20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all symptoms against the objective medical evidence, first assess whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, and then evaluate their intensity and persistence, including factors such as daily activities and medical treatment.

Haywood v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-06(a), (b), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

In addition, the ALJ properly considered allegations of pain. Social Security Regulations provide that, in determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). A claimant’s subjective complaints of symptoms alone are not sufficient to establish disability. See id. In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must consider, first, whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms she alleges. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Once an impairment is found, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which those symptoms limit his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii) (factors relevant to symptoms can include daily activities and medical treatment).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the medical and other evidence and explain specific reasons for finding the claimant’s statements inconsistent with that evidence.

Horwitz v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12

If a claimant makes statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms, the ALJ must determine whether the statements are consistent with the medical and other evidence of record. ... When evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements about symptoms, the ALJ must consider all evidence relating thereto, including the claimant’s prior work record and third-party observations as to her daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of the symptoms; any precipitating and aggravating factors; the dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and any functional restrictions. ... If the ALJ finds the statements to be inconsistent with the evidence of record, he must make an express determination and detail specific reasons for the weight given the claimant’s testimony. ... Here, after finding at Step 3 of the sequential analysis that Plaintiff’s impairments did not meet the criteria for listing level disability, the ALJ considered and discussed Plaintiff’s testimony and allegations. The ALJ concluded Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence of record. The ALJ proceeded to detail the medical evidence of record, noting findings that supported Plaintiff’s severe impairments as well as evidence that was inconsistent with the presence of disabling limitations. (Tr. 23-25).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints, and the section permits discounting those complaints only for good reasons.

Markley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

With regard to plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the ALJ should consider all evidence in the record and incorporate the factors to be considered under regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). These factors include a plaintiff’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; the medication used to alleviate the pain; any other treatment for the pain; any other measures taken by the plaintiff to relieve the pain; and failure to comply with treatment. Id. An ALJ may only discount a claimant’s subjective complaints for “good reasons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to determine whether objective medical evidence could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and, if so, consider all available evidence in evaluating their persistence and intensity.

Arbizu v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-17(b), (c)(1)

In evaluating the claimant’s symptom testimony, ALJs must engage in a two-step analysis. First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant presented objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If the claimant presents such evidence, the ALJ proceeds to consider “all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements from [the claimant],” her doctors, and other persons to determine the persistence and intensity of these symptoms. § 404.1529(c)(1). If there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ may reject the claimant’s symptom testimony only by giving specific, clear, and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider medical source opinions and other evidence about how symptoms affect daily activities and the ability to work.

Wheelock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-18(c)(1)-(3)

As discussed above, the ALJ considers, among other things, medical source opinions, when evaluating the credibility of the Claimant’s testimony concerning the intensity and persistence of his symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3). Hence, it follows that if the ALJ erred in weighing the medical source opinions that error will more than likely impact the ALJ’s credibility determination. Therefore, given the ALJ’s error in considering and weighing Drs. Meyers’ and Shea’s opinions, the Court finds the ALJ’s credibility determination is likewise not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ evaluating symptom severity and functional effects to consider medication effectiveness, treatment received, objective findings, and other record evidence, including treatment efforts.

Gowins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-20(c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(v), (c)(3)(vi), (c)(4)

The ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s complains of disabling headaches on three grounds—Plaintiff’s medication, lack of objective findings, and conservative treatment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) & (v) (considering efficacy of medications and level of treatment seek to relief in treating symptoms); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) (only those symptoms consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record are considered functionally limiting). Particularly, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s use of Propanol provided proper relief for her symptoms; the medical treatment notes failed to show that Plaintiff’s headaches produced neurological symptoms or obvious distress; and despite one visit to the emergency room for headache symptoms, Plaintiff’s brain CT scan was normal (Tr. 47–48).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all evidence presented, including prior work record, but does not require separate discussion of a claimant’s willingness to work.

Riebe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff would argue that her “willingness to work” is a distinct consideration from her “prior work record” or “attempts to work,” neither SSR 96-8p nor 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) require discussion of such a factor. ... Thus, Plaintiff’s second assignment of error is without merit.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs an ALJ to assess whether a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence.

Phillips v. SSA · filed 2019-09-25(c)(4)

In the instant case, the ALJ found Phillips’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. [TR 30]. However, the ALJ found that Phillips’ statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms are inconsistent with the medical evidence. [TR 30]; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s statements about symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

HARTZOG v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-09-19(c)(4)

However, these limitations are based primarily on Plaintiff’s own subjective complaints. While such claims were certainly relevant, the ALJ was not under an obligation to simply accept what she said without question. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011). The ALJ here clearly considered Plaintiff’s testimony, but found it to be not fully supported by the record. His discussion was extensive and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the claimant’s daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication side effects, and treatment or measures taken for relief.

Romero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)(i)-(vi)

“When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider such things as: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) adverse side-effects of medications; and (5) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms.” Davis v. Astrue, 287 F. App’x 748, 760 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi)).

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

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)(i)

And the ALJ could properly reference Plaintiff’s “[d]aily activities” in considering “the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of Plaintiff’s symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s positive response to treatment when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Williamson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)(v)

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s testimony based on a positive response to treatment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v)3; see also Plunk v. Astrue, No. 6:11-cv-06286-SI, 2013 WL 1412942, at *7 (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2013) (affirming ALJ’s subjective symptom evaluation where the ALJ cited medical records that the claimant’s “symptoms improved with treatment and exercise”).

Section 404.1529 requires medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged pain or other symptoms and permits consideration of relevant factors such as daily activities and inconsistencies in evaluating their severity.

Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(a), (c)(3), (c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

Plaintiff’s statements regarding pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that she is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... Therefore, the ALJ considered other information and factors that are relevant to the degree of pain and other symptoms alleged (Tr. 23-25). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s level of daily activity (Tr. 19-21, 22-26). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); ... Further, the ALJ considered inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there were conflicts between Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of the evidence in the record (Tr. 19-21, 22-26). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms, including pain, and assess whether the claimant's symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Devries v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(a)

When assessing disability, the ALJ is required to consider all symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence, together with other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ who finds an impairment capable of causing alleged pain to assess the pain’s intensity, persistence, and effect on work, and permits reliance on treatment relief, clinical findings, and reported functioning in making that assessment.

REGULSKI · filed 2025-12-04(c)

Allegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be supported by objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Once an ALJ concludes that a medical impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms exists, he or she must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom, and the extent to which it affects the individual's ability to work. ... The ALJ cited to visit notes that indicated, while plaintiff had some discomfort, he maintained “full active and passive range of motion.” (R. at 267); b) plaintiff chose to continue shoulder injections and delay surgery (id.); and c) plaintiff’s lumbar spine complaints were similarly treated with injections, which provided relief.

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, medical evidence and the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant factors in assessing symptom severity and disabling effects.

Gooch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2), (c)(3)

However, the medical evidence is a relevant ant 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). ... The effectiveness of medication and 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) (Conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits) (internal citations omitted); see also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant's complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

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

Womack-Wright v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair, 885 F.2d at 601. However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Minimal objective evidence is a factor which may be relied upon to discount a claimant’s testimony, although it may not be the only factor.

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

Diaz v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-15(c)(3)

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

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

Morfin v. Saul · filed 2019-12-12(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); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

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

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-12-13(c)(3)

Further, the effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits) (internal citations omitted); see also Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040 (a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a medication's type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects when evaluating the severity of a claimant's symptoms.

Bautista v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-30(c)(3)

An ALJ may consider the effectiveness of medication as a factor in determining the severity of a plaintiff’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (in assessing a claimant’s credibility, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as relevant to the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain, but does not permit rejecting pain testimony solely because the alleged degree of pain lacks objective support.

Andreasen v. Saul · filed 2020-02-13(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of factors including daily activities, the characteristics of symptoms, treatment, and other functional limitations when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms.

Parton v. Saul · filed 2020-03-02(c)

Factors to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms include: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7-*8; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of specified factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication effectiveness and side effects, treatment, and functional limitations, when evaluating symptom severity.

