20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms to consider the listed symptom-related factors and all record evidence when determining how symptoms limit work-related activities.

Mandeville v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(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). The ALJ is instructed to “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s record,” “to determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *2.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes the effectiveness of medication and treatment a relevant factor when an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Stoner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)(iv)

For the reasons discussed above, the ALJ did not err in citing Plaintiff’s improvement with conservative treatment as a reason for discounting her testimony. See supra Section IV.C; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–51 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that “evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony regarding severity of an impairment”).

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

Turner v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-24(a)

In addition, he must “consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [her] symptoms 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 discussion goes beyond the mere listing of daily activities, see Brown, 873 F.3d at 269, and instead clearly demonstrates the ALJ considered the extent to which Plaintiff could perform his daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating symptom severity to consider factors including a claimant’s daily activities, medication effectiveness, and treatment other than medication.

Harper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(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.

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

Wallace v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-25(c)(3)

As part of the symptom analysis, the ALJ should consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), including: (i) daily activities; (ii) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the individual takes or has taken; (v) treatment for pain relief aside from medication; (vi) any other measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (vii) any other factors concerning functional limitations. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. ... In this case, the Court finds that the ALJ set out the appropriate analysis, and cited evidence supporting her reasons for finding that the claimant’s subjective complaints were not believable to the extent alleged, i. e., she gave clear and specific reasons that were specifically linked to the evidence in the record. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination is entitled to deference and the Court finds no error in analyzing the claimant’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using all available evidence, and to accept alleged functional limitations only to the extent they are reasonably consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(a), (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), 416.1529(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.”) ... While an ALJ appropriately considers consistency with the medical record and determinations addressing a claimant’s symptom testimony are inescapably linked to conclusions regarding the medical evidence, the entire medical record must be considered in making this comparison. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929)(a) (“In 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.”) (emphasis added.)

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process and consider all available evidence and specified factors when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and work-related effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Buzbee v. Saul · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms, an ALJ undertakes a two-step process. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ determines whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, the ALJ evaluates the “intensity and persistence” of the symptoms and determines the extent to which the symptoms limit the ability to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ is to consider all available evidence from the claimant’s medical sources and nonmedical sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant. Id. The factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms that the ALJ should consider include daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain; other treatment the claimant has received for relief of pain; any other measures used to relieve pain; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations due to pain. Id. A claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, will be determined to diminish the capacity for basic work activities to the extent that the alleged functional limitations due to pain can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. Id.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when evaluating a claimant’s subjective allegations about symptoms.

Rideout v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30

SSR 16-3p continues to require the ALJ to consider the factors set forth in the applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) bars substituting a claimant’s allegations of symptoms for signs or laboratory findings when evaluating whether an impairment medically equals a listing.

Cuevas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(d)(3)

However, the regulations provide that in evaluating whether an impairment medically equals a listing, a claimant’s allegations of symptoms will not be substituted for signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(d)(3), 416.929(d)(3).

Section 404.1529 treats objective medical evidence as a relevant factor in assessing symptom severity and requires alleged limitations to reduce residual functional capacity only to the extent they are reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

(SS) Doreen Ann Burns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-01(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(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider conflicts between a claimant's statements and other evidence, including objective findings and daily activities.

McCall v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-02(c)(4)

The ALJ was entitled to compare Plaintiff’s allegations to the objective findings and her activities of daily living from the relevant period. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (ALJ must consider whether conflicts exist between claimant’s statements and other evidence).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms and assess the extent to which they are consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Palencia - Orellana v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-05(a)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) and 416.929(a), the ALJ is tasked with considering all of the claimant’s symptoms and the “extent to which [those] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”

Section 404.1529(d)(3) requires medical-equivalence determinations to consider relevant record evidence about the impairment and its effects, while not allowing subjective symptom allegations alone to establish listing-level severity.

Juarez-Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-06(d)(3)

In order to determine if a claimant’s impairment or combination of impairments is medically equivalent to a Listing, the ALJ considers all of the evidence in the claimant’s case record about the claimant’s impairment(s) and their effects. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(d)(3) and 404.1526(b). ... While it is clear that a claimant may not establish that she is disabled solely through her own accounts, the law does not require the ALJ to disregard a claimant’s statements indicating that the claimant is not disabled. ... Therefore, Claimant’s argument relying on 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 generally, is rejected.

Section 404.1529 directs an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, work history, symptom statements, daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication and treatment, and other measures used to relieve symptoms.

Collett-Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-06(c)(2)-(3)

The Code of Federal Regulations lists many factors an ALJ should consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. These factors include the objective medical evidence; the claimant’s prior work record; statements made by the claimant about her symptoms; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken for symptoms; treatment for symptoms (other than medication); and any other measures used to relieve symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2-3). The ALJ considered the objective medical evidence and Ms. Collett-Brown’s own statements regarding her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider whether medical evidence is consistent with the allegations and to consider treatment evidence, including a favorable response to conservative treatment.

France v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-09(c)(3), (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). ... An ALJ also properly considers evidence associated with treatment, § 404.1529(c)(3), SSR 16-3p, including favorable response to conservative treatment, Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039-40; see also Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007); Morgan, 169 F.3d at 599-60.

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

Martinez v. Saul · filed 2020-04-24(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.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ assessing a claimant’s symptoms to consider daily activities, precipitating and aggravating factors, and the type and effectiveness of treatment.

Moser v. Saul · filed 2020-04-27(c)(3)

In assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom complaints, an ALJ may consider the claimant’s daily activities, precipitating and aggravating factors, and the type and effectiveness of treatments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). A claimant’s daily activities may support an adverse credibility finding if the activities contradict her other testimony.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence and other evidence when determining how a claimant’s symptoms affect residual functional capacity, but symptoms reduce capacity only to the extent that alleged limitations are reasonably consistent with that evidence.

(SS) Demello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(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(c) permits treatment effectiveness and objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity, but objective evidence cannot be the sole basis for rejecting symptom testimony and medication side effects must be addressed.

Martinez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-27(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), 416.929(c)(3) (2011); ... Thus, the ALJ implies that Plaintiff’s medication regimen is effective, but does not clearly and convincingly address the side effects of Seroquel. In other words, the ALJ’s finding on this basis lacks the specificity required by law. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s symptom testimony on account of the efficacy of her treatment was unsupported by substantial evidence. ... An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider whether the medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s allegations when evaluating symptoms.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(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), 416.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating pain and other symptoms to consider the listed factors and explain the assessment specifically enough for a reviewing court to trace the reasoning.

Oleksiak v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-14(c)

The regulations set forth factors to be considered in assessing credibility. These include the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and the treatment or measures, other than medication, taken to relieve pain; and other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. ... As to the level of articulation required, an ALJ should explain, in terms of the regulation, why the claimant’s allegation is not credible. ... In doing so, the ALJ need not expressly analyze all the factors identified in the regulation but should provide enough of an assessment to assure the reviewing court that he or she has considered all relevant ... evidence. ... That assessment should not be conclusory and should be specific enough to permit the reviewing court to trace the analytical path of the ALJ’s reasoning. ... For the reasons stated, the decision of the Commissioner is hereby affirmed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the treatments a claimant uses to alleviate alleged symptoms when evaluating those symptoms.

