of daily living and functioning belie the severity of the symptoms alleged.” Tr. 19. So viewed — that is, as a critique of the ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiffs activities as part of the foundation for the finding that her subjective statements about the severity of her symptoms must be discounted — the argument still fails because substantial evidence supports every facet of the ALJ’s credibility finding.

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

Best v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)(i)

However, as with the evaluation of medical opinions discussed above, social security regulations and Eleventh Circuit case law support consideration of daily activities when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to consider daily activities when assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony.

(SS) Schillaci v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ may consider the claimant’s daily activities in making a credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities when evaluating symptoms and permits those activities to weigh against allegations of disabling limitations.

Aber v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)(i)

In weighing Plaintiff’s allegations against the evidence as a whole, consideration of Plaintiff’s activities of daily living is proper. Ponder v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1190, 1195-96 (8th Cir. 2014) (claimant’s admission that she could perform light housework, prepare meals, do laundry, and shop “undermine[d] her assertion of total disability”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (the ALJ must consider claimant’s “daily activities” when evaluating symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities, including childcare, as one factor in determining whether claimed symptoms and limitations are consistent with the record.

Watt v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-22(c)(3)(i)

In addition, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s self-reported activities of daily living, including cooking, cleaning, and laundry, shopping, driving, and using public transportation, as a factor in his RFC determination. (T. 172, 309, 315.) The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s role as primary caregiver for three children at the time of her application, as well as an infant born while the application was pending. (T. 19, 172. 440.) The ALJ is entitled to consider the Plaintiff’s daily activities in this limited manner.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits considering work and travel as daily-activity factors when assessing symptom statements, so long as those activities are not treated alone as proof of nondisability.

MERCADO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)(i)

However, ALJ Ayers did not conclude that this work activity and trip alone established that Plaintiff was not disabled. Rather, these activities were but two factors that ALJ Ayers considered when assessing Plaintiff’s subjective statements and finding that the evidence did not fully support the severity of Plaintiff statements. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (providing that the ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) instructs an ALJ to consider daily activities and permits using them to test alleged limitations, while cautioning against equating those activities with full-time work.

HUNSICKER v. SAUL · filed 2021-11-18(c)(3)(i)

The Seventh Circuit has “criticized ALJs for equating activities of daily living with an ability to work.” Loveless v. Colvin, 810 F.3d 502, 508 (7th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). However, an ALJ is not only permitted but instructed to consider daily activities. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)). The ALJ may properly use activities of daily living to demonstrate that the claimant's testimony was undermined about the extent of his limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) expressly makes daily activities relevant to symptom assessment, and considering them with work activity and medical-opinion evidence is not error.

Hahn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-22(c)(3)

The regulations specifically instruct ALJs that factors relevant to the RFC assessment include daily activities. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(3). Thus it is clearly not reversible error for the ALJ to consider daily activities in conjunction with other factors, such as ability to continue working and opinion medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities but not reliance on isolated, minimally described activities that do not show an ability to perform full-time work or contradict alleged limitations.

IMHAUSEN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-01-07(c)(3)(i)

The isolated references to such activities provide little insight into Claimant's longitudinal functioning. ... The activities also do not demonstrate that Claimant's allegations that she was limited to lifting a gallon of milk, walking 25 to 50 feet ... before needing to rest, using a cane to walk, and needing to take breaks to lie down and rest were incredible. ... The reasons given by the ALJ for rejecting Claimant's allegations regarding her subjective symptoms are not supported by the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities that undercut reported symptoms, even though sporadic activities alone do not establish capacity for substantial gainful work.

Hernandez v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-21(c)(3)(i)

While it is true that “sporadic performance” of activities “does not establish that a person is capable of engaging in substantial gainful activity,” Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 516–17 (10th Cir. 1987), the ALJ can consider activities which undercut reported symptoms. ... Each of the ALJ’s considerations was proper.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to evaluate symptoms with reported daily activities when the decision also considers medical evidence and explains the resulting limitations.

JORDAN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-01-24(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also considered Plaintiff's “activities of daily living” in evaluating her symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p. ... Having considered and referenced the medical evidence along with Plaintiff's reported activities of daily living, the ALJ did not make credibility determinations without explanation or support.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) expressly permits considering daily activities as one credibility factor, while cautioning against overreading limited tasks as proof of full-time work capacity.

Fronckowiak III v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-07(c)(3)(i)

Although ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time, competitive, remunerative work, the regulations expressly permit consideration of the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits considering daily activities as one factor without treating short-duration activities as automatic disqualification from disability.

Page v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-02-24(c)(3)(i)

Second, a claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), but it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider daily activities relevant to a claimant’s subjective pain allegations. See 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits using daily activities to discount symptom allegations when the activities contradict other testimony.

Biggs v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s activities when evaluating the reliability of the claimant’s symptom allegations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (2017). There are two grounds for using daily activities to discount a claimant’s testimony: (1) activities “contradict [the claimant’s] other testimony” or (2) activities “meet the threshold for transferable work skills.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities as one factor when evaluating limiting effects.

Thaxton v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)(i)

Plaintiff has made no showing, as he argues, that the ALJ placed “undue weight” on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate the specified symptom factors and explain the assessment with record-supported reasons; materially skewing daily-activity evidence prevents meaningful review.

DELK v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

At step two of the Rule 16-3p analysis, the ALJ considers the claimant's subjective symptom allegations in light of the claimant's daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and limiting effects of other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment other than medication for relief of pain; and other measures taken to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Although the Court will defer to an ALJ's subjective symptom finding that is not patently wrong, the ALJ must still adequately explain his subjective symptom evaluation “by discussing specific reasons supported by the record.” ... Second, the ALJ appears to have presented a limited and skewed version of the activities Plaintiff's mother indicated that Lisa could perform. ... In the previous sections, the Undersigned already addressed the ALJ's Listing analysis and consideration of Plaintiff's subjective complaints and found both to be lacking.

Section 404.1529 permits daily activities to be considered when assessing the work effects of subjective symptoms, provided the ALJ explains the resulting consistency finding with medical and other evidence.