Neifert v. Saul · filed 2020-03-05(c)

Factors to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms include: 1) daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and 7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Under section 404.1529(c), symptom severity rather than the mere existence of pain is the relevant disability question, and an ALJ need address the evidence bearing on severity without discussing every record snippet.

House v. O'Malley · filed 2022-01-04(c)

Second, the joint pain diagnosis spoke only to the existence of pain, not its severity. And severity is the relevant factor in determining disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929. The ALJ thus addressed the evidence that bore on the relevant question and explained how he arrived at his conclusion.

Section 404.1529 requires considering the cyclic nature of symptoms rather than focusing only on periods of improvement.

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

For the same reasons discussed above, the ALJ improperly assessed Plaintiff’s complaints of pain. The Decision fails to address the cyclic nature of Plaintiff’s symptoms and errs by focusing on the time periods where Plaintiff has improved symptoms.

Subsection (c) requires an ALJ to consider the specified non-objective evidence as well as objective medical evidence when assessing a claimant’s symptom allegations.

Rocha v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-05(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... The ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record for concluding that Plaintiff’s allegations of disability are not credible.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats work history as one factor in evaluating symptom severity and does not require an ALJ to discuss every factor so long as the ALJ considers all relevant evidence.

Wiseman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-10(c)(3)

While work history is a factor in the symptom-severity analysis, it is only one factor in the ALJ’s multi-factor analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Tina M. S. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-CV-236, 2023 WL 2788830, at *15 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2023) (Litkovitz, M.J.). The ALJ is not required to discuss every factor, only consider all the relevant evidence to support his conclusion.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount alleged symptoms when the evidence does not support them.

Malcolm v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28

We therefore review this portion of the Report for clear error and, finding none, adopt it as well. At any rate, for all the reasons we’ve outlined, the ALJ didn’t err in concluding that the Plaintiff’s impairment allegations were unsupported by the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to compare a claimant’s symptom complaints with the objective record rather than assess the claimant’s credibility.

Brockington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-10

The regulations no longer require an ALJ to assess the “credibility” of a plaintiff, but instead require the ALJ to compare the plaintiff's complaints related to his or her symptoms against the objective record.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all available evidence when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Dounce v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-24(a)

Evaluating the “intensity and persistence” of the symptoms of an impairment will involve considering all available evidence, including “medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how…symptoms affect” the plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of symptom complaints using the entire record; an administrative law judge may not reject them solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Kurth v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-30(c)

When conducting this evaluation, the administrative law judge may not reject the claimant’s statements regarding her symptoms on the sole ground that the statements are not substantiated by objective medical evidence. Instead, the administrative law judge must consider the entire case record to determine whether the individual’s statements are credible.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms when assessing the ability to work.

Baculik v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-29(c)

At the second step, the ALJ is required to “evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit [his] ability to perform basic work activities.” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)).

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to evaluate alleged symptoms using objective medical evidence, daily activities, and inconsistencies in the record.

Gladney v. Saul · filed 2021-04-23(c)

To determine the credibility of allegations of disabling symptoms, an ALJ may consider several factors, including objective medical evidence, daily activities, and any inconsistencies between the allegations and the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... These were sufficient reasons to partially reject Gladney’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(b) requires the ALJ to assess how the intensity and persistence of symptoms limit a claimant’s ability to work once an impairment could reasonably produce those symptoms.

Leigh Ayn D. Laurey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-12-01(b)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms, then the ALJ evaluates the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. ... Here, the ALJ applied the pain standard, finding that Laurey’s medically determinable impairments “could reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms,” but then found that Laurey’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms” were credible only to the extent they were consistent with the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of symptoms in light of the entire record to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work.

EAST v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-02-14(c)

In the present case, in the 2019 decision before the Court, the ALJ followed this two- step process and considered the entire case record and explained his reasons for deviating from Plaintiffs statements regarding the impact of his symptoms on his ability to work, as discussed at length above.

Section 404.1529(c) allows treatment history, including a long gap in follow-up care, to inform the assessment of a claimant’s reported symptom severity.

Wagner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-19(c)

The ALJ appropriately still considered the post-DLI records and concluded that plaintiff’s failure to follow up with her gastroenterologist until May 2018 was demonstrative that her symptoms were not of the limiting severity as alleged.

When evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms, an ALJ must consider the listed factors but need discuss only those pertinent to the record.

Pattson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(c)(3)

SSR 16-3p at *7-8; cf. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ need only discuss those factors that are pertinent based upon the evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s symptom allegations are consistent with objective and other record evidence.

Willert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-21(c)

When assessing the reliability of a claimant’s disability allegations, an ALJ considers the extent to which such allegations are consistent with the objective evidence and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... Here, the ALJ failed to identify what portion of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not credible and then connect them to his conclusion that Plaintiff did not need to elevate his legs and feet throughout the day, but could actually stand and/or walk for up to two hours at a time.

Section 404.1529(c) directs an ALJ to evaluate symptom allegations against the entire case record, including objective medical evidence.

Hightower v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-14(c)

The ALJ properly discounted allegations because they were inconsistent with the record and this is contemplated by the regulations which state that, in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ should examine the entire case record, which includes the objective medical evidence, along with other relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom severity to consider factors including daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, treatment, and measures used for relief.

Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-20(c)(3)

The Regulations list a variety of factors an ALJ must consider in evaluating the severity of symptoms, including a claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of pain; factors that precipitate or aggravate symptoms; the effectiveness and side effects of medications; treatments other than medication; and any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms. ... The ALJ was “not required to accept [Plaintiff’s] subjective complaints,” Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 476 (6th Cir. 2003), and the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff could perform light work was supported by substantial evidence from the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of its listed factors when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s pain and other symptoms.

Mohnsam v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-23(c)(3)

But, as discussed at length by Magistrate Judge Litkovitz, the ALJ “reasonably considered the factors contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) in evaluating the severity of [P]laintiff’s pain and other symptoms.” (Report, Doc. 12, Pg. ID 1739; see also ALJ Decision, Doc. 6-2, Pg. ID 29-73.)

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

Penley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-21(c)

The ALJ must consider the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) and (c); ... These medical records substantially support the ALJ’s finding that the frequency of bowl movements was not as severe as alleged by plaintiff.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and how they limit the claimant’s ability to work.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-02(c)(1)

Second, the ALJ “must . . . evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the full record, including the extent of a claimant’s daily activities, when assessing the severity of symptoms.

Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-29(c)

The ALJ further erred by relying on selective evidence regarding Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and disregarding, without explanation, Plaintiff’s repeated reports of worsening pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount the alleged severity of symptoms when the claimant’s complaints are inconsistent with the medical evidence.

Smelser · filed 2025-11-17(c)(4)

But this is precisely what the ALJ must do when evaluating the evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (stating that the ALJ is empowered to determine whether a claimant’s subjective complaints are supported by medical evidence and, if not, the ALJ may discount the claimed degree and severity of the alleged symptoms).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the claimant’s symptoms and then evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine their work-related limits.

Harris v. Saul · filed 2020-01-15

An ALJ must engage in a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms. First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” SSR 16-3p; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. “Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms is established, [the ALJ] evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p. “The determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.” SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms in two steps: first considering whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, and then assessing their intensity and limiting effects.

Robertson v. Saul · filed 2020-02-10

An ALJ must engage in a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms. First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” SSR 16-3p; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. ... The court agrees that the record does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Robertson’s alleged symptoms were generally controlled with treatment. ... The ALJ failed to confront this evidence and explain why it was rejected.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluating symptoms against objective and other evidence while considering factors including daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, medication side effects, and functional limitations.

Gibson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-12(c)

A claimant’s statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, which are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, are less likely to reduce his capacity to perform work related activities. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). An individual’s symptoms are evaluated based on consideration of objective medical evidence, an individual’s statements directly to the Administration, or to medical sources or other sources, and the following factors: ... 7. Any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... If there was error by the ALJ in not expressly discussing Plaintiff’s testimony and scant reports of medication side effects under SSR 16-3p for the one factor of “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms” of the seven factors of SSR 16-3p, such would be harmless error, considering the opinion as a whole, as substantial evidence cited by the ALJ supports the subjective symptom evaluation and the record does display inconsistency with Plaintiff’s allegations regarding medication.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on basic work activities.