Wieland v. Saul · filed 2020-04-29(c)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (requiring ALJs to consider what treatments the claimant uses to alleviate her alleged symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence as a factor in assessing symptom severity, but not as the sole basis for rejecting symptom testimony, and section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of treatment effectiveness.

McKown v. Saul · filed 2020-05-01(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. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3)(2011); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); 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 requires objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source to support a claimant’s statements about disabling pain, and pain statements alone do not establish disability.

Harrison v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-04(a), (b)

A claimant’s statements about his pain will not suffice to establish a disability exists. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). ... Ultimately, “[t]here must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source” that supports a claimant’s statements about her disabling pain. 20 CFR § 404.1529(a). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discount the Plaintiff’s subjective pain complaints. While the Plaintiff asserts that her impairments are totally disabling and prevent her from working, the objective medical evidence does not support this conclusion.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms and permits consideration of other relevant factors when evaluating their severity and limitations.

McIntosh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-05(a), (c)(3), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(v), and (c)(4)

Plaintiff must be mindful that his statements regarding his symptoms and limitations will not, taken alone, establish that he is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings that show the existence of medical impairments that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the symptoms and limitation alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). The ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and limitations were not entirely consistent with the objective medical evidence (Tr. 53). See Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1986). As Plaintiff’s statements about his symptoms and limitations suggested impairments of greater severity than are shown by objective medical evidence, it was appropriate for the ALJ to consider other information and factors that may be relevant to assessing Plaintiff’s subjective allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider treatment received for symptom relief and inconsistencies between a claimant's allegations and the record when evaluating symptom severity and limitations.

Hall v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-08(c)(3)(iv), (c)(4)

That Dr. Aylor had not deviated from conservative medication treatment did not support Plaintiff’s claims regarding her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). ... This inconsistency between Plaintiff’s allegations and the medical record provides substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s conclusion that her symptom of falling was not as severe as she claimed. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the entire record, including relevant factors such as daily activities and treatment.

Lutz-Stoker v. Saul · filed 2020-05-08(b), (c), (c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and functional effects using the record as a whole; objective evidence alone cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the claimant’s statements, and daily activities may be considered.

Trawick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(a), (c)(2), (c)(3)(i)

The Commissioner’s Regulations describe a two-step process when evaluating subjective testimony. First, the ALJ must determine whether the symptoms alleged are supported by objective medical evidence that could reasonably produce the symptoms alleged. Second, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s subjective statements as to the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of those symptoms by considering the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and § 416.929. ... Although “we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements,” there still must be objective medical evidence that, “when considered with all of the other evidence . . . would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider listed factors, including daily activities, when assessing a claimant's symptom testimony, with daily activities serving as only one factor in the overall assessment.

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

When assessing the credibility of Mueller’s symptom testimony, the ALJ considered various factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3),2 including Mueller’s statements to medical providers, physical examination findings, diagnostic test results, the treatment that he underwent for his conditions, and his daily activities. ... Rather, the ALJ properly considered Mueller’s daily activities as just one factor in her assessment of Mueller’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity but not to serve as the sole basis for rejecting symptom testimony, while § 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of treatment effectiveness.

Prickett v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(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. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... 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).

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

Pool v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(c)(2)

But that is impermissible: the ALJ cannot discount Plaintiff’s reports of pain just because the objective evidence does not seem to corroborate them. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 449 F.3d 804, 806 (7th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Accordingly, the ALJ should reevaluate Plaintiff’s subjective reports on remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires subjective symptom statements to be supported by appropriate, probative evidence and permits an ALJ to discount statements inconsistent with the record.

LaPorta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-12(c)(4)

Furthermore, Plaintiff must produce appropriate, probative evidence in support of any subjective statements of symptoms, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4), and the ALJ's decision to discount Plaintiff's statements of symptoms must be accepted by a reviewing court unless it is clearly erroneous.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess subjective pain and other symptoms using medical signs and laboratory findings, daily activities, and conflicts with the record.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(a), (c)(3), (c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

In making the RFC finding the Administrative Law Judge assessed Plaintiff’s subjective allegations (Tr. 24-29). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Plaintiff’s subjective statements about the pain or other symptoms she is experiencing will not, taken alone, establish 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. ... Because the reported pain and other symptoms suggested impairments of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the ALJ considered other information and factors that may be relevant to the degree of pain or other symptoms she is experiencing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For example, the ALJ considered Plaintiff's level of daily activity in determining the extent to which her pain and other symptoms are of disabling severity (Tr. 25-29). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); ... The ALJ also considered the extent to which there are any conflicts between Plaintiff’s subjective statements and the rest of the evidence (Tr. 25-29). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The ALJ found from the medical record and Plaintiff's testimony that Plaintiff does not suffer pain and other symptoms to the extent she testified. The ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective statements, about pain and other symptoms, are supported by substantial evidence and fully comport with applicable law.

Section 404.1529(c) directs an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider inconsistencies and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the other evidence.

Brookins, II v. Saul · filed 2020-07-30(c)

First and foremost, the ALJ properly considered the conflict between Mr. Brookins’ self-reported symptoms and Dr. Liston’s findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (The ALJ will consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms in an RFC determination to consider all evidence, including the claimant’s attempts to work.

Gathright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(c)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (in rendering his RFC determination, the ALJ will consider all evidence including plaintiff’s attempts to work).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but the ALJ may not reject symptom testimony solely because the alleged severity lacks objective support.

Haley v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-08-20(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the symptoms, then to evaluate their intensity and limiting effects using objective and other evidence, including the listed regulatory factors.

Stewart v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-20(b), (c)(3)

The regulations provide a two-step framework for evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms for the RFC analysis: (1) the ALJ must determine whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can be reasonably expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; and (2) the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functionality by examining the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), SSR 16-3p; see Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that before the ALJ can make an adverse credibility finding as to plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ should consider “all of the relevant medical and other evidence”). ... The ALJ’s boilerplate finding that plaintiff’s testimony regarding her symptoms was “not entirely consistent” with the record is not a sufficient explanation of why her testimony was discounted. ... On remand, if the ALJ disregards a portion of plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ must cite evidence in the record that contradicts her testimony, and consider each of the factors set forth in the regulations for evaluating subjective testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but objective medical evidence alone cannot justify discounting subjective symptom testimony.

(SS) Gillit v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27(c)(2)

A lack of corroborating, objective medical evidence alone is insufficient grounds for an ALJ to discount a claimant’s subjective symptoms; however, it is a factor the ALJ may consider. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... Reviewing the ALJ’s rationale, the undersigned finds the combination of plaintiff’s sporadic treatment, intent to work, and lack of supporting medical evidence provide clear and convincing reasons for the ALJ’s discounting of plaintiff’s “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” statements.