Templeton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-08-17(c)(3)(i)

Where, as here, there is no objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged subjective symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), (d), 416.929(c). If an ALJ discredits subjective testimony of pain, “he must articulate explicit and adequate reasons” for doing so. ... An ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities, among other factors, when assessing the effect of subjective symptoms on a claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ then thoroughly discussed the medical and other record evidence, adequately justifying her ultimate conclusion that claimant had not met his burden of establishing disability.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) makes daily activities a necessary and proper symptom-evaluation factor, and an ALJ may rely on activities together with record inconsistencies when assessing alleged severity.

Szymanski v. Saul · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)(i)

Activities of daily living are a necessary and proper factor for the ALJ to consider in a subjective symptoms evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (listing daily activities as first relevant factor); see Grotts v. Kijakazi, 27 F.4th 1273, 1279 (7th Cir. 2022) (noting ADLs are properly considered in subjective symptoms evaluation). ... Ultimately, because the ALJ gave multiple examples to support his subjective symptoms evaluation, it was not patently wrong.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and work-related effects to assess the claimant’s statements against the entire case record, including daily activities, when objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the symptoms.

Walker v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(c), (c)(3)(i)

The ALJ is tasked with evaluating the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of a claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s statements considering the details of the case record as a whole, including daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities when evaluating symptom severity and limitations, although daily activities alone cannot support a non-disability finding.

GRAY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)(i)

However, it is well established that although a claimant’s activities of daily living may not alone support a finding of non-disability, there is nothing inappropriate in the ALJ considering those activities in evaluating the severity of the claimant’s symptoms and limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Hoyman v. Colvin, 606 Fed. Appx. 678, 681 (3d Cir. 2015); Wright v. Astrue, No. Civ. 10-942, 2011 WL 4079067, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 13, 2011).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to inform pain and RFC findings when considered together with medical opinions and the rest of the regulatory evidence rather than in isolation.

Yrigoyen v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-04(c)(3)(i)

Here, the Prior ALJ adjudicated Plaintiff not disabled, [Doc. 9-3 at 169], and ALJ Boudreau explained how new evidence, including Plaintiff’s daily activities, informed her analysis, [Doc. 9-2 at 17]. Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ improperly relied on his daily activities to determine the RFC, [Doc. 15 at 35], ignores the various medical opinions the ALJ also considered, as well as the regulatory framework and the Court’s deferential posture of review. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i); see also Casias v. Sec’y of Health & Hum. Servs., 933 F.2d 799, 801 (10th Cir. 1991) (“We defer to the ALJ as trier of fact, the individual optimally positioned to observe and assess witness credibility.”). Essentially, Plaintiff invites the Court to reweigh the evidence before the ALJ, which this Court declines to do.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to discount subjective symptom statements when a claimant's daily activities contradict the alleged degree of debilitation.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-03(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ cited to Plaintiff’s hearing testimony that he regularly runs errands, drives his camper on lengthy road trips, socializes with friends, swims, and completes household chores. AR 60–64. The ALJ also cites to medical records indicating that Plaintiff reported exercising on a treadmill and with weights in April 2018 and reported belonging to snowmobile, motorcycle, side-by-side, and archery clubs in 2020. AR 327, 436, 447, and 457. The ALJ further cited a June 2020 mental health treatment record indicating that Plaintiff reported that he repeatedly “perform[ed] Herculean jobs like mowing the field” for his girlfriend. AR 468. These citations support that Plaintiff was not as debilitated as he alleged.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to support an adverse symptom finding when they contradict claims of debilitating limitations.

Price v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-04(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ properly concluded that reports of her daily activities conflicted with Ms. Price’s claims of debilitating limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to contradict allegations of total disability without treating modest activities as equivalent to competitive work.

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-06(c)(3)(i)

That may be the case, but it does not follow that an ALJ may not weigh discrepancies against a claimant’s self-reported symptoms for the purposes of evaluating credibility, as was the case here.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits activities that aggravate symptoms to be considered when they still contradict claims of a totally debilitating impairment.

Figlietti v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

However, Plaintiff’s ability to engage in certain activities as demonstrated by his statements to providers, even those that aggravate his symptoms, was found by the ALJ to be inconsistent with his testimony of disabling symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to show that alleged symptoms are less limiting than claimed.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-03(c)(3)(i)

Although not dispositive, a claimant’s activities may show that her symptoms are not as limiting as alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p; Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1212.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective complaints.

Roch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-19(c)(3)(i)

However, although ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant's ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time, competitive, remunerative work, the regulations expressly permit consideration of the claimant's daily activities when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as a factor when evaluating subjective symptom statements.

Keenan v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-17(c)(3)

As to the ALJ’s assessment of daily activities, the applicable regulations authorize ALJs to consider a claimant’s daily activities as a factor in evaluating subjective symptom statements. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and an ALJ may not equate daily activities with the ability to perform full-time work. See Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 838-39 (7th Cir. 2014).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the consistency and credibility of her statements about subjective symptoms.

Masterson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2025-01-28(c)(3)(i)

And here, the ALJ weighed Masterson’s alleged subjective symptoms against the rest of her testimony and ultimately concluded that her “fairly robust level of daily activity and interaction” “undercut” her allegations. Indeed, Masterson testified that she could care for her mother, dress herself, shower and bathe, cook meals, wash dishes, clean her house, drive her car, and shop in stores, and the ALJ reasonably relied on those daily activities when he evaluated her credibility and symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); see also Tipton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 847 F. App’x 290, 295 (6th Cir. 2021).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom statements to consider the claimant’s daily activities.

Sullens v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-03(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s subjective symptom statements.

Tovsen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-03(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the severity of reported symptoms, even when those activities do not establish a specific capacity for work.

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-14(c)(3)

First, the ALJ specifically and accurately stated that, once plaintiff started tracking his steps on his phone, he reported daily step counts between 2000 and 5000. ... The ALJ did not use plaintiff’s self-reported activities to determine a specific level of functional ability. Rather, he cited them as inconsistent with plaintiff’s claimed disabling pain. An ALJ properly considers such evidence in evaluating the severity of a plaintiff’s symptoms.

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

Jungwirth v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-12(c)

The ALJ considered activities like pet-sitting and social events in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms, which is expressly permitted by SSR 16-3p, § 404.1529(c), and § 416.929(c).