Chase, II v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(a)

The new policy ruling did not and could not change the underlying regulations. The longstanding two-part analysis for evaluating symptoms applies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). “An ALJ must first determine ‘whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms.’ If such an impairment exists, the ALJ ‘must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities.’ ” Morrison v. Commissioner, 2017 WL 4278378, at *4 (quoting Rogers v. Commissioner, 486 F.3d 234, 247 (6th Cir. 2007) ).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to assess symptoms using the reasonable-consistency standard and does not make the phrase ‘not entirely consistent’ alone a basis for remand when the regulatory standard and specific reasons are provided.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2020-04-16(a)

This boilerplate language, which routinely appears in ALJ decisions, does not align with the applicable Ruling and regulation. See SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *2-3 (“In determining whether an individual is disabled, we consider all of the individual’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence in the individual's record.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”). Instead, as the Farley court and others have noted, the boilerplate suggests that the claimant's statements must be “entirely consistent” with the record, rather than “reasonably consistent.” ... Here, the ALJ correctly stated the regulatory standard earlier in his decision (Tr. at 18: “the undersigned has considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, based on the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p”), and he provided specific reasons after the boilerplate (Tr. at 19). Therefore, I cannot conclude that use of the boilerplate alone would require remand.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider factors including the nature and intensity of pain, its effects on functioning, and daily activities, and explain how the evidence supports or discredits specific symptoms.

Ronk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to look at a variety of factors in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including the nature and intensity of pain, the effects of his pain on his ability to function, and daily activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ also failed to discuss a number of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) when discussing Mr. Ronk’s subjective symptoms. The ALJ failed to explicitly discuss the medical evidence and what symptoms that evidence discredited. Instead, the ALJ relied on minor symptoms (migraines and hallucinations) and ignored the possibly work-precluding symptoms (back pain and difficulty ambulating). The ALJ notes that Mr. Ronk’s symptoms were relieved by conservative treatment, but he offers no insight as to what treatments, conservative or otherwise, relieved any of Mr. Ronk’s symptoms. The ALJ also notes that Mr. Ronk claimed to enjoy reading in a function report yet testified that he never reads for fun at the hearing. However, the ALJ fails to explain how this information discredited any specific subjective symptoms. The ALJ’s subjective symptom analysis lacks any real analysis or discussion of either Mr. Ronk’s symptoms or what evidence in the record contradicted those symptoms. On remand, the ALJ should provide a full analysis of Mr. Ronk’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom statements and weigh specified evidence, including daily activities, pain characteristics, treatment, medication effects, and functional limitations.

Kozor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(a), (c)(3)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about his or her symptoms, including pain, and how these symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ALJs must weigh the subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following: (1) The individual’s daily activities; (2) Location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (5) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) Other measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; (7) Other factors concerning functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(a) requires considering all symptoms, including pain, and assessing the extent to which they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Weyland v. Saul · filed 2020-10-02(a)

The ALJ used inconsistent standards for evaluating Weyland's subjective symptoms, finding at different times that her symptoms were both “not fully supported in light of” and “inconsistent with” “her generally normal musculoskeletal and neurological findings, relatively limited treatment, and reported activities.” (Tr. 21, 22.) Only the second phrase is an accurate recitation of the standard. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony is consistent with objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity of the claimant’s symptoms.

Rice v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-05(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); Social Security Regulation (“SSR”) 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate all symptoms and determine the extent to which they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Pfitzer v. Saul · filed 2020-10-20(a)

At the outset of his discussion of Pfitzer’s alleged symptoms the ALJ outlined the correct legal standard, noting that he “considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” (Tr. 23 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4).) While the ALJ later used the phrase “not entirely consistent” (Tr. 24), a review of the decision shows that the ALJ applied the correct standard. The ALJ did not require Pfitzer's allegations to match the evidence exactly. Rather, he considered Pfitzer's alleged symptoms in light of the evidence as a whole and concluded that some, but not all, of those symptoms were consistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(a)–(c) requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms, determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce them, and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against objective and other evidence.

Sherman v. Saul · filed 2021-02-25(a)–(c)

At this intermediate step, the ALJ considers all claimant’s symptoms and “the extent to which [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). This involves a two-step inquiry where the ALJ must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable mental impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b)-(c), 416.929(b)-(c). ... Additionally, upon considering Sherman’s psychiatric impairments, the ALJ adequately explained the legal and factual basis for her determination, and based her conclusions on substantial evidence. It is the right and responsibility of the ALJ to make such assessments, and the Court finds that substantial evidence supports this determination. ... Because the Court cannot re-weigh the evidence, the Court finds that the ALJ has not erred in evaluating Sherman’s psychiatric impairments.

Section 404.1529(c) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements based on objective evidence alone and requires analysis of other factors, including aggravating conditions and the claimant’s daily activities and manner of performing them.

Hensley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(c)

The ALJ discussed Ms. Hensley’s subjective symptoms in one paragraph, wherein he went through Ms. Hensley’s symptoms and contrasted them with objective medical evidence [ECF 14, 22-23]. The ALJ may not dismiss a claimant’s statements based on objective evidence alone. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2009) (ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony based solely on objective evidence). The ALJ didn’t discuss the other factors listed in the regulations. He didn’t consider the aggravating factor of Ms. Hensley’s obesity. He didn’t consider Ms. Hensley’s daily activities and the manner in which she performs them. Ms. Hensley testified that her daughter had to clean her house and do her laundry for her [ECF 14, 62]. She testified that she struggled with paying bills, and that she made errors occasionally [Id.]. The ALJ didn’t discuss or consider this testimony when analyzing her subjective symptoms. The ALJ noted that Ms. Hensley reported requiring assistance with dressing, bathing, caring for her hair, getting out of bed, and toileting, and that she was incapable of cooking or doing housework, but he didn’t analyze this evidence when considering her subjective symptoms [ECF 14, 21]. While the ALJ listed some of this evidence in his decision, he didn’t adequately discuss it. Without any analysis of how subjective complaints or limitations in daily activities are either consistent or inconsistent with specific portions of evidence in the medical record, there is no “logical bridge” between the evidence and the ALJ’s conclusion, also requiring remand. McKinzey v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2011) (“the ALJ must explain her decision in such a way that allows us to determine whether she reached her decision in a rational manner, logically based on her specific findings and the evidence in the record.”). Simply acknowledging that Ms. Hensley has made statements regarding her limitations and subjective symptoms is not enough to constitute proper analysis of her symptoms. The ALJ didn’t properly consider Ms. Hensley’s subjective symptoms, and this error requires remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)’s symptom-evaluation factors are examples rather than a rigid checklist, so an ALJ need not expressly address every factor when sufficiently specific reasons show consideration of the entire evidentiary record.

Lupe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(c)(3)

Ultimately, the ALJ explicitly acknowledged consideration of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 when making his credibility determination, (id. at 35), and it is evident from his thorough discussion that the determination was supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error. See Britt v. Astrue, 486 F. App’x 161, 164 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding explicit mention of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and the applicable Social Security Rulings as evidence that the ALJ used the proper legal standard in assessing the claimant’s credibility); see also Judelsohn v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-388S, 2012 WL 2401587, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. June 25, 2012) (“Failure to expressly consider every factor set forth in the regulations is not grounds for remand where the reasons for the ALJ’s determination of credibility are sufficiently specific to conclude that he considered the entire evidentiary record.” (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted)); Oliphant v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-2431, 2012 WL 3541820, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2012) (stating that the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) factors are included as “examples of alternative evidence that may be useful [to the credibility inquiry], and not as a rigid, seven-step prerequisite to the ALJ’s finding” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in evaluating Tracy’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(4) make a claimant’s symptom statements insufficient by themselves to establish disability and permit an ALJ to discount them when they are inconsistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Cosme v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(a), (c)(4)

A claimant’s own statements about pain or symptoms are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish that he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). In evaluating a claimant’s credibility, an ALJ determines whether his complained-of symptoms are reasonably “consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” Id. If the ALJ finds the claimant’s subjective complaints to be inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, he may discount them. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4). Here, the ALJ properly considered all of Cosme’s subjective complaints and found that his impairments could reasonably cause his alleged symptoms. However, the ALJ found that Cosme’s testimony as to the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the symptoms were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record,” citing to the reports of Dr. Patel and Dr. Randhawa, as well as the opinion of Dr. Fisk. (App. at 6.) Clearly, the ALJ did not decide to discount Cosme’s subjective complaints based on mere speculation, but rather objective evidence present in the record. Therefore, substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision to discount Cosme’s subjective complaints. See Smith, 631 F.3d at 637.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s representations about symptoms and limitations but provides that symptom statements alone do not establish disability.