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

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

Regulation 404.1529(c)(3)(i) specifically states that “daily activities” are considered when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529 directs an ALJ to assess symptom allegations against the record as a whole, considering relevant factors such as objective evidence, treatment effects, and daily activities, with daily activities as only one factor.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-09(c)(3)

As part of the RFC analysis, the ALJ provided an exhaustive discussion regarding the consistency of plaintiff's allegations with the evidence as a whole under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929. ... Among other relevant factors, the ALJ discussed the objective medical evidence, the effectiveness of plaintiffs medications and other treatment, the side effects of her medications, and the effect of her impairments -on her daily activities. (Tr. 21-23; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3)). ... Here, the ALJ properly considered plaintiffs activities as but one factor in evaluating her allegations of disability.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats objective medical evidence as relevant to symptom severity, while subsection (c)(4) limits the effect of alleged limitations to those reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

(SS) Net v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-11(c)(2), (c)(4)

The law does not require an ALJ simply to ignore inconsistencies between objective medical evidence and a claimant’s testimony. “While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). As part of the analysis of the record as a whole, an ALJ properly considers whether the objective medical evidence supports or is consistent with a claimant’s symptom 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)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily activities when evaluating symptoms in a disability determination.

Wood v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-15(c)(3)(i)

The SSA regulations directly contemplate that an ALJ may factor a claimant’s activities of daily living (ADLs) in rendering a disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (“[W]e will carefully consider any other information you may submit about your symptoms [including] [y]our daily activities”).

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

Rivera v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(a), (b), (c)(4)

The Commissioner’s regulations explain how an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s testimony regarding how symptoms affect the ability to work: ... Your symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent that your alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Here, we find that the ALJ’s credibility findings regarding symptom evaluation are supported by substantial evidence. Thus, we find no basis to disturb the ALJ’s determination on this matter.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and assess whether they are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence bearing on the claimant’s ability to work.

SHEPPARD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-23

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider the consistency of a claimant’s symptom statements with objective medical evidence, but that inconsistency alone cannot support rejecting the statements, and permits consideration of medication, treatment, and other measures used to relieve symptoms.

Perez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-25(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

The ALJ properly considered how consistent Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements were with this objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about her symptoms, but it was the primary factor that the ALJ was required to consider. ... Thus, the lack of consistency between Plaintiff’s medical records and her testimony was a proper basis for the ALJ’s discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. ... An ALJ may properly consider Plaintiff’s treatment history in analyzing Plaintiff’s asserted symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv),(v),(vi) (factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, which the Commissioner will consider include medication taken to alleviate symptoms; treatment received for pain; and measures used to relieve pain); see also Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 (holding that “ALJ is permitted to consider lack of treatment in his credibility determination”); Moncada, 60 F.3d at 524 (claimant’s allegations of disabling pain can be discredited by evidence of infrequent medical treatment or by the minimal use of pain medication).

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

Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)(4)

In concluding that Ms. Jenkins’s symptoms were not as severe as alleged, the ALJ also considered the medical opinions of Drs. Tang and Ferguson, as well that of a third consultative examiner, Dr. Shephali Gupta, Psy.D, who conducted a mental status examination in September 2015. AR 25-28; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4), § 416.929(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and symptoms affect you.”); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *6 (“Medical sources may offer diagnoses, prognoses, and opinions as well as statements and medical reports about an individual’s history, treatment, responses to treatment, prior work record, efforts to work, daily activities, and other information concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.”). Each of the examiners’ opinions regarding Ms. Jenkins’s functional capabilities corroborates the ALJ’s finding that Ms. Jenkins’s functional capabilities are not as limited as she alleged. ... Viewing the record as a whole, the Court finds that the ALJ provided specific clear and convincing reasons for partially discrediting Ms. Jenkins’s statements and testimony and that his reasons are supported by substantial evidence. The Court finds no error here.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the decision-maker evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, objective evidence, treatment, medication effectiveness, and functional limitations.

Pittman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(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). ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... 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) permits consideration of pain and other symptoms as factors in assessing functional loss when medical signs or laboratory findings show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to cause them.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

Pain or other symptoms may be important factors contributing to a disability claimant’s functional loss and affects a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities where relevant medical signs or laboratory findings show the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could “reasonably” be expected to cause the associated pain or other symptoms complained of by Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms, first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce them, and then assess their intensity and persistence for consistency with objective and other evidence.

Munoz-Martinez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-30(a)-(c)

Under the regulations, the ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptoms in determining whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). First, the ALJ must decide whether a claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Id. at § 404.1529(b). Then, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and consider whether the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record documenting a claimant’s limited capacity for work. Id. at § 404.1529(c).

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

Griffin v. Saul · filed 2020-10-01(c)(3)(i)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider specified evidence, including medical history, treatment, symptoms, and functional limitations, when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Palencia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

In doing so, the ALJ considers evidence such as the claimant’s medical history; medical signs and laboratory findings; medical source statements; daily activities; evidence from attempts to work; lay evidence; recorded observations; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication or other treatment the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider all symptoms, including pain, and assess how consistently they align with objective medical and other evidence.

Sampson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-16(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ must “consider all [of the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate symptoms in two steps and consider their consistency with objective medical and other evidence, but not reject symptom statements solely because of a lack of substantiating medical evidence.

Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-20(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." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While statements of pain alone are generally 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). ... The ALJ did not rely solely on a lack of substantiating medical evidence to determine that Plaintiff’s allegations of pain were not consistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(d)(3) bars substituting a claimant's allegations of pain or other symptoms for missing or deficient objective medical evidence when determining whether an impairment medically equals a listed impairment.

HARDESTY v. SAUL · filed 2020-10-23(d)(3)

The regulation explains that the agency will consider whether an individual's symptoms and objective medical evidence are equal in severity to those of a listed impairment. It includes a caveat: "However, we will not substitute your allegations of pain or other symptoms for a missing or deficient sign or laboratory finding [i.e., objective medical evidence] to raise the severity of your impairment(s) to that of a listed impairment." Id.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all available evidence when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, including whether the claimant’s statements are consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Lamons v. Saul · filed 2020-10-28(a), (c)(1), (c)(4)

In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ examines all the available evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). The ALJ must consider whether a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step symptom assessment and not reject pain statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Stoker v. Saul · filed 2020-11-03(b)-(c), (c)(2)

But the ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity or persistence of his pain or its effect on his ability to work solely because the medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s statements. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (2019). Instead, if the objective medical evidence does not support the claimant’s statements, the ALJ “must make a finding on the credibility of the individual’s statements based on a consideration of the entire case record.” ... As an initial matter, the ALJ’s determination that Stoker’s assertions about the severity and limiting effects of his pain were less credible merely because no objective medical evidence supported them, was improper.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, in a two-step process and prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Romero v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-03

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, to determine whether a severe physical or mental impairment exists. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. In making this determination, they follow a two-step process. SSR 16-3P (Oct. 26, 2017). First, they consider “whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms.” Id. Second, they “evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” Id. This involves examining objective medical evidence and other evidence from the claimant, medical sources, and non-medical sources, and requires considering various factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). Id. Overall, an ALJ may “not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [the] symptoms have on [her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider all symptoms and whether they are consistent with objective medical and other record evidence.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-03(c)(1)-(3)

When making a symptom evaluation determination, the ALJ considers all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(4) requires an ALJ to assess symptom intensity and persistence using the record as a whole, permits consideration of factors including medication side effects, and requires examination of inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the record.