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

Green v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-21(c)(3)(i)

The relevant regulations require an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptom statements. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ also failed to identify transferable work skills or contradictory testimony in plaintiff’s daily activities, so did not provide a clear and convincing reason to discount plaintiff’s testimony on this basis. ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s daily activities were not a clear and convincing reason to discount his testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as one factor when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms and limitations.

Peck v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-31(c)(3)(i)

In fact, a claimant’s daily activities is one of the factors that the ALJ is required to consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms and limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Here, the ALJ specifically noted that Peck “has some limitations performing” his activities of daily living, that none of Peck’s activities were dispositive, but “taken together and considered in conjunction with the . . . medical evidence of record, they suggest that [Peck] can perform work within the above parameters on a sustained and continuous basis.” Admin. Tr. at 119. While a different factfinder may have weighed Peck’s activities of daily living differently, the ALJ did not err in considering them as one among other factors that figured into his decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) calls for consideration of daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but basic household tasks have limited value in assessing whether a claimant with significant mental impairments can sustain work.

Knight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)(i)

Lastly, to the extent that the ALJ relied on Plaintiff’s ability to care for her children and perform basic household chores as a basis for discounting her credibility, courts have consistently found such activities to be of limited value when assessing whether a claimant can sustain work in the face of significant mental health impairments. ... The ALJ’s credibility determination cannot be sustained.

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms and identify how those activities contradict symptom testimony or show transferable work skills before relying on them to discount it.

Morrow-Bratcher v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ failed to adequately identify transferable work skills or inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s daily activities and symptom testimony, and therefore erred.

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating reported symptoms.

Richardson Craft v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2025-06-27(c)(3)(i)

This goes to the consistency factor, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2), if not also to the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s daily activities, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... The ALJ considered not only Plaintiffs daily activities but also her apparent non-compliance with recommended treatment, etc. (see, e.g., ECF No. 6, PageID.101, 103).

Section 404.1529(a) allows daily activities to be considered when evaluating a claimant's symptoms.

Allen v. Apfel · filed 1999-06-17(a)

Statements regarding daily activities are evidence properly considered under the Commissioner’s regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a); 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating reported pain and other symptoms.

Calvin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-05-23(c)

In considering the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the ALJ considered Calvin’s daily activities, which were inconsistent with his claim of being unable to perform light work activity.

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

Rogers v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-24(c)(3)

In making judgments about the veracity of a claimant’s statements about his or her symptoms, including pain, Social Security regulations require the ALJ, in addition to considering the objective medical evidence, to consider the following in totality: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; ... (7) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms and limitations.

GREISINGER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-08-14

An ALJ is required to consider, inter alia, a plaintiff’s activities of daily living in assessing the RFC. See, Social Security Ruling 96-7p and 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529, 416.929.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s daily activities conflict with alleged symptom limitations.

Lisby v. Saul · filed 2021-01-21(c)(3)

However, the ALJ reasonably determined that plaintiff’s ability to engage in an extensive range of activities – such as cooking, shopping, attending college classes, and caring for a bedridden patient – was inconsistent with plaintiff’s alleged difficulties completing tasks, remembering, focusing, following instructions, and getting along with others, among other limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but merely listing those activities does not justify discounting a claimant’s statements.

Lekah v. Saul · filed 2021-01-27(c)(3)

The ALJ failed to properly articulate her reasoning for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective statements. Simply listing Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, without more, is not sufficient to contradict his allegations of disability.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all relevant factors when evaluating symptoms, including daily activities as one factor.

Schroeder v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-02-04(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ’s consideration of Alicia S.’s activities of daily living was appropriate. An ALJ must consider all relevant factors when evaluating a Plaintiff's symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)-(3), 416.929(c)(2)-(3). If the ALJ had rejected Alicia S.’s subjective complaints merely because of her activities of daily living, this case would be subject to remand. See Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 101 (4th Cir. 2020). But a review of the ALJ’s decision makes clear that the ALJ considered Alicia S.’s activities of daily living as just one factor relevant to the evaluation of Alicia S.’s subjective complaints. See Tr. 21-25.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but the ALJ must consider how extensively the claimant can perform those activities.

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

ALJs may consider a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, an ALJ may not consider the type of activities a claimant can perform without also considering the extent to which [he] can perform them.” Arakas, 983 F.3d at 99 (quoting Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018)).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities and the limitations the claimant describes when evaluating symptoms.

Noack v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21

SSR 16-3p requires the ALJ to consider the factors set forth in the applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; it eliminates the use of the term “credibility,” and clarifies that symptom evaluation is “not an examination of an individual’s character.” ... The ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his daily activities, and, as such, his assessment of Plaintiff’s credibility was improperly analyzed and unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities and other factors when evaluating symptoms, including the limitations on those activities.

BUIS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-12-08(c)(3)

At stage two of the SSR 16-3p analysis, the ALJ considers the Claimant's alleged symptoms in light of the claimant's daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment other than medication for relief of pain; and other measures taken to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The ALJ also improperly considered Claimant's symptoms with respect to her daily activities and mischaracterized Claimant's testimony to fit the narrative the ALJ desired.

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

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)

Indeed, an ALJ should consider a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows consideration of daily activities when assessing symptoms, but the ALJ must examine the claimant’s difficulty performing those activities.

Skartados v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)(i)

While the ALJ and Commissioner can consider a claimant’s daily activities in assessing the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), “a claimant need not be an invalid to be found disabled,” Balsamo v. Chater, 142 F.3d 75, 81 (2d Cir. 1998). ... The ALJ’s failure to further examine Plaintiff’s difficulty performing these tasks calls the ALJ’s credibility determination into question.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating whether a claimant’s reported symptoms are consistent with the record.

Goodwin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-03(c)(3)(i)

The list includes three primary domains: claimant’s activities of daily living; claimant’s reported descriptions of symptoms; and claimant’s treatment history. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... The ALJ reasonably used plaintiff’s activities of daily living to illustrate contradictions in her testimony and thus reasonably rejected Plaintiff’s symptom testimony on this basis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors such as daily activities and treatment when evaluating the intensity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms; limited activities alone do not justify rejecting those symptoms.

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

This includes the regulatory factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms, like 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; and treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms. Id. at *7–8; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... None of these activities cited by the ALJ, however, supports a determination that Deborah is able to maintain full-time employment in a competitive work environment, and therefore do not constitute adequate reasons to reject her subjective complaints.