Price v. Saul · filed 2021-03-01(a)

While an ALJ must consider a plaintiff’s representations about his symptoms and limitations, his statements about his “pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that” he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ properly articulated clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony. ... Thus, the medical treatment in the record conflicts with Plaintiff’s claim of disabling level pain and symptoms and was a clear and convincing reason for not fully crediting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. ... After a careful review of the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s alleged limitations and pain and other symptoms, the Court finds that he complied with SSR 16-3p and the Ninth Circuit standard such that it may not substitute its judgment for that of the ALJ’s. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 679. Therefore, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from reversible legal error.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective reports to consider the entire record, including medical records, statements, daily activities, pain characteristics, medication, aggravating factors, and functional restrictions.

Collumbien v. Saul · filed 2021-03-04(c)

In analyzing a claimant’s subjective reports, the ALJ considers the entire record, including: medical records; statements from the claimant and third parties; the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of pain; the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors; and functional restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). The Court defers to the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s subjective complaints if that assessment is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence. Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir. 2018). See also Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2008). ... Here, the ALJ provided several valid and well-supported reasons for finding Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms not entirely consistent with the record evidence. ... The ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s symptoms and determined that she has the RFC to perform light work with only occasional reaching overhead bilaterally.

Section 404.1529(a)’s reasonable-consistency standard is less strict than requiring symptoms to be entirely consistent with medical evidence, although use of the stricter boilerplate alone is not reversible when the ALJ otherwise identifies adequate justification.

Riege, Jennifer v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-03-05(a)

In assessing a claimant’s subjective symptoms, an ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s statements about their symptoms can “reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly criticized the boilerplate term “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence” because it implies a stricter standard of consistency than that in § 404.1529(a). See, e.g., Stark v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 684, 688 (7th Cir. 2016). But the ALJ’s use of the misleading boilerplate is not reversible error “if the ALJ otherwise identifies information that justifies the credibility determination.” Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1122 (7th Cir. 2014). ... But the assessment of Riege’s statements about her symptoms has to be viewed in the context of the other errors in the ALJ’s opinion. ... On remand, the ALJ will have to reassess Riege’s statements about her pain, her daily activities, and the limiting effects of her severe impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to weigh subjective complaints, objective evidence, and factors including daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional restrictions.

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

The ALJ must weigh the claimant's subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following factors: (i) The individual's daily activities; (ii) Location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (v) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; (vi) Other measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; (vii) Other factors concerning functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... This Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ improperly analyzed the Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms, warranting remand on this issue.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom-related factors, but an ALJ need not expressly reference every factor when specific reasons, substantial evidence, and a discernible rationale support the assessment.

Bockeno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(c)(3)

If the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must consider the other evidence. Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing superseded SSR 96-7p). The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76. However, the failure to specifically reference a particular relevant factor does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the determination. Id.; see also Del Carmen Fernandez, 2019 WL 667743 at *11 (citing Rousey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 285 F. Supp. 3d 723, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). “[R]emand is not required where ‘the evidence of record allows the court to glean the rationale of an ALJ’s decision.’” Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76 (quoting Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d at 1040). ... As summarized above, the ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and her documented activities of daily living for consistency with the overall administrative record. Accordingly, the ALJ reasonably considered the medical opinion evidence, treatment notes, Plaintiff’s testimony and other evidence in the record to assess Plaintiff’s physical and mental RFC. (T. 16-21). Thus, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff was capable of performing less than the full range of sedentary work was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)’s symptom factors are examples rather than a rigid checklist, so an ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor when sufficiently specific reasons show consideration of the entire evidentiary record.

Wilmarth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(c)(3)

Ultimately, the ALJ explicitly acknowledged consideration of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 when making her credibility determination, (id. at 59), and it is evident from her thorough discussion that the determination was legally sound. See Britt v. Astrue, 486 F. App’x 161, 164 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding explicit mention of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and the applicable Social Security Rulings as evidence that the ALJ used the proper legal standard in assessing the claimant’s credibility); see also Judelsohn v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-388S, 2012 WL 2401587, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. June 25, 2012) (“Failure to expressly consider every factor set forth in the regulations is not grounds for remand where the reasons for the ALJ’s determination of credibility are sufficiently specific to conclude that [she] considered the entire evidentiary record.” (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citation omitted)); Oliphant v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-2431, 2012 WL 3541820, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2012) (stating that the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) factors are included as “examples of alternative evidence that may be useful [to the credibility inquiry], and not as a rigid, seven-step prerequisite to the ALJ’s finding” (citation omitted)). ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in evaluating Thola’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all available evidence when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, and objective evidence plus unexplained reliance on limited daily activities is insufficient to reject symptom testimony.

Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-22(a), (c)(3)(i)

The regulations state that “[i]n evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, including pain, we will consider all of the available evidence, including your medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how your symptoms affect you.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living (“ADLs”) for rejecting her testimony was plainly inadequate. The ADLs cited by the ALJ—performing chores, cooking, shopping, driving, caring for her daughters, ambulating without assistance and taking short walks around the neighborhood—do not self-evidently undermine Plaintiff’s testimony. (Id. at 20.) Importantly, Plaintiff testified she is limited performing even these minimal activities. (Id. at 45, 49–53, 295, 335, 927.) And the ALJ does not provide any explanation of how these ADLs undermine Plaintiff’s testimony or how they are consistent with sustaining fulltime work. (Id. at 20.) See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1016 (“We have repeatedly warned that ALJs must be especially cautious in concluding that daily activities are inconsistent with testimony about pain, because impairments that would unquestionably preclude work and all the pressures of a workplace environment will often be consistent with doing more than merely resting in bed all day.”) Neither the record nor the ALJ’s analysis reveals any inconsistency between Plaintiff’s ADLs and her testimony. (R. at 20, 45, 49–53, 295, 335, 927.) Instead, without more detailed evidence or analysis, it appears Plaintiff’s limited ADLs are perfectly consistent with her testimony. Finally, since the ALJ’s reliance on the objective medical evidence as a basis for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony stands alone, it is insufficient. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 682. Accordingly, the ALJ failed to provide specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom location and intensity, precipitating factors, medication, other treatment, relief measures, and other symptom-related functional limitations.

Dillon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(c)(3)

The regulation provides in pertinent part that: Factors relevant to your symptoms, such as pain, which we will consider include: (i) Your daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of your pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ addressed plaintiff’s relevant medical history with respect to her ankle problems, foot problems, low back pain, leg pain, joint pain in the feet, and problems walking at length. PageID.42-46. The ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff’s conditions as required by the regulations. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

Section 404.1529(a) permits an ALJ to weigh subjective complaints against objective evidence, daily activities, record discrepancies, and medical opinions rather than accepting the claimant’s statements at face value.

Prince v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-03-23(a)

Here, the ALJ reviewed the evidence from Plaintiff's alleged onset date and found that Plaintiff's back pain was not severe. (Tr. 19-24). Plaintiff's objections were based upon her subjective complaints; but the ALJ was not required to take Plaintiff at her word. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The ALJ found that Plaintiff's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were inconsistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Tr. 18-23). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 ("In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all of your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence."). As a basis for this finding, the ALJ found the lack of objective evidence to support Plaintiff's complaints, her daily-living activities, discrepancies within the record, and the medical opinions not being supportive of the alleged disability. (Tr. at 18-23). ... The evidence regarding the severity of Plaintiff's impairments is inconsistent and can support more than one reasonable conclusion. Therefore, the Court will not second-guess the ALJ's finding since the ALJ gave numerous reasons, supported by the record, for determining that Plaintiff's subjective allegations were not entirely credible. See Ulman v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 693 F.3d 709, 713–14 (6th Cir. 2012) ("As long as the ALJ cite[s] substantial, legitimate evidence to support his factual conclusions, we are not to second-guess.").