Mosley v. Saul · filed 2020-11-05(c)(1)-(4)

If the record shows that the claimant has a medically-determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant's capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers all of the record, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant's history, and statements of the claimant and her doctors. Id. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(2). The ALJ may consider other factors, such as: (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant's pain or other symptoms; (3) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication; (5) any treatment other than medication; (6) any measures the claimant used to relieve her pain or symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions due to her pain or symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ then will examine the claimant's statements regarding her symptoms in relation to all other evidence, and consider whether there are any inconsistencies or conflicts between those statements and the record. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) permit an ALJ to evaluate the consistency of symptom allegations using objective medical evidence and other relevant record evidence.

Conley v. Saul · filed 2021-07-07(c)(2)-(3)

However, the ALJ found plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other record evidence. (Tr. 16.) In evaluating consistency, the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s objective medical evidence and other evidence in accordance with the regulation. See id. at § 404.1529(c)(2) and (3). See also Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019) (ALJ may discount subjective complaints that are undermined by the medical evidence).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating limitations not fully reflected in objective evidence to consider the entire case record, including symptom statements, medical-source information, and other relevant evidence.

Stanley v. SAUL · filed 2021-07-16(c)(3)

Second, the ALJ must evaluate claims of limitation not reflected in the objective evidence. SSR 16-3p at *3-4. The ALJ must consider “the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record.” Id. at *4; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929. ... While Plaintiff contends that her subjective allegations received short shrift, the ALJ permissibly concluded that the unremarkable mental status exams undermined the unsupported claims. See Calhoun v. Comm’r of Soc Sec, 2020 WL 1307256, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2020) (Grand, M.J.), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 1274902 (E.D. Mich, Mar. 17, 2020) (citing O’Connell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2015 WL 12683979, at *8-11 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 25, 2015) (“ALJ properly discounted claimant’s subjective complaints, in part, because they were inconsistent with mental status examination findings.”)). Likewise here, Plaintiff’s fairly normal mental status examinations, coupled with treating records showing that she was able to engage in a variety of activities undermine her claims of disability-level psychological limitation. Because the administrative findings are well supported and explained, the deference generally accorded an ALJ’s credibility determination is appropriate here. See Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 542 (6th Cir. 2007) (ALJ’s evaluation of the subjective claims entitled to deference).

Section 404.1529(c) makes the medical-evidence assessment part of evaluating symptom statements, requiring a new symptom assessment when the ALJ must reevaluate material medical opinions.

Vidales v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-22(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. Therefore, in light of the case being remanded for the ALJ to readdress the medical source opinions in the file, a new assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements will be necessary.

Section 404.1529 provides that symptom statements alone do not establish disability and requires their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects to be evaluated against objective and other evidence.

Sahagun v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-12-21(a), (c)(1)–(4)

A claimant can establish disability through personal testimony about pain or other symptoms, but a claimant’s statements alone are insufficient to establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Once an ALJ identifies an underlying medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ evaluates the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(4).

Section 404.1529 provides that symptom statements alone are insufficient and requires a second-stage comparison of symptom intensity, persistence, and limitations with objective and other evidence.

Sellers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-02-28(a), (c)(1)–(4)

A claimant can establish disability through personal testimony about pain or other symptoms, but a claimant’s statements alone are insufficient to establish disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Once an ALJ identifies an underlying medical condition that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ evaluates the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(4).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step process that identifies a symptom-producing impairment and then evaluates symptom consistency with objective and other evidence.

Sutton v. Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(a)–(b)

“At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Genier, 606 F.3d at 49 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “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.” Id. (brackets omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of other evidence when claimant statements are not supported by objective evidence.

Ajayi v. Saul · filed 2022-06-10(a)

When the Plaintiff’s statements are not supported by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must consider other evidence in the record to determine if Plaintiff’s symptoms limit her ability to do work-related activities. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ did so here.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an adjudicator to evaluate how far a claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

Sajko v. Saul · filed 2022-06-27(a)

In his second objection, the plaintiff argues that the ALJ’s symptom evaluation violates Social Security Ruling 16-3p, which provides that in making a disability determination, an adjudicator considers the “extent to which the [claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence...” 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(a); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16–3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4–*10. Upon review of the relevant record, the court finds that the ALJ adequately considered plaintiff’s symptoms. As indicated in Judge Saporito’s report, the ALJ properly concluded that plaintiff’s reports of the limiting effects of his symptoms are not consistent with the medical and other evidence in the record, which indicated mild to moderate symptoms and limitations. (Doc 21 at 24; Doc. 15-2 at 22). The court agrees with Judge Saporito’s reasoning and finds that the ALJ’s decision properly considered plaintiff’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) prohibits disregarding symptom statements solely for lack of objective substantiation but permits evaluating them against objective evidence and other record evidence.

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

The ALJ did not disregard Plaintiff’s statements about her symptoms based solely the failure of objective medical evidence to substantiate her statements. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. The ALJ’s evaluation of the extent of symptoms alleged by Plaintiff was based on both objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record, such as observations during Plaintiff’s medical appointments and her treatment history.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of nonmedical evidence including a claimant's questionnaires, hearing testimony, and household activities, in addition to objective medical evidence.

Raper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-03(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The ALJ’s decision shows that he considered, in addition to the objective medical evidence, Raper’s responses in agency questionnaires and the specifics of Raper’s testimony at the hearing. ... This is precisely the type of “other evidence” ALJs must consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii).

Section 404.1529(c) bars rejecting complaints solely for lack of objective corroboration and requires careful consideration of other symptom information.

Pellino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-23(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints only because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This regulation instructs that the ALJ must “carefully consider any other information [a claimant] may submit about [his] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation using all available evidence and forbids rejection solely for lack of objective corroboration.

Chait v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-25(c)(1)-(2)

Once a claimant has made this showing, the Commissioner “must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms” in light of “all available evidence,” including the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). The Commissioner “will not reject” a claimant’s statements “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” the statements. Id. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529 makes a claimant’s symptom statements insufficient by themselves to establish disability and requires their alleged limiting effects to be evaluated for consistency with objective medical and other evidence.

Cordova v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-20(a), (c)(4)

A claimant’s statements about his symptoms, without more, are insufficient to establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (claimant’s statements regarding pain or other symptoms do not establish disability if unsupported by “objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows” the claimant has a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged). ... In conducting this two-step inquiry, the ALJ considers “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence, including [the claimant’s] history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by [the claimant’s] medical sources or other persons about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [him].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Against this legal and factual backdrop, the undersigned finds that the ALJ provided adequate and explicit reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective statements, which are supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ must evaluate a claimant’s statements about symptoms in relation to the other record evidence and whether those statements conflict with that evidence.

Helms v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(c)(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the agency to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements against objective medical and other evidence, including inconsistencies and conflicts in the record.

Gonzales-Baer v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-09-14(c)(4)

Also, the ALJ found that plaintiff’s medically determinable impairments reasonably could cause the alleged symptoms, but those symptoms nevertheless differed from the medical and other evidence in the record. Id. at 20–23 (AR 15–18); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[W]e will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence . . . [and] will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence[.]”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom statements in relation to other record evidence, including conflicting evidence.