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

Allen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-01(c)(3)

In sum, the ALJ adequately explained why Rosario’s daily activities undermined her subjective complaints and were inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities as one factor when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Mehl v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-21(c)

The Court finds that the ALJ appropriately considered Nicole’s daily activities as one of many factors in assessing the severity of her alleged symptoms.

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

Rios v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-29(c)(3)

As an initial matter, the ALJ’s reliance on Rios’s daily activities is permissible under the applicable regulations and precedential case law, which instruct an ALJ to consider a claimant’s performance of daily activities as a factor in her credibility assessment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating pain and other symptoms, even if those activities are brief.

Davis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-19(c)(3)(i)

However, even if participation “in daily activities for short durations does not necessarily disqualify the claimant from disability, that does not mean it is improper for the ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities at all.” Majkut v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App'x 660, 663 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (unpublished) (citation omitted). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (listing a claimant’s “daily activities” as relevant to evaluating pain and other symptoms).

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

CLARK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-11-09(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s activities of daily living in evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and limitations.

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to consider daily activities alongside treatment and other evidence when evaluating a claimant's symptoms.

BURTON v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-02-20(c)

"In determining credibility an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant's daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations." Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). ... The ALJ did not overstate the significance of Heather's daily activities; he merely noted that these activities were inconsistent with her description of the severity of her condition and took that inconsistency into consideration in evaluating her credibility along with a number of other factors.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider pertinent factors, including daily activities, when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Kemp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

The ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s symptoms was governed by a detailed Social Security regulation (20 C.F.R. § 404.1529) and Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, which mandates a two-step process for evaluating an individual’s symptoms. ... However, this Court agrees with Plaintiff that his ability to date online has no apparent relevance to the severity or consistency of his physical complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating symptoms.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-27(c)(3)

The Court agrees with Judge Richardson that the ALJ’s decision reflects that he appropriately considered Plaintiff’s daily activities in his evaluation of her symptoms, as required by the regulation.

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

Thomas v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-28(c)(3)(i)

But, nevertheless, an ALJ may properly consider a plaintiff’s activities of daily living when evaluating her subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of daily activities, medication, and other relief measures when evaluating symptoms; an ALJ need not identify a daily-activity inconsistency she did not rely on to discount a particular symptom.

Burchett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-29

SSR 16-3p requires the ALJ to consider the factors set forth in the applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which include, among others, the claimant’s daily activities, “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” taken to alleviate the symptoms, and other treatment or measures used for relief of the symptoms. ... Accordingly, the failure to pinpoint the specific portion of Plaintiff’s daily activities report that was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony is not ground for reversal.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating symptoms, but the assessment must be supported by the record as a whole.

DAWSON v. OMALLEY · filed 2024-04-17(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities as a factor when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider daily activities as one factor when evaluating symptoms.

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-10(c)(3)(i)

With respect to Pena’s daily activities, it is clear that the regulations specify that activities of daily living are one factor that ALJs may consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) allows consideration of daily activities when assessing the intensity and persistence of symptoms, but self-care does not by itself justify discounting a claimant’s allegations.

Carollo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-09(c)(3)(i)

“[w]hile the ALJ and Commissioner can consider a claimant’s daily activities in assessing the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, ‘a claimant need not be an invalid to be found disabled.’” ... Particularly in light of the ALJ’s treatment of the medical opinions in the record, it was improper for the ALJ to construe Plaintiff’s daily functioning report as “contradict[ing] allegations of disability, ‘as people should not be penalized for enduring the pain of their disability in order to care for themselves.’”

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

Thomas v. Bisignano (CONSENT) · filed 2025-09-16(c)(3)(i)

Second, the regulations specifically state ALJs will consider daily activities when evaluating subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(1); 414.929(c)(3)(i). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by taking into account Plaintiff’s activities of daily living when discounting his subjective statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's treatment history and medication details when evaluating symptoms, including whether the treatment is conservative.

Ashcraft v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-09-12(c)(3)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider things such as Plaintiff’s current or past treatment; and any medication including the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of that medication. Furthermore, treatment that the ALJ deems conservative is an adequate basis for contradicting medical opinion evidence suggesting otherwise. ... Therefore, when considering the lack of objective evidence to substantiate Plaintiff’s claims, and opinions by the state agency consultants to the contrary, the ALJ’s statement that “the claimant has a treatment history that fails to demonstrate a condition of the degree of severity for which the claimant has alleged. The claimant . . . has sought only conservative treatment” is not counter to guidelines and his analysis is legally sufficient and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi) permits an ALJ to consider the type and effectiveness of pain medication, treatment frequency, and other measures used for relief when evaluating alleged symptom severity.

Gladney v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Gladney’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of her alleged pain were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Tr. at 20). The ALJ noted that despite Gladney’s claims of disabling and severe pain, Dr. Michael did not recommend or prescribe any medications besides Motrin. (Tr. 21, 465, 481).4 See Harwell v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 1292, 1293 (11th Cir. 1984) (indicating a claimant’s lack of use of potent pain medication can undermine allegations of constant, severe pain); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). Additionally, the ALJ emphasized that despite Gladney’s allegations of disabling pain, she only visited Dr. Michael twice a year.5 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), (vi), 416.929(c)(3)(v), (vi) (noting that a claimant’s treatment and measures used to relieve pain can be considered); see also Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072, 1078 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting a history of conservative treatment can be a factor in evaluating a claimant’s testimony).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) permit an ALJ to consider a claimant’s conservative treatment and refusal of recommended treatment when evaluating subjective symptom testimony.

WALKER v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-26(c)(2), (3)

However, the ALJ did not deny benefits for failure to follow prescribed treatment under Sections 404.1530 and 416.930; rather, she merely cited Plaintiff’s decision to decline a recommended steroid injection as part of his relatively conservative treatment for his knees. This was, of course, a proper factor in considering Plaintiff’s subjective testimony and in evaluating the medical opinions, including that of consultative examiner Alexandra Smith-Demain, M.D. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), (3), 416.929(c)(2), (3); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (S.S.A. Mar. 16, 2016).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s minimal treatment when evaluating symptom claims.