Section 404.1529(c) does not require an ALJ to discuss every symptom factor, but the ALJ must minimally articulate reasoning that connects the evidence to the conclusions.

Seitz v. Saul · filed 2021-03-25(c)

Finally, Seitz asserts that the ALJ failed to assess the factors required to be evaluated under SSR 16-3p. But ALJs are not required to discuss every factor described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) when assessing a claimant’s subjective complaints. Instead they need only “minimally articulate” their reasoning so as to connect the evidence to their conclusions. Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 371 (7th Cir. 2004). In this case, the ALJ recognized that Seitz has impairments that impact her ability to work, but not to the degree alleged. He followed the regulations governing the assessment of Seitz’s symptoms and provided adequate support and explanations for his findings. His conclusion is not patently wrong and does not necessitate remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider conflicts with objective medical evidence, the absence of recommended work restrictions, and medical-opinion evidence.

Wood v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-25(c)(2)–(3)

The ALJ articulated multiple reasons for discrediting Wood’s testimony, including that (1) Wood’s testimony of debilitating physical symptoms associated with diabetes and peripheral neuropathy was not consistent with the medical evidence of record, (2) the record did not include any treatment notes recommending work-related restrictions for Wood, and (3) the opinions of Dr. William B. Beidleman, a consultative psychologist who performed a comprehensive psychological evaluation of Wood in August 2016, and Dr. Robert Estock, a state agency psychiatrist who reviewed Wood’s claim, do not support the existence of debilitating limitations resulting from Wood’s mental impairments. Together, these were appropriate reasons to discredit Wood’s subjective symptoms testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) and (3); SSR 16-3p; Duval v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 628 F. App’x 703, 711-12 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding ALJ properly discredited claimant’s subjective sypmtoms testimony where that testimony was inconsistent with objective medical evidence); Couch v. Astrue, 267 F. App’x 853, 855 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding ALJ properly rejected treating physician’s opinion that claimant’s mental impairment rendered her disabled where physician’s treatment notes did not suggest or impose any restrictions on claimant’s activities or otherwise indicate claimant was precluded from working due to her mental impairment); Charpentier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2016 WL 4523903, at *14-15 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2016) (holding ALJ properly discredited claimant’s subject symptoms testimony where that testimony was inconsistent with findings of consultative examiner).

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ first to determine whether objective medical evidence shows a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Ambrose v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-30(b)

First, the ALJ must determine “whether objective medical evidence presents a ‘medically determinable impairment’ that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider conservative treatment and daily activities when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom complaints.

Stewart, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-11(c)(3)

Despite Plaintiff’s claims that he “failed” conservative treatment or that he only stopped taking medication for financial reasons, the ALJ still properly considered the lack of more aggressive treatment as one factor in assessing his subjective symptom complaints. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v); see Barrett v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 1019. 1023–24 (8th Cir. 1994) (finding that the ALJ properly noted that the claimant’s minimal treatment was inconsistent with his claims of disabling pain). Additionally, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s independence in his activities of daily living as another factor that counters his subjective symptom complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Hoffman v. Astrue, 259 F. App’x 213, 219 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Although a claimant’s admission that she participates 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.”) (internal citation omitted).

Section 404.1529(a) requires medical signs or laboratory findings of an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms; a claimant’s statements alone cannot establish disability.

Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-26(a)

In assessing an individual’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the claimant’s subjective allegations alongside medical records and physician opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). A claimant’s statement that she is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that she is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings that show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain or other symptoms alleged. Id. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

An ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or work-related effects of pain or other symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Gargus v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-02-27(c)(2)

An ALJ “will not reject [the claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have” on the claimant’s ability to work “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [those] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) evaluates a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms for consistency with the objective medical evidence and other record evidence, rather than assessing the claimant’s character.

Parker v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

This was once referred to as a credibility determination, but the agency has now eliminated use of the term “credibility” to clarify that subjective symptom evaluation is not an examination of an individual’s character. However, the analysis remains largely the same, so the Court’s use of the term credibility refers to the ALJ’s evaluation of whether a claimant’s “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record.” See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3); Lawrence v. Saul, 970 F.3d 989, 995 n.6 (8th Cir. 2020) (noting that SSR 16-3p “largely changes terminology rather than the substantive analysis to be applied” when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant first to show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, after which the agency evaluates the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence.

Harvey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-10(a)-(b), (c)(2)-(4)

The process for evaluating a claimant’s symptoms is organized around two major steps. First, the claimant must provide objective medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment or combination of impairments that reasonably could be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)-(b). Second, after the claimant satisfies the first step, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the individual’s symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the individual’s ability to do basic work activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... Objective medical evidence is merely one factor to be considered, and an ALJ is not free to “disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.” ... Thus, the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints was adequately supported and explained.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to decide whether a claimant’s symptom statements can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the record; boilerplate implying a stricter consistency standard does not require reversal when the ALJ otherwise identifies adequate reasons for the assessment.

Schnurr, Lee v. O'Malley, Martin · filed 2025-03-18(a)

The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly criticized the use of boilerplate language such as “not fully supported” or “not entirely consistent” because they imply a stricter standard of consistency than that in § 404.1529(a). See, e.g., Stark v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 684, 688 (7th Cir. 2016); Gedatus v. Saul, 994 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2021). But the ALJ’s use of the misleading boilerplate is not reversible error “if the ALJ otherwise identifies information that justifies the credibility determination.” Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1122 (7th Cir. 2014); Gedatus, 994 F.3d at 900. A court may overturn an ALJ’s weighing of subjective complaints only if it is “patently wrong.” Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 367 (7th Cir. 2013).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant symptom-evaluation factors but does not require the ALJ to discuss how each factor supports the determination.

Banks v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-24(c)

The relevant factors include: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions; (6) the claimant’s work history; and (7) the absence of objective medical evidence supporting the claimant’s complaints. Id. at 1065–66; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While an ALJ must consider these factors, she need not discuss how each factor supports her determination.

Section 404.1529(c) makes objective medical evidence one part of the evaluation of a claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Craft v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-21(c)

SSR 16-3p at *7 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) state objective evidence is a part of the subjective symptom evaluation; Plaintiff’s allegations do not exist alone in a vacuum separate and apart from the voluminous 1,566 page medical record. ... The court cannot meaningfully review the findings and the record before it because, as Plaintiff argues, it does appear there was some mischaracterization of facts in the record by the ALJ.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider the objective medical evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, other treatment, and resulting functional limitations.

Madden v. Bisignano · filed 2025-06-03(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors including: the objective medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment and other measures besides medication taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; and functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, 7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptom allegations to consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, other treatment or relief measures, and resulting functional limitations.

Givens v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-23(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors including: the objective medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment and other measures besides medication taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; and functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, 7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant’s allegations alone cannot establish disability and permits an ALJ to discount subjective complaints that are unsupported by the record.

Briggs v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-05

A claimant’s allegations alone can never establish that she is disabled; an ALJ can discount a Plaintiff’s subjective complaints when they are unsupported by the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Despite waiver of this issue, based on the evidence before the ALJ, the ALJ conducted a proper evaluation of subjective symptoms and cited substantial evidence to support the finding that Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms were not fully consistent with the record; the ALJ gave several RFC limitations connected to Plaintiff’s allegations.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step analysis of subjective symptom testimony, beginning with whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant's symptoms.

Contreras · filed 2025-12-30(b)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires medical evidence to be considered when evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s pain.

(SS) Aguilera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-07(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in ... determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider factors such as daily activities, medication, and treatment when evaluating the effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-28(c)(3)

The Court can capably review the ALJ’s decision on Plaintiff’s consistency and finds his discussion of Plaintiff’s reported pain and limitations from her thoracic and lumbar spine was adequate based on the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529 requires an RFC assessment to consider all of a claimant's symptoms, including pain, to the extent they are reasonably consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

BLACK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-14

When making the RFC determination, the ALJ is required to “consider all [a 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. ... The ALJ squarely found that even though Plaintiff suffered from migraines, the “objective medical evidence and other evidence” did not support a more limiting restriction in the RFC.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of all relevant evidence, including claimant testimony and evidence concerning limitations that are not severe, when determining residual functional capacity.