Konkle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-29(c)(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Even more importantly, the ALJ relied on “many reportedly intact activities of daily living,” Tr. at 18, which the rheumatology records consistently document, see 506-55, 611-15, 1281-1360, 1382-92, 1405-13.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of medical and other evidence when assessing how alleged symptoms affect a claimant’s ability to work.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-18(a)

The regulations plainly state that the ALJ must “determine the extent to which [a claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and ... laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how [his] symptoms affect [his] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires a holistic assessment of symptoms and prior work history to determine consistency with the evidence, rather than evaluating the claimant’s character.

Fonseca v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-27(c)(3)

When read in full, the regulation makes clear that the ALJ’s charge is to provide a holistic assessment of both objective medical evidence and the claimant’s subjective reports of symptom-related functional limitations and ... restrictions, without necessarily privileging one type of information over the other, based on the Agency’s recognition that “symptoms, such as pain, are subjective and difficult to quantify[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). While that ... holistic assessment does indeed require the ALJ to look to the claimant’s prior work record, the purpose of considering such evidence is to determine whether a claimant’s subjective reports “can reasonably be accepted as ... consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” not to conduct an assessment of the claimant’s personal character based on his work ethic. ... The Court finds the reasoning of Darren Jeffrey C. persuasive and adopts and applies it here.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of other evidence about symptoms, including daily activities and the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication.

Chacko v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-03(c)(3)

The referenced regulations are 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), which list “other evidence” to be considered, including the individual’s “daily activities” and “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the individual] take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate [his or her] pain or other symptoms.”

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements against objective medical and other evidence when assessing their effect on work capacity.

Alires v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-28(c)(4)

The regulations governing the evaluation of disability claims require the ALJ to consider objective medical and other evidence when determining how a claimant’s symptoms affect his capacity to perform work-related activities. ... To support this determination, the ALJ properly considered Mr. Alires’s statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record, and in making her findings, the ALJ identified the specific evidence on which she relied.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider medical evidence, including reports of improved pain, when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Fogarty v. Saul · filed 2022-10-06(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ explained that he found Plaintiff’s assertions about the severity of his symptoms and limitations not entirely consistent with the preponderance of the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (R. 34; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).) ... It was proper for the ALJ to rely on Plaintiff’s reports of improvement in his pain.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptoms using all available evidence, including the claimant’s statements and any inconsistencies in the record.

Soileau v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2024-07-09(c)

The ALJ does so by considering “all of the available evidence” including medical and nonmedical sources, medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, information about the claimant’s prior work record, as well as the claimant’s statements, which are evaluated “in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” considering “whether there are any inconsistencies . . . and the extent to which there are any conflicts.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ appropriately considered Ms. Soileau’s symptoms in relation to the rest of the evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider factors bearing on a claimant’s symptoms and explain how those factors affect the assessment of the claimant’s statements.

Hodge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-10(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The ALJ must consider (1) the claimant’s daily activities, (2) the duration, location, frequency and intensity of the claimant’s pain, (3) precipitating and aggravating factors, (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medications that the claimant takes, (5) any treatment, other than medication, that the claimant has received, (6) any other measures that the claimant employs to relieve the pain, and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... On remand, the ALJ should also include a specific credibility determination, explain how she balanced the various factors, and identify any inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s testimony and the rest of the record.

Section 404.1529 calls for a two-step analysis of a claimant’s subjective symptoms, beginning with whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause them.

Blissard v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-22

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 (citations omitted). ... In sum, the ALJ did not err in making a partial adverse credibility determination.

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

Elkins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(a)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements regarding pain and workplace limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Where there is objective medical evidence in the record of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or symptoms alleged and there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s symptom statements and how the symptoms affect daily life and ability to work.

Elmore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-25(a)

On remand, the ALJ is also reminded that he must consider the claimant’s statements about his symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect his daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 2017 WL 5180304; Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1125 (7th Cir. 2014) (“An ALJ must consider subjective complaints of pain if a claimant has established a medically determined impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain.”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s statements about symptoms and their effects on daily activities and ability to work.

Grubich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-28(a)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about his symptoms 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).

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

Malliett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-25(a)

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

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all claimant statements about symptoms such as pain.

Logan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-28(a)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the ALJ “will consider all of [the claimant’s] statements about [her] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(a) requires subjective allegations to be assessed when formulating residual functional capacity, but does not compel accommodations unsupported by the weight of the evidence.

Keefer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-15(a)

An ALJ bases his RFC determination on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” in the case record. Id. (a)(3). This requires the ALJ to evaluate the persuasiveness of the medical opinions in the record and assess the claimant’s subjective allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 404.1529(a). Plaintiff does not allege that ALJ Zuber failed to consider her migraines altogether. Rather, she criticizes his failure to provide specific accommodations for them in his RFC finding. But an ALJ need only create a logical bridge between the record evidence and his findings, and if substantial evidence supports them, this Court must affirm the decision despite a claimant’s suggestion that the evidence could support a contrary conclusion. ... ALJ Zuber appropriately found that such a severe limitation was not supported by the weight of the evidence.

Meeting the threshold pain standard under § 404.1529 requires consideration of a claimant’s subjective testimony but does not establish disability or compel the Commissioner to accept the complaints.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-30

However, satisfying the “pain standard” is not itself determinative of disability, nor does it require the Commissioner to accept a claimant’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires careful consideration of symptom statements but does not require the ALJ to credit them.

Little v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-13(b), (c)(3)

An ALJ must carefully consider a claimant’s statements about [his] symptoms, but the ALJ is not required to credit them.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about the limiting effects of symptoms even when objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Phillips v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-06(c)(2)

Finding the Claimant credible, but failing to credit her statements about the limiting effect of her symptoms in the RFC finding, was error.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s statements about symptoms and how they affect daily life and ability to work.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(a)

The ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about her symptoms, such as pain, and how the symptoms affect her daily life and ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to give specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting symptom testimony when there is no affirmative evidence of malingering.

Waage v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-28

At the second step, if there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting the claimant’s testimony. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... In sum, the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony, and those findings will not be disturbed.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to give specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting a claimant’s symptom testimony when there is no evidence of malingering.

Regitano · filed 2025-11-13

At the second step, if there is no affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting the claimant’s testimony. Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 806 F.3d 487, 488-89 (9th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Therefore, the ALJ failed to provide a clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting plaintiff's symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) permits an ALJ to consider the absence of treatment or medication for an allegedly disabling symptom when the record does not justify the failure to seek care.

Kirby v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

The evidence did not suggest that plaintiff received treatment or medication for chronic fatigue. (Tr. 18.) See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) & (v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv) & (v). Plaintiff’s failure to seek medical treatment for her chronic fatigue for a prolonged period of time, despite seeking treatments for other medical conditions in the same time period, undermines her allegation of disabling conditions and chronic fatigue being her biggest issue.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) through (vi) permits consideration of treatment amount, medication, and other relief measures when evaluating symptom severity.