Denison v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-05(c)(4)

Medical treatment received to relieve pain or other symptoms is a relevant factor in evaluating pain testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); SSR 16-3p. The ALJ is permitted to consider the claimant’s lack of treatment in making a credibility determination. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. The ALJ noted that Plaintiff never sought treatment with a specialist and never attended physical therapy. Tr. 486. At the time of Dr. Hixon’s evaluation, Plaintiff was not taking any medication for dizziness. Tr. 351. The ALJ noted that treatment notes show no complaints of vertigo after April 2018. Tr. 486. Plaintiff does not make any argument regarding this reasoning, and it is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the ALJ properly considered the minimal treatment received by Plaintiff in evaluating his symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of medication and treatment used to relieve symptoms, and an ALJ satisfies that requirement by discussing those measures rather than discounting pain solely for lack of objective evidence.

Wagoner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-28(c)(3)

The ALJ also did not discount Plaintiff’s complaints about pain solely because of a lack of objective evidence. (DE 7-1 at 22). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ’s Decision failed to consider the factors found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) is incorrect. In multiple instances in the ALJ’s Decision, the ALJ discusses the medications and treatments Plaintiff received to attempt to relieve his pain. (DE 7-1 at 15-17).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant’s medication and treatment for pain.

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

Fbr example, the ALJ is to consider the type, dosage and effectiveness of the. claimant’s medications, and the treatment she has received to- alleviate her pain.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of medication use and treatment history when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Gaebel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-22(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The ALJ did not err in considering Plaintiff’s intermittent use of prescribed medications.

The amount of treatment is an indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, but an ALJ must explain how treatment history bears on the symptoms alleged.

Bowers Sullivan v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-25(c)(3)

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ’s observations do not add up to a clear and convincing reason. The ALJ did not explain how Plaintiff’s treatment regime bears upon the frequency of Plaintiff’s severe migraines.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, assess their consistency with objective and other evidence, explain discrepancies, and consider the specified factors when evaluating credibility.

Gallishaw v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2017-11-08(a), (b), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

As a preliminary matter, although she recited the proper standard, the ALJ failed to undertake the steps required by the SSA regulations, as described above. Namely, she did not (1) explicitly address whether Plaintiff suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged, (2) consider the extent to which Plaintiff's symptoms could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record, (3) explain how Plaintiff's allegations of pain are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, or (4) consider all factors required as part of the final credibility inquiry.

Section 404.1529 requires analysis of factors bearing on a claimant’s pain or other symptoms, including treatment received and measures used for relief, although this court did not require those two additional factors under Eighth Circuit precedent.

Beck v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-03-22(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.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective statements using objective medical evidence and the totality of the evidence, including the claimant’s daily activities.

Santos v. Colvin · filed 2018-03-29(a), (c), and (c)(3)(i)

Subjective testimony alone, without corroborating objective evidence, cannot be used to determine a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ must look at the totality of evidence including the “claimant’s statements, opinions of treating physicians, reports of [the] claimant’s activities and [the] claimant’s course of treatment,” Nguyen v. Chater, 172 F.3d 31, 34 (1st Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). Specifically, the ALJ may consider the claimant’s “daily activities” in determining the credibility of statements, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), which is what the ALJ did.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluating a claimant’s symptoms using objective medical evidence, medical opinions, treatment history, and daily activities, among other evidence.

Joseph v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-07-13

Here, the ALJ appropriately considered the regulatory factors of objective medical evidence, medical opinions, treatment history, and evidence of daily activities in assessing Joseph’s subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; R.9, Page ID# 64–68. She explained that based on her review of this evidence, she did not find Joseph’s testimony on the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms fully credible.

Section 404.1529 requires analysis of additional factors concerning treatment and measures used to relieve a claimant's pain or symptoms, but this court did not require those factors under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent.

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

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)(1) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms and their work-related effects using the claimant’s statements, objective evidence, daily activities, treatment, medications, and other relevant factors.

Souto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-07-12(c)(1)

If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the alleged symptoms but indicates that the claimant’s impairments could reasonably be expected to produce some degree of pain and other symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s alleged symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); , 284 F.3d at 1225–26; , 67 F.3d at 1561. The ALJ compares the claimant’s statements with the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, treatment and medications received, and other factors concerning limitations and restrictions the symptoms cause. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, treatment history, other relevant factors, and inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Santos v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2018-04-17(c)(3), (c)(4)

A claimant’s daily activities, treatment history, and any other relevant factors may be considered in evaluating and discrediting complaints of disabling symptoms. Harwell v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 1292, 1293 (11th Cir. 1984); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ may also consider “inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of a claimant’s activities of daily living as part of evaluating subjective symptom allegations.

Ortega v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-30(c)(3)(i)

Here, the ALJ merely considered Plaintiff’s activities of daily living as part of his credibility analysis, as the regulations require. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 844. Thus, the Court finds no error in this respect.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies the factors an ALJ should consider when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, including objective medical evidence, daily activities, pain allegations, aggravating factors, treatment, medications, and functional limitations.

King v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-27(c)(3)

Factors that should be considered include the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, allegations of pain, any aggravating factors, the types of treatment received, any medications taken, and functional limitations. Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

When evaluating a claimant's symptoms, the Commissioner considers the treatment received for relief of pain or other symptoms and the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication.

Sheets v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-13(c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(v)

Mr. Sheets argues that the ALJ never specified what treatment Mr. Sheets would have been expected to attend. (Doc. 8 at 14). But, as shown above, the ALJ did cite examples of the type of treatment one would expect for someone with disabling impairments. Moreover, the ALJ’s main point was that the mostly routine treatment Mr. Sheets did have was not reflective of disabling impairments (AR 17). See 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(v) (noting that one of the factors the Commissioner considers is the “treatment . . . you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms”). ... In assessing a claimant’s subjective complaints, an ALJ considers “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” See 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). ... Here, however, there is no evidence in the treatment notes that Mr. Sheets ever sought prescription drug assistance or similar resources. (AR 16). In fact, there is no evidence that Mr. Sheets sought any treatment whatsoever after February 2017. Under these facts, it was reasonable for the ALJ to conclude that Mr. Sheets no longer took prescription pain medication because his symptoms did not warrant it, not because he could not afford it.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and other relevant factors, but the ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them and need not discuss every factor individually.