Kurtz-Porter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-05(a)

An ALJ is charged with determining an individual’s RFC, meaning “what an individual can still do despite his or her limitations.” SSR 96-8p. The ALJ makes that determination based upon medical evidence as well as other evidence, including testimony by the claimant. Murphy v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 811, 817 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). In making a proper RFC determination, an ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in the record, even evidence relating to limitations that are not severe. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 does not permit an ALJ to disregard at the RFC stage an impairment already found medically determinable and accompanied by demonstrable symptoms, even if the impairment is non-severe.

ELLIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-11-12

An ALJ may only disregard an impairment in the RFC determination if that impairment has not been found to be medically determinable and has no demonstrable symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing the alleged pain, while requiring the agency to evaluate subjective symptoms against objective and other evidence, including inconsistencies and medication side effects.

Alford v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(b), (c)(1)-(4)

To avoid unwarranted awards of disability benefits, “statements about [a claimant’s] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Instead, “there must be objective medical evidence” indicating the existence of “a medical impairment[] which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.” Id. ... The Commissioner must take into account “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv).

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.

Vancil v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

An ALJ cannot “reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his or her] pain or other symptoms or about the [effect] symptoms have on [the claimant’s] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider consistency with objective medical evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms, but objective medical evidence alone cannot be the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony.

Calcagno v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)(1)-(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider consistency with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)- (3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); Social Security Regulation (“SSR”) 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... However, a lack of objective medical evidence may not form the ALJ’s sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. Tammy S. v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:17-cv-01562-HZ, 2018 WL 5924505, at *4 (D. Or. Nov. 10, 2018) (citing Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998) (“the Commissioner may not discredit [a] claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence.”)).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all symptoms and their consistency with objective evidence; if an impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-limiting effects using relevant factors such as daily activities, medication, and treatment.

NIXON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-30(a), (b), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). A claimant’s subjective complaints of symptoms alone are not sufficient to establish disability. See id. In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must consider, first, whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms he alleges. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Once an impairment is found, the ALJ then must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which those symptoms limit his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii) (factors relevant to symptoms can include daily activities, medications and medical treatment).

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms alone cannot establish disability and must be supported by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source showing an impairment that could lead to disability.

Shelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(a)

However, subjective complaints, or “statements about [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms will not alone establish disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Rather, “[t]here must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows [she] [has] a medical impairment . . . [that] would lead to a conclusion that [she] [is] disabled” Id.

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

Sharma v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-09(c)(2)

The lack of supporting objective medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting testimony, but it is a factor that the ALJ may consider in making a credibility determination. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681; Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate symptoms, considering their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against objective medical and other evidence.

Durr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-11(c)(1)

Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... Here, the ALJ properly considered the relevant evidence in the way the Social Security Regulations require. ... The ALJ followed the regulations and properly considered Durr’s symptoms and the extent to which they were reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence. The ALJ did not err in this part of his analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but does not permit rejecting subjective testimony solely because it lacks full objective corroboration.

(SS) Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-15(c)(2)

While subjective symptom testimony cannot be rejected solely on the ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining Plaintiff’s credibility. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 957 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)); see Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[L]ack of medical evidence . . . is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.”).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of treatment effectiveness and objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom severity, but objective medical evidence cannot be the only factor supporting discounting a claimant's testimony.

Vannortrick v. Saul · filed 2019-10-18(c)(2), (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); see Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits) (internal citations omitted); see also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations). ... 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). Minimal objective evidence is a factor which may be relied upon to discount a claimant’s testimony, although it may not be the only factor.

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

Whyte v. Saul · filed 2019-10-25(a)

The ALJ used inconsistent standards for evaluating Whyte’s subjective symptoms, finding that they were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record,” credited “only to the extent they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence,” and not “fully substantiate[d]” by the record. (Tr. 20.) The second phrase is an accurate recitation of the standard required by social security the regulations; the other two are not. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to first determine whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the totality of the evidence, including the listed non-objective factors.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-28(b)–(c), (c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, an ALJ first determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms before evaluating the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)–(c). ... When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ considers the totality of the evidence, including (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors regarding the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Here, the ALJ’s subjective symptom analysis provides no connection between Ms. W.’s symptom testimony and the objective medical evidence in the record to support his conclusion discounting her statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. ... Taken together, the ALJ’s stated rationales for discounting Ms. W.’s symptom statements focus on objective medical evidence without any connection to her subjective symptom allegations. Accordingly, the ALJ’s subjective symptom analysis is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider whether objective medical evidence is consistent with a claimant’s alleged symptoms when assessing their severity and limiting effects.

(SS) Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-05(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.” ... 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”). The ALJ did so here, finding that Plaintiff’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” AR 22.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that symptom statements alone do not establish disability, while § 404.1529(c)(4) requires considering conflicts between those statements and objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Maddy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-06(a), (c)(4)

However, statements by Plaintiff about his pain or symptoms will not alone establish that he is disabled. 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(a). The ALJ rightfully considered, inter alia, Plaintiff’s brain MRI’s, CT scans, chest x-rays, and EKGs, all of which revealed normal findings and undermined his testimony regarding blackouts. See, e.g., PageID 46. Indeed, the ALJ is obligated to consider whether Plaintiff’s testimony is consistent with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“We will consider… the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and… laboratory findings”). Plaintiff fails to point to any authority indicating contrarily, and his first argument thus lacks merit.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when assessing symptom testimony, but it cannot be the sole basis for discounting that testimony.

Ward Benjamin Tate v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-25(c)(2)

While the lack of supporting objective medical evidence is a factor that the ALJ can use in assessing Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, it cannot form the sole basis for discounting testimony. Burch, 400 F.3d at 681; Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's symptom testimony, and § 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence but does not allow rejection of the testimony solely because objective evidence does not substantiate it.

Meston v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-13(a), (c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). ... The lack of objective medical evidence cannot, therefore, serve as a clear and convincing reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the claimed symptoms, then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence to determine how much they limit the claimant’s ability to work.

DOMINGUEZ v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-12-06

SSR 16-3p instructs ALJs to use a two-step process for evaluating an individual’s impairment related symptoms. SSR 16-3p; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain. Id. Second, if an underlying physical or mental impairment has been established, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms could limit an individual’s ability to perform work. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider their consistency with objective medical evidence and to weigh daily activities, medication effectiveness, and other treatment as relevant factors.

Lacher v. Saul · filed 2019-12-10(a), (c)(3)

Thus, the ALJ complied with SSA regulations directing adjudicators to consider “the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The ALJ therefore properly identified Lacher’s daily activities, the effectiveness of medication, and other treatment as factors that weighed against Lacher’s subjective allegations. See § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), (iv), (v).

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

Perez v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-12-17(c)(2)

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). 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 permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity and limiting effects of symptoms, but symptoms diminish residual functional capacity only to the extent their alleged limitations are consistent with objective and other evidence.

(SS) McMillen IV v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-17(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(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s allegations and the objective and other medical evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Harrington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-18(c)(4)

However, the ALJ properly considered inconsistency between plaintiff’s allegations and the objective and other medical evidence. (AR 956); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s pain and other subjective symptoms and assess whether the claimant’s statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with the record as a whole.

Earnest v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-18(a), (c)(4)

When determining disability, an ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s impairment-related pain and other subjective symptoms at each step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) & (d), 416.929(a) & (d). Accordingly, when a claimant presents “‘objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms [the claimant] alleged,” the ALJ is required to determine the extent to which the claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his subjective symptoms (“subjective statements” or “subjective complaints”) are consistent with the record evidence as a whole and, consequently, whether any of the individual’s symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions are likely to reduce the claimant’s capacity to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(4), 416.929(a), (c)(4); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4-*10.

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

(SS) Mendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-23(c)(2), (c)(4)

The law does not require an ALJ simply to ignore inconsistencies between objective medical evidence and a claimant’s testimony. “While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). As part of 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 permits an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptom statements by considering objective medical evidence, treatment, measures used to alleviate symptoms, and the effectiveness of that treatment.