Rosfeld v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)(iv)–(vi)

An ALJ is also free to consider the amount of treatment a claimant receives for an impairment in determining the nature and severity of the impairment, as well as medication and any other measures used. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–404.1529(c)(3)(vi).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an adjudicator to consider a claimant's response to treatment when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms.

Ring v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ also pointed to Plaintiff’s successful treatment. See AR 19-21, 252, 309. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (an ALJ may find a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony not credible based on evidence of effective responses to treatment); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3). Based on the above, the ALJ properly determined that Plaintiff’s level of treatment did not support level of impairment by Plaintiff.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits consideration of treatment history, including conservative care, treatment gaps, and failure to pursue available low-cost services after evaluating the claimant’s reasons for limited treatment.

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

As required, the ALJ considered the extent to which plaintiff’s claims could reasonably be accepted with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record and concluded that plaintiff’s allegations were not wholly consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence of record. AR 502-03. First, the ALJ observed that plaintiff’s conservative mental health treatment and minimal/absent therapy was inconsistent with the standard of care and the degree of severity alleged. AR 503, 505; see 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3)(5) (course of treatment is properly considered when evaluating symptom testimony); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (ALJ permissibly considered treating physician’s failure to prescribe, and the claimant’s failure to request medical treatment commensurate with the limitation alleged). This conclusion is borne out by the record, discussed in detail above, which reflects that plaintiff went without treatment for months and sometimes years at a time, and never participated in significant psychotherapy. The ALJ considered plaintiff’s allegations that his treatment was limited secondary to lack of insurance and/or financial limitations but found them unpersuasive. AR 502. Although plaintiff testified that he did not have medical insurance during the relevant period (AR 48), the ALJ noted that he had access to multiple sources of income, including private disability benefits, his wife’s income and benefits from work activity, and/or an inheritance. AR 501, 503. The ALJ also found that plaintiff presented no evidence to show that he attempted to qualify for any low or no-cost county mental health services. AR 501. Plaintiff’s failure to pursue treatment is inconsistent with the degree of severity alleged. Id., see Fair v. Bowen, 885 F. 2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989) (unexplained or inadequately explained, failure to follow a prescribed course of treatment may be sufficient to discredit allegations of disabling symptoms). ... In sum, the ALJ provided more than enough specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting plaintiff's subjective testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider treatment history, including medication or therapy noncompliance and minimal treatment, when evaluating symptoms after exploring the claimant’s explanations for the lack of care.

VANWINKLE JR. v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-19(c)(3)

Finally, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by describing Plaintiff's treatment as "conservative," and by using the nature of his treatment to find that he is not disabled. Dkt. 7 at 21. However, an ALJ is "expressly permitted" to consider a claimant's treatment history. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see also Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 519 (7th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the ALJ "explored [Plaintiff's] explanations as to the lack of medical care" and provided a clear reason for his conclusion. See Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 679 (7th Cir. 2008). The ALJ found that the medical records "noted some non-compliance with medication," dkt. 5-2 at 22, and that Plaintiff was discharged from physical therapy for non-compliance, id. at 23. The ALJ also noted Plaintiff's explanation for why he has not had surgery on his back. Id. Although the record does not indicate that any doctor found surgery to be appropriate, Plaintiff reports being scared to have surgery. Id. Finally, the ALJ noted Plaintiff's back injection (which took place in January 2017), and that since that injection "treatment has been minimal." Id. Because the ALJ built a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion that Plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence, remand is not required. Denton, 596 F.3d at 425; see also Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1151 (2019).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits treatment amount and conservative care to inform symptom severity, but an ALJ’s characterization of improvement and conservative treatment must be supported by the record.

Sturtevant v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-10(c)(3)

The ALJ is required to provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting a claimant’s testimony. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1017 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s testimony to the extent it conflicted with the second RFC and provided legally sufficient reasons for doing so. Tr. 776-80. For example, the ALJ noted Plaintiff’s conditions improved with treatment and were managed with conservative treatments like acupuncture. Tr. 778-80. A claimant’s amount of treatment is an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms, and evidence of conservative treatment is “sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750- 51 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Here, the Commissioner argues that Plaintiff’s symptoms notably improved using acupuncture and that she reduced her use of medications, reported sustained improvements in functioning with ongoing conservative treatment, and was encouraged to engage in physical activity. Tr. 777, 1090-91, 1106-41, 1205-17. As discussed above, however, the record contradicts the ALJ’s allegation of conservative treatment and functional improvement after March 2, 2017. Further, in her rejection of Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ cited to physical activities that occurred during Plaintiff’s period of adjudicated disability. On this record, the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony based on functional improvement and conservative treatment was not supported by substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the amount of treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence and permits reliance on conservative care unless the claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive treatment.

Luca v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

Routine, conservative treatment can be enough to discount a claimant’s subjective testimony related to the limitations caused by an impairment. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007). Not seeking an “aggressive treatment program” permits the inference that symptoms were not “as all-disabling” as the claimant reported. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). If, however, the claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive treatment, conservative treatment is not a proper basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective symptoms. Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1162 (9th Cir. 2008). ... Even assuming Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ erred in relying on Plaintiff’s noncompliance, the ALJ also specifically discussed the fact that Plaintiff’s medical providers did not recommend a more aggressive treatment for her allegedly disabling leg (and back, to which Plaintiff does not respond) conditions during the relevant time. That is a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony that her deep vein insufficiency and degenerative disc disease were disabling before September 30, 2013.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ, when objective evidence does not fully support reported pain, to consider other evidence including treatment efforts and explanations such as inability to afford additional care before drawing an adverse inference.

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

When reports of disabling pain are not fully supported by the “objective medical evidence,” the ALJ must “investigate all avenues presented that relate to the pain.” See Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 871-72 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Luna v. Shalala, 22 F.3d 687, 691 (7th Cir. 1994)). The ALJ must “carefully consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. 404.1529; SSR 16-3. ... Efforts a claimant has undergone to relieve pain are pertinent in evaluating symptom testimony under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p. ... This course of treatment supports rather than detracts from symptom severity reports. ... Prior to drawing a negative inference about a claimant's symptoms from a failure to obtain certain treatment, the ALJ must first consider any explanations that the individual may provide or other explanatory information in the case record. ... Thus, remand is warranted on this issue, due to the unsupported RFC assessment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits the Commissioner to consider treatment received for relief of symptoms when evaluating subjective complaints and residual functional capacity.

McClure v. Saul · filed 2021-08-30(c)(3)(v)

In evaluating plaintiff’s subjective complaints and determining his RFC, the ALJ discussed plaintiff’s mental health treatment notes at length. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v) (noting that one of the factors the Commissioner considers is the “treatment . . . you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms”). Those notes showed that exacerbations in plaintiff’s symptoms coincided with alcohol abuse and medication misuse [Tr. 352-53, 366, 406, 442-44, 480, 486, 502, 506, 533]. After plaintiff had inpatient treatment and took his medication as prescribed, his symptoms improved [Tr. 46-47, 468, 472, 474, 492, 502, 518].

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits consideration of treatment received for pain or other symptoms when evaluating their intensity and persistence.