Laberge v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-12-28(c)(2), (c)(3)

However, an “ALJ cannot reject the veracity of the claimant’s own statements . . . based solely on the conclusion that they are unsubstantiated by the objective medical evidence.” ... Finally, when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ should consider the so-called Avery factors: ... (vii) any other factors concerning functional limitations or restrictions. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3); ... . Tellier, 2018 WL 3370630, at *7. However, “‘an ALJ need not address every Avery factor’ in [her] written decision for [her] evaluation to be supported by substantial evidence.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and other relevant factors, but the ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them and need not discuss every factor individually.

Angela Deoliveira1 v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-01-02(c)(2), (c)(3)

However, an “ALJ cannot reject the veracity of the claimant’s own statements . . . based solely on the conclusion that they are unsubstantiated by the objective medical evidence.” ... Finally, when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ should consider the so-called Avery factors: ... (vii) any other factors concerning functional limitations or restrictions. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3); ... . Tellier, 2018 WL 3370630, at *7. However, “‘an ALJ need not address every Avery factor’ in [her] written decision for [her] evaluation to be supported by substantial evidence.”

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

Fondriest v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-17(c)

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. When considering a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must build a logical bridge between the symptom evaluation and the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom frequency and intensity, medication dosage and side effects, non-medication treatment, aggravating factors, and resulting or treatment-related functional restrictions.

Marshall v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-20(c)

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) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the listed factors and give specific reasons, while § 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting testimony solely because it lacks objective medical support.

Dunn v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-09(c)(2)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and justify the finding with specific reasons.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p. An ALJ also may not discredit a claimant’s testimony about his symptoms “solely because there is no objective medical evidence supporting it.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)); see Johnson v. Barnhart, 449 F.3d 804, 806 (7th Cir. 2006) (“The administrative law judge cannot disbelieve [the claimant’s] testimony solely because it seems in excess of the ‘objective’ medical testimony.”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors affecting a claimant’s symptoms and explain specific reasons for the evaluation; subsection (c)(2) bars rejecting symptoms solely because objective medical evidence is lacking.

Laude v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-06(c), (c)(2)

In evaluating the claimant’s subjective symptoms, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and justify the finding with specific reasons.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 96-7p; SSR 16-3p. An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s testimony about her symptoms “solely because there is no objective medical evidence supporting it.” Villano, 556 F.3d at 562 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

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

Primm v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-07(c)(4)

The ALJ’s finding that Primm’s testimony was not “entirely consistent” with the record was sufficiently supported. ... 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.”); SSR 96-8p (an ALJ must “explain how material inconsistencies in the evidence in the case record were considered and resolved.”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms such as pain to consider the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms using the relevant evidence, including objective medical evidence, daily activities, treatment, and work history.

Graham v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)-(v), (c)(3)(vii)

Second, the ALJ plainly did not consider Plaintiff’s pain in “isolation.” In finding and concluding that Plaintiff’s pain was not as intense, persistent, and limiting as she alleged, the ALJ took into account the very factors contemplated by the regulations. The ALJ considered the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... The ALJ also took into account Plaintiff’s daily activities, determining that they did not support greater limitations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... Here, the ALJ provided good reasons for not finding Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain as intense, persistent, and limiting as alleged. The ALJ’s discussion of the objective medical evidence as well as Plaintiff’s daily activities, course of treatment, and work history demonstrates that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain were considered within the proper framework and not in insolation. The ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assess whether the symptoms are consistent with objective and other evidence, considering specified symptom-related factors.

Sink v. Colvin · filed 2019-04-29(a), (b), (c)(3)

First, “the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) ). Second, if the ALJ determines that the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, “the ALJ must [then] 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.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) ).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, for consistency with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Dattilo v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-16

The ALJ is required to consider “all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see Beecher v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 693, 694 (9th Cir. 1985) (“A claimant’s illnesses must be considered in combination and must not be fragmentized in evaluating their effects”). As the district court correctly described, the ALJ “thoroughly considered and accurately summarized the evidence, including Dattilo’s medical history, all medical evidence as to both plaintiff’s physical impairments and mental status, and statements about how plaintiff’s symptoms affect him.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) permits an adjudicator evaluating alleged symptoms to consider relevant factors such as daily activities and inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and other evidence.

Daugherty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-12(c)(3), (c)(4)

Having found the reported symptoms suggested impairments 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 the degree of symptoms alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For example, after finding the medical evidence did not substantiate Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the degree of limitation imposed by her vision impairment, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s level of daily activity in determining the extent to which her purported symptoms were of disabling severity (Tr. 25, 26). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ also considered the extent to which there were conflicts between Plaintiff’s statement and the rest of the evidence (Id.). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to use a two-step process: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-18(c)

When a claimant suffers from a severe impairment, but the impairment does not meet or equal a disabling impairment listed in the regulations, the ALJ “will consider the impact of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) and any related symptoms, including pain, on [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(4). This determination involves a two-step process in which the ALJ first decides whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and then evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(b),(c).

Section 404.1529(b)–(c) requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the reported symptoms and then assess their intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects; § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) identifies daily activities as a relevant factor.

Chuderski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-23(b), (c), (c)(3)(i)

The Regulations set forth a two-step process that the ALJ must follow in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether the record demonstrates that the plaintiff possesses a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, the ALJ must assess the reliability of the plaintiff’s complaints regarding “the intensity and persistence of [the plaintiff’s] symptoms” to “determine how [those] symptoms limit [the plaintiff’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ’s rationale for his evaluation of the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s symptoms is supported by substantial evidence; and it was legally proper for the ALJ to consider the factors considered. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (listing daily activities as a relevant consideration in assessing credibility); ... Given the limited scope of judicial review on this issue, there is no reason to disturb the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the ALJ to evaluate symptoms using the entire record and factors such as daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

McCary v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-22(c)(3)

In making this evaluation, the ALJ should ... consider the entire case record, along with (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; (3) precipitation and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage and side effects of medication; (5) treatment other than medication; and (6) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. Id. at 49465-66; 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements against objective and other evidence, consider inconsistencies and conflicts, and treat daily activities as only one factor in assessing their effect on work capacity.

Schnetzler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-02(c)(4)

Daily activities are just one of the factors that an ALJ considers when evaluating symptoms and determining to what extent they affect a claimant’s capacity to perform basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... The ALJ was then required to “evaluate [those] statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). An ALJ is directed to “consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence, including [her] history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by [her] medical sources or other persons about how [her] symptoms affect [her].” Id.

Section 404.1529(a) requires evidence of functional limitations because a diagnosis or statements about symptoms alone do not establish disability.

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

A finding of related functional limitations, and not diagnosis alone, is necessary to establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that statements about pain and other symptoms alone do not establish disability.

Isbell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-30(a)

And, diagnoses and symptoms alone do not establish the existence of a severe impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(a) (noting statements about pain and other symptoms will not alone establish disability); see also Wind v. Barnhart, 133 F. App’x 684, 690 (11th Cir. 2005) (recognizing a diagnosis alone is insufficient and claimant must show the effect of the impairment on his ability to work).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms and their functional limitations in light of the medical evidence.

Emmitt v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-01

An ALJ’s RFC analysis includes all the symptoms and extent to which the symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence, meaning the ALJ must look to the medical evidence and evaluate the credibility and the extent of the functional limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529, 416.929. Here, upon the remand, the ALJ considered not only Emmitt’s noncompliance, but also Emmitt’s ability to clean and take care of herself, ability to leave the house with her stepmother, self-isolation, time spent only with family, ability to fill out own Functional Report despite spelling and reading difficulties, and past fights with others. Tr. 27-28.

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

Wood v. Saul · filed 2019-07-29(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); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040 (recognizing that a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptom credibility to consider medication type, dosage, effectiveness, side effects, and treatment received, but the treatment evidence must be evaluated completely rather than selectively.

(SS) Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(c)

In assessing credibility, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Further, the treatment Plaintiff received, especially when conservative, is a legitimate consideration in a credibility finding. ... Nevertheless, the ALJ did not properly evaluate the treatment Plaintiff received, because he failed to discuss either the injections or the surgical intervention. Accordingly, this factor does not support the adverse credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider all the evidence and specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, medication, and measures used for relief.

Greenlaw v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-31(c)(3)

In addressing Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider all the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Specifically, the ALJ is directed to consider the following factors: (i) daily activities; (ii) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptoms; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken; (v) other treatment received for relief of symptoms; (vi) any measures used to alleviate symptoms; and (vii) other factors concerning limitations and restrictions due to symptoms 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii). ... While the ALJ did not discuss daily activities or medication side effects, Plaintiff does not claim that these factors were at issue. ... Therefore, the ALJ properly discussed the relevant factors in SSR 16-3p in finding Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms to not be as limiting as alleged.

Section 404.1529 instructs an ALJ to consider whether a claimant's testimony is consistent with the medical record, including objective medical evidence, when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Hansen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-05

This argument is inconsistent with the agency’s regulatory scheme and guidance, which instructs the ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s testimony is consistent with the medical record. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5 (Oct. 25, 2017) (“A report of minimal or negative findings or inconsistencies in the objective medical evidence is one of the many factors we must consider in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence alongside medical findings and observations, while section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of treatment effectiveness in assessing symptom severity and disabling effects.

Baldwin v. Saul · filed 2019-08-07(c)(2), (c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits an ALJ from rejecting statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or effects on work solely because available objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Barker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-07(c)(2)

Such testimony can’t be rejected simply because it can’t be verified by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the claimant’s symptom statements, their effects on daily life and ability to work, and objective and other evidence; subjective allegations alone cannot establish disability.

Bateman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-08(a)

When determining a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect her daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). A finding of disability cannot be supported by subjective allegations of disabling symptoms alone. Id. Instead, the ALJ must weigh the claimant’s subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant’s testimony and any inconsistency between the symptom testimony and other evidence.

Horn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-08-09(c)(3)-(4)

During this assessment, the ALJ is to consider Plaintiff’s testimony and any inconsistency between the testimony of symptoms and any other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)-(4), 416.929(c)(3)-(4).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical findings and the claimant’s treatment history when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Hollis v. Berryhill (CONSENT) · filed 2019-08-12(c)

As discussed above and by the ALJ, the medical evidence showing limited, routine treatment and mild to moderate objective findings provide substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s pain was not as severe as she alleged. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). Thus, the ALJ did not err by discounting Plaintiff’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant’s testimony and any inconsistency between the symptom testimony and other evidence.

Uptain v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-08-12(c)(3)-(4)

During this assessment, the ALJ is to consider Plaintiff’s testimony and any inconsistency between the testimony of symptoms and any other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)-(4), 416.929(c)(3)-(4).

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

Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(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)(2) permits consideration of medical evidence when assessing the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain, but minimal objective evidence cannot be the sole basis for discounting symptom testimony.

Cox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-08(c)(2)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion that “[t]his is not a valid reason,” ECF No. 11 at 15, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (2011). Minimal objective evidence is a factor which may be relied upon in discrediting a claimant’s testimony, although it may not be the only factor.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate symptoms, consider objective evidence and factors such as daily activities, and acknowledge and examine those considerations before discounting a claimant's subjective complaints.

Klingbeil v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(b), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(4)

This determination involves a two-step process in which the ALJ first decides whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and then evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(b),(c). When evaluating the claimant’s subjective complaints during the second step, the ALJ considers the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s work history, and evidence relating to the following factors (“the Polaski factors”): (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and (5) [the claimant’s] functional restrictions. Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... An ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each Polaski factor as long as the ALJ “acknowledge[es] and examin[es] those considerations before discounting [a claimant’s] subjective complaints.” Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 972 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing Brown v. Chater, 87 F.3d 963, 966 (8th Cir. 1996)). ... I find that the ALJ did not properly acknowledge and examine the Polaski factors before discounting Claimant’s subjective complaints. ... Here, the ALJ did not acknowledge or consider Claimant’s activities of daily living. ... Remand is necessary for the ALJ to consider how Claimant’s activities of daily living affect the ALJ’s decision regarding Claimant’s subjective complaints.

Subsection (c) requires a two-step evaluation of symptoms: first determining whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then evaluating their intensity, persistence, and functional limitations using objective medical and other evidence and specified factors.

Deffinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(c)

The regulations and SSR 16-3p describe a two-part process for evaluating an individual’s statements about symptoms, including pain. First, the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of those symptoms by considering objective medical and other evidence, including: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *3-8.

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to address an alleged symptom by finding it either not objectively medically determinable or medically determinable but less severe than claimed.

Garner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19

There are two ways that the ALJ can address Plaintiff’s complaint in the RFC (when suggesting that the alleged symptom does not preclude Plaintiff from working). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. She can either determine that the complaint is not objectively medically determinable or find that it is determinable but not as severe as Plaintiff claims. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using relevant factors and all evidence in the case record.

Talyosef v. Saul · filed 2019-08-26(b), (c)

The regulations set forth a two-step process that the ALJ must follow in evaluating plaintiff’s subjective complaints. First, the ALJ must determine whether the record demonstrates that the plaintiff possesses a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [plaintiff’s] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Second, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the plaintiff’s complaints regarding “the intensity and persistence of [plaintiff’s] symptoms” to “determine how [the] symptoms limit [plaintiff’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). The ALJ should consider factors relevant to plaintiff’s symptoms, such as pain, including: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the “location, duration, frequency, and intensity” of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) any precipitating or aggravating factors; (4) the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” taken by claimant to alleviate the pain; (5) “treatment, other than medication,” that plaintiff has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any other measures plaintiff has used to relieve symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning plaintiff’s “functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” Id. The ALJ must consider all evidence in the case record.

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

Keener v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(c)

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. When considering a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must build a logical bridge between the symptom evaluation and the record.

Section 404.1529 bars an ALJ from rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, while requiring consideration of whether alleged limitations are consistent with objective and other evidence and relevant factors such as daily activities, treatment, medication, and functional restrictions.

BROWNLEE v. SAUL · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4)

It is undisputed that at step two of the analysis, the ALJ should not reject a claimant’s statements “about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his] symptoms have on [his] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... However, it is also undisputed ... that a plaintiff's “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish [his] capacity for basic work activities [only] to the extent that [his] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective ... medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Ultimately, the ALJ made a determination tegarding Plaintiffs symptoms after considering Plaintiffs testimony and the applicable factors at length. The ALJ’s discussion clearly takes into account Plaintiffs “medical history, medical signs, and laboratory findings” as well as the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), such as the extent of Plaintiffs treatments and his daily activities. Plaintiff has not shown how this symptom evaluation was imptopet ot how the ALJ’s determination was unsupported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using the claimant's history, medical records, statements, opinions, and evidence of how the symptoms affect daily activities and the ability to work.

Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including the claimant’s history, the medical records and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3). “If the ALJ decides not to credit a claimant’s testimony as to her pain, he must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561-62. The Court will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1562. ... The ALJ properly considered the Claimant’s testimony concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. In doing so, the ALJ, considered the waxing and waning nature of her impairments, including her fibromyalgia. (R. 30). The ALJ found that the evidence – including the objective medical evidence, the Claimant’s reports of pain, and the Claimant’s activities of daily living – did not support a finding that the pain and other symptoms caused by her fibromyalgia (and other impairments) precluded her from performing light work. (Id.). The ALJ did not cherry-pick through the Claimant’s testimony and other record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an adjudicator to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity, and subsection (c)(4) limits the effect of alleged symptoms on residual functional capacity to limitations reasonably consistent with the objective and other evidence.

(SS) Donna Murphy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-21(c)(2), (c)(4)

However, 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 his or her 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”).

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

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-21(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)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating the severity of the claimant's symptoms.

Collins Sr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ considered William C.’s description of his daily activities in assessing whether his testimony about the effects of his impairments was credible or exaggerated. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (explaining that agency will consider daily activities in evaluating severity of claimant's symptoms). Activities of daily living are a proper consideration for an ALJ to weigh in evaluating the claimant’s subjective complaints. The ALJ did not equate William C.’s daily living activities to the ability to perform full time work, but rather, cited them as one factor when building an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence of record and his conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating a disability claim.

Sorensen v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), an ALJ must consider evidence about a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating her claims of disability. Here, in evaluating Plaintiff’s claim of disability, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s past work in addition to the part-time work she performed during the same period of time she alleged she was disabled.

Section 404.1529 permits an administrative law judge to consider a claimant's prior work record as other evidence when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of subjective symptoms.

Gilliam v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-28(c)(3)

SSR 16-3p interprets 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and that regulation includes “prior work record” among “other evidence” that the ALJ may be consider during this analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and, if objective evidence does not substantiate pain allegations, evaluate them using the specified factors.

Grabel v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(b), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

When assessing a Plaintiff’s credibility SSA regulations require an ALJ “to take the claimant’s report of pain and other limitations into account, but the ALJ is not obligated to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question.” Campbell v. Astrue, 465 Fed.Appx. 4, 7 (2d Cir. 2012) (alterations omitted) (quoting Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010)); see also Fontanarosa v. Colvin, 13-CV-3285, 2014 WL 4273321, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2014). “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, 606 F.3d at 49 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). Second, “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, including claimant’s statements, treating physician’s reports, and other medical professional reports.” Fontanarosa, 2014 WL 4273321, at *12 (citing Whipple v. Astrue, 479 Fed.Appx. 367, 370-71 (2d Cir. 2012)). “To the extent that a claimant’s allegations of pain ‘are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.’” (quoting Meadors v. Astrue, 370 Fed.Appx. 179, 184 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). The ALJ must consider these seven faction in making a credibility determination: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) any treatment, other than medication, the claimant has received; (6) any other measures the claimant employs to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3). ... Here, the ALJ has not properly described his rational for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony at the administrative hearing and relying solely upon the report of Dr. Caliati to support his conclusion that the opinion of the treating physicians should be afforded little weight in light of Plaintiff’s ability to do household chores. Thus, for this reason alone, the undersigned recommends that this matter be remanded to the ALJ.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including pain.

(SS) Findley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

Pursuant to § 404.1529, factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms which the ALJ will consider include: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on the back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ did not consider these factors is not persuasive. ... As to the claimant’s “daily activities,” the ALJ considered such evidence, noting, among other things, Plaintiff’s ability to shop and complete household chores. AR 19. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is free of reversible error.