Sabahi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-27(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

First, the ALJ considered the extent to which Plaintiff’s statements were consistent with the objective clinical findings, evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms” and their impact on your ability to work). The ALJ discerned that many of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were unsupported by the medical evidence, which did not support functional limitations beyond Plaintiff’s RFC for a reduced range of sedentary work. AR 21-23. ... Second, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s course of treatment was inconsistent with his allegations of disabling impairments. AR 22; see 20 C.F. R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi) (medication, course of treatment other than medication, and other measures a claimant employs to alleviate alleged symptoms are properly considered in the consistency analysis). ... The Court finds the ALJ properly weighed the efficacy of Plaintiff’s treatment.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and the other evidence and to assess whether symptoms diminish capacity for basic work activities consistently with the objective and other evidence.

Trower v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-27(c)(4)

The ALJ is to consider any inconsistency between the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). An ALJ will determine if a claimant’s symptoms will diminish his or her capacity for basic work activities, subject to the symptoms being consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an adjudicator to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s symptom statements and the medical and other evidence rather than accept those statements without question.

TODD v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-12-30(c)(4)

While such claims were certainly relevant, the ALJ was not under an obligation to simply accept what she said without question. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Chandler, 667 F.3d at 363. The ALJ here clearly considered Plaintiff’s testimony, but found it to be not fully supported by the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the listed factors, but permits the ALJ to address them collectively so long as the decision provides enough information for judicial review.

(SS) Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08(c)(3)

However, an ALJ is not required to specifically discuss each of the factors in the opinion, but the opinion should include sufficient information that the reviewing court does not need to speculate on the grounds for rejection. Willyard v. Colvin, 633 F. App’x 369, 370 (9th Cir. 2015). ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the factors listed in section 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider consistency with objective medical evidence when assessing subjective symptom testimony, but does not permit rejecting that testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not affirmatively substantiate it.

Pitts v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-18(c)

Although an ALJ may consider consistency with objective medical evidence in assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c), he may not reject subjective symptom testimony “because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the assessment of symptom severity but does not allow symptoms to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Savage v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-21(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s pain testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of pain alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom frequency and intensity, medication and treatment, aggravating factors, and resulting functional restrictions.

Slapinski v. Saul · filed 2020-01-21(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)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the assessment of symptom severity and disabling effects, but does not allow symptoms to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Stanisloo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-22(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an ALJ from rejecting statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or effects on work solely because available objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, while permitting consideration of objective and other evidence and the claimant’s credibility.

Brown v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-24(c)(2)

“In determining whether [an individual is] disabled, [the ALJ will] consider all [of an individual’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [his or her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While statements of pain are insufficient, an ALJ may not reject statements of intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms affecting an individual’s ability to work because of a lack of substantiating medical evidence. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(2). ... While the ALJ relied heavily on plaintiff’s objective medical evidence when assessing plaintiff’s limitations of pain, the ALJ also considered the credibility of plaintiff’s statements. ... The ALJ presented substantial evidence in support of his determination that plaintiff’s pain was not as severe as plaintiff alleged and that plaintiff therefore was not precluded from participating in any substantial work activities.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce alleged symptoms, then assess whether the symptoms are consistent with objective and other evidence, without rejecting them solely for lack of substantiating medical evidence.

Liseo v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-27(b), (c), and (c)(2)

“The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” ... “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” ... “In determining whether [an individual is] disabled, [the ALJ will] consider all [of an individual’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [his or her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” ... “While statements of pain are insufficient, an ALJ may not reject statements of intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms affecting an individual’s ability to work because of a lack of substantiating medical evidence.”

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

Minor v. SSA · filed 2020-01-27(a)

However, if Plaintiff intended to obliquely assert such a theory, the argument would warrant no relief. Given the defensible (and, again, unopposed) weight assigned to Dr. Mukherjee’s assessment of limitations fairly attributable to Minor’s impairments—as well as Plaintiff’s reports of substantial post-surgery activity—any variance from the Plaintiff’s subjective view of his capacity is substantially justified by objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“[S]tatements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled.”); Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 532 (6th Cir. 1997) (“An ALJ may [ ] consider household and social activities engaged in by the claimant in evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain or ailments.”). Further, the Court sees no direct inconsistency between Minor’s hearing testimony regarding his limits and the ALJ’s ultimate RFC finding; nor does Plaintiff identify any such conflict. See, e.g., R. at 37 (Minor testifying that he could not stand for more than “25, 35 minutes” at a time); R. at 38 (Minor claiming he could only sit for “25, 30 minutes” before needing to “get up and move”); R. at 41 (Minor typically “stay[s] active from seven to five[.]”); R. at 16–17 (ALJ providing for “sit/stand accommodations” at 30-minute intervals “based on the claimant’s hearing testimony”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using objective and other evidence.

Devlin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-30(c)

An ALJ must engage in a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms. First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” SSR 16-3p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. “Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s symptoms is established, [the ALJ] evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p. ... The ALJ’s evaluation of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Devlin’s alleged symptoms is not “patently wrong”—that is, it does not lack explanation or support. ... That is, the alleged symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Substantial evidence supports that determination.

Section 404.1529 does not permit subjective pain complaints alone to establish disability; a claimant must satisfy the applicable pain standard by showing an underlying medical condition and objective evidence confirming the pain's severity or that the condition could reasonably cause it.

Colley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-01-31

Additionally, the Social Security Regulations provide that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain cannot alone establish disability. Rather, the regulations describe additional objective evidence that permits a finding of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Interpreting these regulations, the Eleventh Circuit has articulated a “pain standard” that applies when a claimant attempts to establish disability through his own testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms. When establishing disability in this manner, a claimant must satisfy two parts of the Eleventh Circuit’s three-part pain standard: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002).

Section 404.1529 states that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain cannot alone establish disability; the symptoms must be evaluated with additional objective evidence.

Lambert v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-02-04

Additionally, the Social Security Regulations provide that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain cannot alone establish disability. Rather, the regulations describe additional objective evidence that permits a finding of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider objective medical findings and factors such as daily activities, medication effectiveness, and treatment other than medication.

Farmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-04(c)(2), (c)(3)

In addition, the Regulations list a variety of factors an ALJ must consider in evaluating the severity of symptoms, including a claimant’s daily activities; the effectiveness of medication; and treatment other than medication. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); ... Here, the ALJ’s analysis supplies substantial evidence supporting his credibility finding and properly considers the requisite factors in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility findings. First, the ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s allegations on the grounds that the objective evidence did not support her subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (objective medical findings are useful in assessing the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms); ...

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of pain and other symptoms: first, determining whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, and then assessing their consistency with objective and other evidence; an ALJ may not reject symptom statements solely for lack of substantiating medical evidence.

Streich v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-05(b), (c), (c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence using objective and other available evidence.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-05

Here, the ALJ began his discussion of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity by citing to §404.1529, noting that he had “considered all symptoms and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” as required by that regulation. (Tr. 13). He also referred explicitly to the applicable two-step process, noting that he must first decide if Plaintiff had an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms in questions, and then determine whether the objective medical evidence and other evidence supported her testimony about the limiting effects of those symptoms. (Tr. 13-14). ... As the Commissioner’s memorandum points out (Doc. 12, at 21), this discussion contradicts Plaintiff’s claim that the ALJ either performed the required two-step analysis in the wrong order or skipped a step altogether. The manner of his analysis is what the applicable regulation and ruling require.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom testimony and permits consideration of objective medical evidence, but objective medical evidence alone cannot support rejecting that testimony.

Ferran v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-05(a), (c)(2)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements regarding pain and workplace limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.”

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of pain and other symptoms: first, determining whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, and then assessing their consistency with objective and other evidence; an ALJ may not reject symptom statements solely for lack of substantiating medical evidence.