Bracamonte v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-13(c)(3)(v)

When evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ may consider the treatment the claimant receives for relief of pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). Plaintiff reported “no pain”—cervical or otherwise—at rest, and she reported she was 85 to 90% improved. (R. 284.)

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits the type of treatment a claimant received to be considered when assessing subjective complaints of disabling pain.

Starling v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)(v)

Upon reviewing the objective medical evidence in the record, the Court concludes that substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s conclusion regarding Starling’s subjective complaints of pain. ... In the Eleventh Circuit, “ALJs are permitted to consider the type of treatment a claimant received in assessing the credibility of [her] subjective complaints.” Pennington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 652 F. App’x 862, 873 (11th Cir. 2016) (claimant’s statement that pain was reduced by medication indicates conservative treatment); see also Chatham v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 764 F. App’x 864, 869 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072, 1078 (11th Cir. 1996) to support holding that treatment is a relevant consideration in the Commissioner’s assessment of pain under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v)). Further, the ALJ sufficiently contrasted Starling’s testimony with treating records which indicated that her pain was not debilitating,10 and it is apparent to this Court that the ALJ considered Starling’s medical condition as a whole in discounting her testimony of disabling pain. Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210. ... The Court finds no reversible error on this issue.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Singleton v. Saul · filed 2021-10-07(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ, however, properly considered Plaintiff’s treatment history, including not only the lack of hospitalizations or emergency-room treatment, but also the consistent treatment of counseling and medication. [R. at 611-12.] See Simila, 573 F.3d at 517 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v)) (“[T]he regulations expressly permit the ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history.”).

Section 404.1529(c) permits lack of medical treatment during the relevant period to serve as substantial evidence that an alleged impairment was not severe.

Blum v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-11-29(c)

Put generously, Blum has provided very scant evidence of medical treatment during the relevant period. And both the regulations and this Circuit make clear that a lack of medical treatment during the relevant period is itself substantial evidence that the impairment was not severe. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of treatment, but surgery is not conservative treatment and cannot support discounting subjective complaints on that basis.

(SS) Cowan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-22(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... Thus, the ALJ erred in classifying Plaintiff’s rotator cuff surgery as conservative and rejecting her subjective complaints on this basis.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of treatment, but surgery is not conservative treatment and cannot support discounting subjective complaints on that basis.

(SS) Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-22(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... Thus, the ALJ erred in classifying Plaintiff’s rotator cuff surgery as conservative and rejecting her subjective complaints on this basis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider conservative treatment following surgery when evaluating subjective statements.

AL-UQDAH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-11(c)(3)(v)

Moreover, the ALJ did not err when considering Plaintiff’s conservative treatment when assessing her subjective statements. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v); Phillips v. Barnhart, 91 F. App’x 775, 782 (3d Cir. 2004) (considering the claimant’s conservative treatment history following surgery as a factor that supported the ALJ’s determination to discount the claimant’s subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of conservative treatment history and the type of treatment or other measures used to relieve pain.

Carter v. Saul · filed 2022-02-10

However, the regulations for pain evaluation stress that the ALJ should consider the type of treatment the claimant receives when evaluating pain, including any measures used to relief pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. In doing so, the ALJ may properly consider Plaintiff’s conservative treatment history in his determination to discredit subjective complaints of pain.

At the second step under § 404.1529(c), the ALJ must consider all available medical and nonmedical evidence, including attempts to obtain and follow prescribed treatment.

Rosario v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-01(c)

At the second step, when considering the “intensity and persistence” of the claimant's symptoms, the ALJ must consider "all of the available evidence," both medical and non-medical, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5-8, including the claimant's "attempts to seek medical treatment for symptoms and to follow treatment once it is prescribed."

An ALJ may consider the level of treatment actually received as a symptom factor without penalizing a claimant for failing to seek additional care.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-08(c)

This is consistent with the requirement that ALJs consider treatment, including medication and other methods to relieve symptoms, when evaluating claimant’s subjective symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Considering the outcome of medical visits that Plaintiff did seek is different from considering Plaintiff’s failure to seek additional doctors’ visits. Here, the ALJ did the former.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) treats the amount, type, and effectiveness of treatment as important symptom-evaluation considerations.

Kennedy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-02(c)(3)-(4)

The amount, type, and effectiveness of treatment are important considerations when weighing a claimant’s allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)-(c)(4), 416.929(c)(3)-(c)(4); SSR 16-3p at *8.

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s course of treatment when assessing subjective symptoms.

Morales v. Saul · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)(v)

Likewise, the ALJ permissibly considered the course of Claimant’s treatment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), and the longitudinal record evidence showing Claimant managed his mild to moderate symptoms with conservative treatment and medication management.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the amount of treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, and routine, conservative treatment may support discounting subjective symptom testimony.

Jarman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-23(c)(3)

Additionally, the amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 416.929(c)(3). Routine, conservative treatment can be sufficient to discount a claimant’s subjective testimony regarding the limitations caused by an impairment.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider treatment history when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, but an inaccurate treatment gap cannot support discounting a claimant’s statements.

McCormick v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-28(c)

“Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, ‘the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled.’” Oakes, 70 F.4th at 215 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). ... ALJs are permitted to consider a claimant’s treatment history in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. ... Because the ALJ relied in partona supposed gap of a certain length in Plaintiff’s treatment history to discredit Plaintiff’s statements, and Plaintiff’s new evidence demonstrates treatment during the supposed gap, the Court finds that the RFC is not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the extent of a claimant’s treatment as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-09(c)(3)

Indeed, the extent of a claimant’s treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider treatment other than medication, including primary-care treatment and the absence of inpatient treatment, when evaluating symptoms.

Ruggiero · filed 2025-12-18(c)(3)(v)

The mental health care issued through a PCP and the lack of inpatient hospitalizations were not improper to discuss, as they are on the subject of “[t]reatment[s], other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms” which the regulations explicitly direct an ALJ ... to consider.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to treat minimal treatment for an impairment as evidence undermining allegations of disabling limitations.

Robinson · filed 2026-01-21(c)(3)(v)

Ms. Robinson’s minimal treatment related to her Crohn’s disease undermined her allegations of disabling limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v); Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072, 1078 (11th Cir. 1991).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider the nature and course of treatment when assessing symptom severity, including whether therapy and medication effectively managed the symptoms.

Arwood · filed 2026-02-06(c)(3)(v)

But as a general matter, an ALJ is entitled to consider the nature and course of a claimant’s treatment in assessing the severity of their symptoms. See, e.g., Prill v. Kijakazi, 23 F.4th 738, 749 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v)). That is precisely what the ALJ did here when she found that Plaintiff’s symptoms were well managed with therapy and medications.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to rely on treatment history as a separate basis from objective findings when evaluating symptom reports.

Snyder · filed 2026-02-10(c)(3)(v)

But the ALJ also relied on Snyder’s treatment, Tr. 26, which is a separate basis on which an ALJ may rely when evaluating a claimant’s reports of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating the severity of reported symptoms.

Schmaling v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-07-24(c)(3)(v)

Ultimately, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s lack of treatment history, as well as conservative treatment, in discounting Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows consideration of a claimant’s treatment outside of medications when evaluating symptoms.