Gonzalez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-10(b), (c), (c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ to take into account symptom-related limitations that can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective and other evidence and prohibits applying a more demanding ‘not entirely consistent’ standard.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-10(c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ also disregarded the regulatory directive to “take into account” symptoms descriptions that were “reasonably consistent” with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (“[A]ny symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions which you . . . report, which can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, will be taken into account as explained in paragraph (c)(4) of this section in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled.” See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“Your symptoms . . . will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the . . . evidence.”). Instead of determining that symptoms that were “reasonably consistent” with the record caused limitations as Plaintiff described, the ALJ applied a legally erroneous standard and found she was not limited because her symptoms were “not entirely consistent” with the record.

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

McGill v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-13(c)(2)

The ALJ cannot “reject the 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 evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s statements.” ... Therefore, remand is warranted for proper consideration of Plaintiff’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his pain. See Pavia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 10-CV-818 (GTS) (DEP), 2013 WL 5652497, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2013) (“Both case law and the social security regulations prohibit an ALJ from discrediting a plaintiff’s statements solely based upon objective medical evidence.” (citing Marcus v. Califano, 615 F.2d 23, 27 (2d Cir. 1979) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2))).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms against the available evidence when determining how they limit the claimant’s ability to work.

MAKOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-02-18(c)(3)

The ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms in light of the available evidence and determine the extent to which they limit claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The ALJ cited substantial evidence that is inconsistent with Makowski’s claims. He noted that Makowski and his wife described his daily activities as including walking every other day for exercise, preparing meals, cleaning, walking his dogs, shopping, attending church, and working part-time. Tr. at 20–25, 165, 188. The ALJ also noted that the objective medical evidence establishes Makowski is capable of traveling and walking several miles, and that he is frequently alert with intact cognitive function. See e.g., at 605, 608, 633, 636, 639.

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

King v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-02-25(c)(3)

However, the ALJ’s decision includes a discussion of the relevant factors, including Plaintiff’s treatment history; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of her pain; her prescribed medications; and her daily activities. R. 15–21; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (identifying factors that an ALJ will consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including pain); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7–8.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom-related functional limitations to be accepted as diminishing work capacity only insofar as they are consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Jefferson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(c)(4)

An ALJ therefore properly considers whether the medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s allegations. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (symptoms are determined to diminish capacity for basic work activities only to the extent the alleged functional limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”) An ALJ may reject symptom testimony upon finding it contradicted by or inconsistent with the medical record. ... The ALJ here found plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms not entirely consistent with and supported by the medical and other evidence in the record. She provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons in support.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider specified evidence, including daily activities, treatment effectiveness and side effects, and inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the record.

Nolan v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-03(c)(3), (c)(4)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and determining the extent to which they limit work capacity, an ALJ considers “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). Pertinent evidence includes evidence of daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; and measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom-related functional limitations to be accepted as diminishing work capacity only insofar as they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Jaques v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-05(c)(4)

An ALJ therefore properly considers whether the medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s allegations. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (symptoms are determined to diminish capacity for basic work activities only to the extent the alleged functional limitations and restrictions “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”) An ALJ may reject symptom testimony upon finding it contradicted by or inconsistent with the medical record. Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161; Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which they are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Dougherty v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-09

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

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

Falin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-09(a)

In considering Plaintiff's symptoms as well as the medical evidence, the ALJ found that Plaintiff's allegations regarding the limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely credible. (Tr. 23-24); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 ("In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all of your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence."). As a basis for this finding, the ALJ found a lack of objective evidence to support Plaintiff's complaints; he took into account her activities of daily living; and he noted discrepancies within the record. (Id.). See SSR 96–7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *7 (An ALJ may find a claimant's statements "less credible if the level or frequency of treatment is inconsistent with the level of complaints, or if the medical reports or records show that the individual is not following the treatment as prescribed and there are no good reasons for this failure.").

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as one factor when evaluating the limiting effects of symptoms against the objective medical and other evidence.

Carr v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-09(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ did not rely only on Plaintiff's reported activities of daily living to determine that Plaintiff could work but properly considered the inconsistency between Plaintiff's alleged limitations and his ability to perform some activities of daily living as one part of the overall analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) ("Factors relevant to your symptoms such as pain, which we consider include: . . .Your daily activities"); Temples v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 515 F. App'x 460, 462 (6th Cir. 2013) (explaining the ALJ may consider a claimant's activities as one factor in the evaluation of subjective complaints). The ALJ properly considered Plaintiff's subjective complaints; remand is thus unnecessary.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s pain or other subjective symptoms using more than the claimant’s statements alone, including whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them and the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

McDowell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-13(a)-(c)

The Social Security Regulations provide that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain cannot alone establish disability. Rather, the regulations describe additional objective evidence that permits a finding of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Interpreting these regulations, the Eleventh Circuit has articulated a “pain standard” that applies when a claimant attempts to establish disability through her own testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms. ... When determining the credibility of a claimant’s testimony as to her symptoms, the ALJ must follow a two-step process: “(1) first determine if the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; and, if so (2) evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” ... On this record, the ALJ properly evaluated McDowell’s pain allegations consistent with the pain standard. She determined that McDowell had conditions that satisfied the pain standard but rejected the alleged severity of symptoms associated with those conditions. The court finds that the ALJ articulated reasons for discounting McDowell’s pain allegations and that substantial evidence supports the her reasons for doing so.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(3) require an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider all available evidence, including objective medical evidence, daily activities, descriptions of pain, and treatment used to alleviate it.

Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2), (c)(3)

Under the relevant social security regulations, the ALJ’s evaluation must take into account not only the claimant’s statements about her pain, but also “all the available evidence,” which includes any objective medical evidence of pain like evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasms, deteriorating tissues, redness, etc. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(c)(2), 404.1529(c)(2). Any other evidence relevant to the severity of the impairment must also be accounted for, such as evidence of the claimant’s daily activities, specific descriptions of the pain, and any medical treatment taken to alleviate it. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(c)(3), 404.1529(c)(3); see also Craig, 76 F.3d at 595.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider nonmedical “other source” opinions, including lay testimony about a claimant’s symptoms and limitations.

Levey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(c)(3)

The regulations, however, clearly state that the ALJ must consider nonmedical “other source” opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Contrary to the ALJ’s conclusion, lay testimony need not be backed by any particular expertise in order to be entitled to consideration.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of medical evidence when determining the severity and disabling effects of a claimant's pain.

Barr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(c)(2)

... However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529 requires the Commissioner to consider all claimant symptoms, including pain, and assess whether they are consistent with objective and other evidence; a claimant relying on symptom testimony must show an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation or a reasonable expectation that the condition produces the symptoms.

Wirth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19

In addition to the objective evidence of record, the Commissioner must consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective evidence and other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. To establish a disability based on testimony of pain and other symptoms, the claimant must show evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged symptoms or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms.

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

(SS) Hudson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2), (c)(3)

The ALJ pointed to medical records from January 2013- 2016 noting that plaintiff was doing well with medication, that her thought content was negative for suicidal ideation, she was attentive, alert and oriented, had good judgment, and was doing well with regard to mood, sleep and appetite. AR 23, 422-462 (treatment notes from Dr. Luigi Piciucco); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence … is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms ….”). ... A claimant’s daily activities are relevant to an ALJ’s credibility determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff's activities of daily living and the contradictory medical evidence are clear and convincing reasons for discounting plaintiffs subjective testimony; the ALJ did not err in discounting that testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and the effectiveness of medication and treatment when evaluating symptom severity and disabling effects, but does not permit rejecting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms.

Powers v. Saul · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2), (c)(3)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by the objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. ... The effectiveness of medication and treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors, including daily activities, pain characteristics, precipitating factors, medication, treatment, other symptom-relief measures, and functional limitations, when evaluating the intensity and limiting effects of symptoms.

Sells v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3)

The ALJ also considers the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) which include: 1. Daily activities; 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5. Treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6. Any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7. ... Throughout his decision, ALJ Ballengee discussed Plaintiff’s complaints of pain in conjunction with both objective medical evidence, which showed that Plaintiff’s symptoms were controlled, (AR 135, 791), and Plaintiff’s self-reported status updates regarding her quality of life and abilities. (AR 133-36).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform assessment of symptom severity and disabling effects but bars using it alone to reject symptom testimony; subsection (c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness a relevant factor in assessing symptom severity.

Collins v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(c)(2), (c)(3)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... 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).