Stratton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(c)(3)

But it is not unreasonable that the ALJ included this fact as the extent of a claimant’s treatment outside of medications is a factor to consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits consideration of a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating the severity of symptoms.

(SS) Fields v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-07(c)(3)(v)

Next, the ALJ described claimant’s objective medical evidence and treatment history. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039. ... The ALJ noted that claimant’s treatment history was generally conservative—with significant periods of no treatment at all—and that claimant refused medications that might have helped her. ... Since the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for rejecting claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, the ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history when assessing reported symptoms.

Donald v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-13(c)(3)

The ALJ’s finding that Donald had had little treatment for his right shoulder (Tr. 22, 23, 26) and did not take prescribed medication for his shoulder (Tr. 23) is an appropriate reason to discount his allegations of right shoulder symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider routine and conservative treatment when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Shaw v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-05(c)(3)(v)

An ALJ is entitled to consider the routine and conservative nature of a claimant's treatment in assessing the claimant's credibility. See Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 519 (7th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment when evaluating subjective symptoms.

CICCONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ did not err when considering Plaintiff’s conservative treatment in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating reported symptoms, including an inadequately explained failure to seek treatment.

Ponce v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

A claimant’s course of treatment, including an inadequately explained failure to seek treatment, is a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider when assessing the claimant’s symptom reports. ... This record does not reflect a failure to participate in treatment to the extent that would constitute a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s reported anxiety symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) allows consideration of a claimant’s treatment when evaluating symptoms, but the ALJ must consider the treatment received and possible explanations for its extent.

Winchell v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-07(c)(1)–(3)

A claimant’s treatment record is a relevant consideration for the ALJ to consider in evaluating subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)–(3), 416.929(c)(1)–(3). ... Here, the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s testimony for failure to seek treatment fails for at least two reasons.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes improvement with treatment an indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Sanders v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-20(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment also is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3).

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating symptoms, but stopping treatment for an unrelated condition does not justify discounting the claimed limitations.

Small v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-08(c)(3)

A claimant’s course of treatment, including an inadequately explained failure to seek treatment, is a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider when assessing the claimant’s symptom reports.233 ... Initially, the Court finds the ALJ’s reasoning that Plaintiff discontinued bladder medication to be error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes a claimant’s treatment relevant to evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Long v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-22(c)(3)

A claimant's amount of treatment is an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of the claimant's symptoms, and evidence of conservative treatment is “sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony regarding the severity of an impairment.” Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750-51 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... This record does not support a finding of conservative medical treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating the claimed effects of symptoms.

Casey · filed 2025-11-10(c)(3)(v)

A claimant’s treatment is among the above-listed factors in SSR 16-3p, and accordingly the ALJ’s reference to Plaintiff’s lack of treatment is a legitimate factor in assessing credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of improvement and stability with medication when evaluating alleged disabling symptoms.

Roemer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-15(c)(3)

The ALJ appropriately relied on medical records indicating Plaintiff’s improvement and stability with medication and that he retained full strength, normal range of motion, and normal reflexes, sensation, and gait. (R. at 35, 791–92, 946, 949, 992, 1015, 1024); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) requires consideration of the kind and effectiveness of medication and other treatment when evaluating symptom allegations.

EARLEY · filed 2026-05-13(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

However, an effective and ... conservative treatment regimen is ... probative evidence that the ALJ must ... consider.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) requires consideration of treatment effectiveness, and treatment need not eliminate every symptom for periods of improvement to be relevant.

Hoover v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-05-11(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

While Plaintiff faults the ALJ for relying too heavily on the periodic improvements in her symptoms, the ALJ properly considered the effectiveness of Plaintiff’s treatment regimen. ... While it was not a complete success in that it rendered her symptom-free, neither did the ALJ suggest Plaintiff was ever symptom-free. And the Commissioner is correct in noting that “symptom-free” is not the applicable standard.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (v) make treatment effectiveness relevant to subjective symptom testimony.

Plumlee v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-13(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor an ALJ may consider when evaluating subjective symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv–v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv–v).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (v) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom evaluation.

Richards v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-20(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

First, the effectiveness of treatment is relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s symptom treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv).

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi) permit consideration of the amount, nature, and relieving effects of treatment and medication.

Moreno v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-24(c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

“An ALJ is also free to consider the amount of treatment a claimant receives for an impairment in determining the nature and severity of the impairment, as well as medication and any other measures used.”

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v), and (c)(4) permit consideration of medication and treatment effectiveness but require the ALJ to consider all evidence bearing on that issue.

Perrone v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-09(c)(3)(iv)–(v), (c)(4)

Moreover, to the extent the ALJ may have relied on effectiveness of medication in relieving Plaintiff’s pain (see, e.g, AR 46), the ALJ failed to consider all the evidence on that issue. ... The ALJ did not properly consider these issues.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) and (v) make treatment effectiveness relevant, but brief improvement in waxing-and-waning mental-health symptoms must be read in the context of overall well-being and the full treatment record.

Ramoss v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor an ALJ may consider when evaluating subjective symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv–v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv–v). However, “it is error to reject a claimant’s testimony merely because symptoms wax and wane in the course of treatment.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1017. Rather, reports of improvement in the mental health context “must be interpreted with an understanding of the patient’s overall well-being and the nature of her symptoms.” Id. ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s brief response to treatment was not a clear and convincing reason to reject her 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.

Bushee v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-02(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. See Youngblood v. Berryhill, 734 F. App’x 496, 499 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming ALJ decision citing “instances where treatment and medication alleviated [the claimant’s] symptoms” to discount claimant’s testimony).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of medication and other treatment when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Mortimore v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-11(c)(3)

The law allows an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of medication and treatment 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”); ... Orteza, 50 F.3d at 750 (holding ALJ may consider effectiveness of pain medication in assessing claimant’s credibility).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the effectiveness of treatment in relieving a claimant's pain.

Elsen, Linda v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-12-13(c)(3)

The ALJ was required to consider the effectiveness of treatment in relieving Elsen’s pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

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

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-10(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ noted that there was no evidence that Plaintiff had difficulty moving about the office due to her vision problems, was able to drive when necessary, and had glasses and a digital hand scanner that helped manage her symptoms. AR 68-69; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (the effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms); see also Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–51 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that “evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant's testimony regarding severity of an impairment”). ... In citing Plaintiff’s ability to manage her visual impairment with conservative measures, the ALJ has provided an additional clear and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider improvement resulting from treatment when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

O'Neill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c)(3)

An ALJ properly considers evidence of improvement associated with treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), SSR 16-3p; Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[E]vidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.”); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2008) (favorable response to conservative treatment undermined allegation of disabling nature of pain); and Morgan v. Commissioner of the SSA, 169 F.3d 595, 599-600 (9th Cir. 1999) (contrary to plaintiff’s claimed lack of improvement, physician reported symptoms improved with use of medication).

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

Greenwalt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(3)(iv)

Third, the ALJ observed that Plaintiff’s headache symptoms improved with treatment. Tr. 21. 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)(iv); 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)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment when evaluating a claimant's subjective symptoms.

WISE v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)(iv)

An ALJ is permitted to consider the effectiveness of treatment in making her credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv).