20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

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

Rodriguez v. Saul · filed 2020-09-10(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

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

Valladares v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-17(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), 416.913(c)(3); see Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008). ... The ALJ also noted during Plaintiff’s monthly pain management visits from 2015 to 2017 she reported her pain and ability to function was controlled by the stable medication regimen. This record provides substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff reported more severe symptoms during the disability process than she presented with at her medical appointments. This was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s reported disability symptoms. ... In summary, Plaintiff fails to establish the ALJ erred by discounting her symptom reports.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes medication and treatment effectiveness relevant to alleged symptoms, but discounting testimony on that basis requires substantial evidence that the condition actually improved or was controlled.

Binford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3)(iv)

As for the ALJ’s second reason, a finding that a claimant’s condition improved or was controlled with treatment can serve as a clear and convincing reason for discounting his testimony. 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); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability). ... To the extent that the ALJ implies that plaintiff’s back pain had improved over time, this conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not provide substantial evidence of clear and convincing reasons to discount plaintiff’s testimony. ... Since plaintiff’s testimony would have changed the ultimate disability determination, this error was harmful. See Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1115 (9th Cir. 2012).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider improvement from medication and other treatment when evaluating and discounting the alleged severity of symptoms.

Black v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-19(c)(3)(iv)

An ALJ may look to a claimant’s treatment history and the use of medications and consider any improvement to their pain to discount their symptom testimony. See, e.g., Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 496; 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.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). ... Because the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s medications and treatments are adequately controlling and relieving the severity of her symptoms is a “rational interpretation,” this specific, clear, and convincing reason is sufficiently supported by substantial evidence. The Court cannot second-guess the ALJ’s judgment in these circumstances where the ALJ has provided adequate reasoning. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 954 (citations omitted); Fair, 885 F.2d at 604.

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

Benavidez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-05-18(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (2011); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); 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). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s impairments when treated were not as limiting as Plaintiff claimed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, but treatment records must be considered in the context of the overall diagnostic record rather than selectively using isolated improvement to discount symptoms.

Mireles v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-16(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), 416.913(c)(3); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008). ... “treatment records must be viewed in light of the overall diagnostic record.”74 Neither this Court nor the ALJ may cherry pick evidence to support a conclusion that contradicts the overall diagnostic record.75 Here, however, the ALJ selectively evaluated the record by picking out small snapshots and extrapolating those snapshots beyond their context.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, and a favorable response showing that an impairment is controlled can undermine allegations of disabling pain or other severe limitations.

Suica v. Saul · filed 2021-06-25(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (2011); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); 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). On this record and as discussed below, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s impairments, when treated, were not as limiting as she claimed. This ALJ determination is supported by substantial evidence and provides a specific, clear, and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff's pain and symptom testimony. ... In short, the ALJ relied on medical records from Plaintiff’s treating physicians that spanned several years, including when she was still working, to find that her MS improved and stabilized with medication. The ALJ then reasonably concluded that this medical improvement was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s pain and symptom testimony. Accordingly, the ALJ provided a specific, clear, and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, for making an adverse credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider medication effectiveness when evaluating symptoms, and impairments effectively controlled with medication are not disabling.

(SS) Singh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)(iv)

Second, the ALJ examined plaintiff’s treatment history and found it inconsistent with a finding of disability. AR 32. The ALJ found that the treatment history evidenced routine, conservative, and non-emergency treatment. AR 32, Osenbrock v. Apfel, 240 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2001) (statements rejected where claimant had “not participated in any significant pain regimen or therapy program”); Hanes v. Colvin, 651 Fed.Appx. 703, 705 (9th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (in discounting symptom allegations, “the ALJ supported his conclusion with evidence of [claimant’s] conservative treatment plan, which consisted primarily of minimal medication, limited injections, physical therapy, and gentle exercise”), citing Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007). Plaintiff’s cardiac condition and diabetes were treated with routine medication refills and a stem cell treatment he pursued in Mexico (AR 28, 371, 770, 854 (“feels overall much better now;” “blood sugars are much better controlled now;” “shortness of breath, fatigue, and leg swelling has improved completely”)). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (ALJ may consider the effectiveness of medication); Warre v. Comm’r, 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th. Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ evaluating symptom severity to consider whether prescription medication alleviates pain and supports daily activities without adverse side effects.

Hardy v. Saul · filed 2021-09-24(c)(3)(iv)

The record also indicates that Plaintiff’s prescription medications are at least partially effective in alleviating her pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); SSR 16-3p, 81 Fed. Reg. 14166 at 14169. For example, in June 2016, Plaintiff reported that her medications, including Norco, Flexeril, and Topamax, were helpful for her pain and activities of daily living. (Doc. 11 at 225; see also id. at 230). More recent treatment notes from Dr. Gray similarly reflect that Plaintiff’s medications are helpful for her pain and daily activities, and that Plaintiff experiences no adverse side effects from her medications. (See id. at 865, 869, 874, 877-78, 881). ... Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did address her statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her pain and other alleged symptoms in accordance with the proper standards and found that the statements were not fully consistent with the evidence of record. After making this finding, the ALJ discussed the evidence in detail and articulated several valid reasons for the determination, which are supported by substantial record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of medication effectiveness when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, but requires consideration of the entire record rather than isolated treatment notes.

Pedersen v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-24(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication and improvement with other treatment are factors an ALJ may consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.73 However, the ALJ “must consider the entire record as a whole and may not affirm simply by isolating a ‘specific quantum of supporting evidence.’”74 Here, the ALJ cited four treatment records to conclude that Plaintiff’s reports to providers that her pain was well controlled through medication was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony about the severity of her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment and pain medication when evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms.

Atkin v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-04(c)(3)(iv)

Additionally, the ALJ found inconsistencies with Plaintiff’s symptoms and the relief that Plaintiff reported receiving through treatment and the use of pain medications. (Tr. 15; Tr. 19; Tr. 539, Tr. 546, Tr. 607, Tr. 617, Tr. 774, Tr. 882); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (an ALJ must consider the effectiveness of treatment); see Diaz v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 898 F.2d 774, 777 (10th Cir. 1990) (symptom evaluation “determinations are peculiarly the province of the finder of fact, and we will not upset such determinations when supported by substantial evidence.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, and improvement with treatment may support discounting allegations of disabling symptoms.

Medeiros v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-08(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), 416.913(c)(3); see Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040 (a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably found Plaintiff’s symptoms when treated were not as severe as Plaintiff claimed. This was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom reports.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, but an ALJ must accurately evaluate the extent of any pain relief shown by the treatment record.

Powers v. Saul · filed 2021-11-04(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (2011); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations). ... While the ALJ identified evidence from the record showing that Plaintiff was experiencing pain relief from his treatments, the ALJ erred in several respects.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to use conservative treatment, effective symptom relief, and exercise among the factors for assessing alleged pain severity.

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

Substantial evidence supports that determination. ALJ Crockett noted that Plaintiff’s treatment was generally conservative. (R. at 20.) That is a fair characterization of Plaintiff’s treatment plan, which included prescriptions for pain medications and a TENS unit but did not involve surgeries. ALJ Crockett also noted that Plaintiff consistently reported that her TENS unit provided her with good relief. (R. at 20.) And the record indeed reflects that Plaintiff regularly made such reports. (R. at 780, 774, 768, 762, 757, 752, 747, 741, 735, 729.) ALJ Crockett also considered that Plaintiff reported that she was doing walking and stretching exercises to relieve her hip pain. (R. at 20.) That too accurately reflects the record evidence. (R. at 735.)

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of medication effectiveness and side effects, but symptom improvement offers only limited support unless the improvement bears on the ability to function in the workplace.

(SS) Champ v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-21(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). ... On the other hand, the ALJ does not make a finding that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved to the point that she would be able to function in the workplace. As the Ninth Circuit indicated, “That a person who suffers from severe panic attacks, anxiety, and depression makes some improvement does not mean that the person's impairments no longer seriously affect her ability to function in a workplace.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, this factor offers only limited support for the ALJ’s decision to reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

Under section 404.1529(c)(3), substantial evidence of effective treatment may provide a specific, clear, and convincing reason to discount subjective symptom testimony.

Dondia Marcelleas Lark v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-05(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). Accordingly, substantial evidence of effective treatment may provide a specific, clear, and convincing reason to discount a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of conservative and effective treatment, but the ALJ must address continuing symptom frequency and severity despite partial treatment response.

Laude v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-27(c)

While I mostly agree with the Commissioner on this issue, the ALJ’s analysis does contain one significant gap. As discussed above, while plaintiff told providers her headache medication was at least somewhat effective, she continued to report two to four migraines per month. The ALJ must on remand address the frequency and severity of plaintiff’s headaches. See Meuser v. Colvin, 838 F.3d 905, 913 (7th Cir. 2016) (noting that there can be a great distance between a patient who responds to treatment and one who is able to enter the workforce).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as important symptom evidence, but improvement must be weighed within the overall diagnostic picture rather than isolated symptom-free periods.

Gusman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-04(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits consideration of medication type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects when evaluating symptoms.

B v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-11(c)(3)(iv)

Second, the record shows that Plaintiff’s symptoms improved when he was compliant with treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, factors including the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms is considered).

Under section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), conservative treatment supports discounting symptoms only when the treatment is effective.

York v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-23(c)(3)(iv)

However, the treatment must be effective. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (evaluating the effectiveness of medication and treatment and not whether treatment is aggressive or conservative).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits consideration of medication effectiveness when evaluating symptoms.

Mcclure v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-09(c)(3)(iv)

If an impairment can be controlled by treatment or medication, it cannot be considered disabling. ... See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) (explaining the agency considers the “effectiveness” of medication when evaluating symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider how effectively treatment controls a claimant’s symptoms when evaluating their alleged severity.

Lazzaroni v. Saul · filed 2022-06-22(c)(3)

The ALJ is certainly permitted to consider the effectiveness of treatments in determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ cited several instances in the medical record where Plaintiff had normal findings and reported relief from the injections. While Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s interpretation of that evidence – arguing that the relief was temporary and does not necessarily indicate an ability to perform full-time work – the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record and a reasonable mind could find that the evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of medication and other treatment when determining symptom severity.

Hale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-25(c)(3)

An ALJ may consider the effectiveness of treatment in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Hale’s migraine headaches were not severe.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ evaluating symptom severity to consider a claimant's course of treatment, including conservative treatment and medication management.

Pierce v. Saul · filed 2022-11-08(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 her mild to moderate symptoms with conservative treatment and psychotropic medication management.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) permits an ALJ to treat symptom improvement with medication or other treatment as a reason to discount allegations of disabling severity.

(SS) Woodworth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-08(c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(v)

In evaluating a claimant’s claimed symptoms, an ALJ may find a plaintiff less credible when their symptoms can be controlled by treatment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)–(v). ... As there is substantial evidence of Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment, this is yet another clear and convincing reason for discounting his subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider whether medication or other treatment controls the alleged impairment.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-13(c)(3)

The ALJ may consider “whether the claimant takes medication or undergoes other treatment for the symptoms.” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1040; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). “Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.”

Treatment and medication effectiveness are relevant to symptom severity, and successful symptom relief may undermine a claim of disability.

(SS) Besson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-29(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication or treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); 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.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of medication and other treatment, and substantial partial relief from injections and medication may support discounting allegedly disabling symptom severity.

Stein v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

However, the ALJ may consider “whether the claimant takes medication or undergoes other treatment for the symptoms.” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1040; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). “Impairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling.” ... Plaintiff pointed out that she received 30% to 50% and upwards of 70% improvement with her medications and injections. ... However, based upon the medical evidence, the record clearly shows that Plaintiff exhibited vast improvement with her prescribed treatment plans and received significant pain relief from her impairments. ... Therefore, the Court finds the ALJ did not err in rejecting Plaintiff’s pain and symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits documented improvement from medication and other effective therapies to undermine symptom allegations even when some evidence shows continuing pain.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

The ALJ also relied on Plaintiff’s effective treatment records. ... The medical records the ALJ relied on report, “[Plaintiff] states that she is doing better on the 30mg Cymbalta plus gabapentin [and] is having less joint pains and leg pains” as well as that her “symptoms are improving.” ... The ALJ also explained that treatments such as Plaintiff’s “complete decongestive therapy,” compression pump, and Orthovisc injections to the knees all proved effective means to mitigate Plaintiff’s symptoms. ... Nonetheless, when “evidence exists to support more than one rational interpretation,” as is the case here, the court “must defer to the Commissioner’s decision.” ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination that Plaintiff’s effective treatment undermined her subjective complaints is another clear and convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment when evaluating the alleged severity of symptoms.

Soetaert v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-08-22(c)(3)(iv)

Additionally, the ALJ considered whether the record demonstrates that Plaintiff received effective medical treatment. As the factfinder, an ALJ may consider whether treatment was effective. 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). ... Not only did Plaintiff contradict her medical record, but she did so by claiming to have not received effective treatment. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff is exaggerating the severity of her symptoms. Once again, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes the effectiveness of treatment relevant when evaluating symptom testimony, and improvement with conservative treatment may support discounting alleged disabling symptoms.

Garza v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-11(c)(3)(iv)

Further, the effectiveness of medical treatment is a relevant factor to consider in evaluating Plaintiff’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (effectiveness of medical treatment). Improvement with conservative treatment is a convincing reason to discount an allegation of disabling symptoms. Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1040. ... The Court finds the ALJ identified records and evidence that conflicted with Plaintiff’s statements. The records discussed by the ALJ show that Plaintiff’s condition and other impairments had significantly improved with treatment, even though he occasionally experienced flare ups and some fatigue. ... These records are incongruent with Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling fatigue and functional abilities and, thus, establish a specific, clear, and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s symptom statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of treatment relevant to assessing the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, but an ALJ’s finding that symptoms were stable and responsive to treatment must be supported by substantial evidence from the record as a whole.

Ruiz-Sehnert o/b/o Amy Moreno v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-08(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (2011); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (determining that conditions effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits); 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). ... The ALJ’s discussion of the evidence largely overlooks or minimizes findings supporting Plaintiff’s allegations. Tr. 2469-71. Thus, this is not a clear and convincing reason supported by substantial evidence.

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

(SS) Baer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-13(c)(3)

In addition, the ALJ considered that while Plaintiff had been diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea, it was treated with a continuous positive airway pressure device. AR 21, 23, 847. The effectiveness of medication or treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3); 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.”).

Section 404.1529(c) makes the effectiveness of treatment relevant to evaluating symptom severity, but improvement in one source of pain alone does not justify discounting all claimed pain symptoms.

(SS) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-18(c)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant's symptoms. ... However, as noted by Plaintiff, the ALJ failed to address Plaintiff’s reports of neck pain after cervical fusion surgery. ... Moreover, regardless of improvement in Plaintiff’s neck pain immediately post-surgery, the ALJ fails to offer any evidence of improvement in Plaintiff’s complaints of severe shoulder pain. Thus, any purported improvement in Plaintiff’s neck pain post-surgery, standing alone, does not constitute substantial evidence to discount the entirety of his subjective pain complaints. This was not a clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, to discount his symptom claims.

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

Herrera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(c)(3)(iv)

Regarding medication, evidence of conservative treatment successfully relieving symptoms can serve as a clear and convincing reason for discounting a plaintiff’s testimony. 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 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 553 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(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of medication or treatment relevant to evaluating symptom severity, but isolated improvement does not justify discounting symptoms without sustained improvement in the overall record.

(SS) Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-02(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication or 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); 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.”); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”); accord Evans v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:22-cv-435-KJN, 2023 WL 3570083, at *10 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2023) (concluding ALJ properly rejected plaintiff’s severe symptom testimony based, in part, on findings that medication controlled some of her mental health symptoms). However, the Ninth Circuit has cautioned that ALJs err where they rely on individual points of improvement rather than a record of sustained improvement. ... Given that the record does not reflect sustained improvement, and includes at least two hospitalizations for Plaintiff’s mental health impairments during the relevant period, effective treatment was not an appropriate basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of medication or other treatment relevant when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Pedroza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-25(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication or 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); 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.”). Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s impairments had been “responsive to treatment when she is compliant and do not impose a disabling degree of limitation.” AR 21.

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor under Section 404.1529(c)(3) when determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Moore v. Saul · filed 2022-03-10(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a ... claimant’s symptoms.

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

Velazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(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), 461.929(c)(3), and a claimant’s improvement with treatment undermines a claim of disability.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment when evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms.

Fordyce v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-09(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ was, of course, permitted to consider the effectiveness of treatment in evaluating plaintiff’s subjective allegations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); Lambert v. Berryhill, 896 F.3d 768, 777 (7th Cir. 2018).

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

Watkins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-28(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).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) allows consideration of a claimant’s treatment and its effectiveness when evaluating symptoms.

Burtis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-20(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (ALJ properly considers the claimant's treatment modalities and their effectiveness).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes treatment effectiveness relevant to symptom severity, but isolated improvement does not establish that a claimant’s symptoms have ceased to limit functioning.

Vanderlin v. Saul · filed 2020-08-07(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); ... Based on this record, improvement with treatment was not a clear and convincing reason to discredit Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider medication effectiveness when evaluating symptoms, but pain relief after surgery alone did not justify rejecting the claimant’s statements.

(SS) Zazueta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s 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). ... Consequently, to the extent the ALJ attempts to reject Plaintiff’s statements by relying only on the treatment received and its effectiveness after her surgery in 2017, the ALJ erred in her evaluation.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv–v) allows an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

I. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-03(c)(3)(iv–v)

While 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), “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.

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Clyburn v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-19(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).

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

Boggs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-10(c)(3)(iv)

With respect to the ALJ’s third reason, a finding that a claimant’s condition improved with treatment can serve as a clear and convincing reason for discounting his testimony. 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); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability).

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

(SS)Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24(c)

First, the effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant's symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s reports of improvement in joint and knee pain, without considering Plaintiff’s continual reports of back pain and headaches, or indeed any consideration of her hearing testimony or the “severe” pain reported to treating providers, does not rise to the level of substantial evidence to support wholesale discounting of her symptom claims because of alleged improvement with routine treatment.

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

Lager v. O'Malley · filed 2023-08-21(c)(3)(iv)

The efficacy of Plaintiff’s treatment is also relevant to symptom evaluation.

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

Alexander v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-18(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of medication effectiveness when evaluating symptoms; temporary relief that does not show a condition was controlled cannot justify discounting a claimant’s statements.

(SS) Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-25(c)

Evaluating a claimant’s statements, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The Court is unable to find the ALJ identified evidence showing Plaintiff conditions were under control—or that Plaintiff indicated such a belief to her physicians—based upon the record. As a result, the effectiveness of Plaintiff’s treatment is not a clear and convincing reason supporting the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of how effective a claimant’s treatment is, including how long it relieves symptoms.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-25(c)(3)

By mentioning only the portion of the treatment record that stated the Emgality controlled her headaches when determining the RFC, the ALJ failed to address evidence about the extent of its effectiveness or otherwise explain how the evidence regarding the short-term relief of her migraines was more persuasive.

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

Behnke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-01(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication and treatment are relevant to the evaluation of a claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). However, the ALJ’s interpretation is likewise not substantially supported by the record. ... Therefore, in rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ erred.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi) permits an ALJ to treat successful relief from medication or other treatment as evidence undermining a claim of disabling symptom severity.

Meline v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-09(c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(v), (c)(3)(vi)

Evidence for medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(vi); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017). ... The ALJ did so by referring to the inconsistency between plaintiff’s testimony about hand and arm limitations and the medical evidence, indications of medical improvement, and plaintiff’s activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication effectiveness and permits symptom improvement on medication to support discounting subjective complaints.

STEWARD v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)(iv)

Improvement while on medication is a valid reason to discount subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (ALJ must consider effectiveness of medication). ... Since the ALJ’s opinion regarding Steward’s subjective symptoms is supported by substantial evidence, and since the role of this court is not to reweigh the evidence, Steward’s claim fails.

Section 404.1529 directs an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider relevant evidence and factors including daily activities, treatment frequency, inconsistencies and conflicts, and medication use.

Potts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-10(c)(3), (c)(3)(v), (c)(4), (c)(3)(iv)

In assessing Plaintiff’s subjective allegations, ALJ Hall properly applied the two-part test set forth in Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847, 853 (6th Cir. 1986). ALJ Hall determined there was objective medical evidence of underlying medical conditions but the reported pain and other symptoms suggested impairments of greater severity than could be shown by objective medical evidence (Tr. 110-16). Therefore, ALJ Hall appropriately considered other information and factors that may be relevant to the degree of pain and other symptoms alleged by Plaintiff (Tr. 112-16). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For example, ALJ Hall considered Plaintiff’s level of daily activity and concluded it did not substantiate the purported degree of pain and other symptoms alleged by Plaintiff (Id.). ALJ Hall also considered the frequency Plaintiff sought treatment for the allegedly disabling conditions in assessing her subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). ALJ Hall assessed whether there were any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between Plaintiff’s subjective statements and the rest of the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ALJ Hall also addressed the medications used to alleviate the alleged pain and other symptoms as well as the frequency of their use by Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider specified evidence and factors when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-21

As required by § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, the ALJ considered the objective medical evidence; the course of treatment; the findings of the various doctors on physical exams; plaintiff’s own statements to his treating doctors; his daily activities; and the medical opinions.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and effects of a claimant’s symptoms and to consider inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the evidence.

Sutterfield v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-10-25(c)(4)

If a claimant satisfies the first part of the test, the ALJ must evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work. ... While evaluating the evidence, the ALJ must consider whether inconsistencies exist within the evidence or between the claimant’s statements and the evidence, including his history, medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other sources about how his symptoms affect him. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) & 416.929(c)(4). ... The court finds that the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence and this argument is without merit.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then to evaluate their intensity and persistence using available medical and nonmedical evidence to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Bennett v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-27(a), (b), (c)

Pursuant to Social Security regulation, the ALJ must “consider all [the claimant’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [those] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 40 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). First, the ALJ must determine whether “a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.” 40 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). “Medical signs and laboratory findings, established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, must show the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. If medical signs or laboratory findings show a medically determinable impairment that could produce the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ “must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [the claimant’s] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 40 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms, the ALJ “consider[s] all of the available evidence from [the claimant’s] medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [the claimant].” Id. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that the ALJ met the requirements under the regulation.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating symptoms, but an ALJ may not draw a negative inference from gaps in treatment without first exploring the claimant’s reasons.

Matthews v. Saul · filed 2019-11-01(c)(3)(v)

Although the regulations expressly permit the ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment history, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), the ALJ – as Claimant asserts – drew a negative inference from Claimant’s failure to seek more frequent treatment without first exploring his reasons for not doing so. This was error, particularly given that the ALJ was aware of a possible reason (namely, that Claimant’s insurer would not authorize payment for Provigil – the medication that Claimant’s physician repeatedly recommended (R.22)) why Claimant might have felt that more frequent treatment would have been futile notwithstanding his worsening symptoms.

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

Szczurek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-01(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, an ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See, e.g., Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 573 F. App’x 540, 542 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2014); Massey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 409 F. App’x 917, 821 (6th Cir. 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). See also SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms using the case record and specified factors, including daily activities, treatment, medication, and inconsistencies.

HEDGLIN v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-11-05(c)

In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, the ALJ will examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record. ... The ALJ will also consider daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), 416.929(c). The ALJ will also look at inconsistencies between the claimant's statements and the evidence presented. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints to consider the claimant’s prior work record as one factor among many.

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-12(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain, an ALJ is required, under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), to consider a claimant’s “prior work record” as a factor; it is only one of many factors, however, considered in evaluating subjective complaints.

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

Robinson v. Saul · filed 2019-11-13(c)

An ALJ’s analysis should consider the claimant’s daily activities; the frequency and intensity of his symptoms; the dosage and side effects of medications; non-medication treatment; factors that aggravate the condition; and functional restrictions that result from or are used to treat the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the listed factors, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication and side effects, treatment, and other measures.

Elek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-15(c)(3)

However, the ALJ failed to consider any of the other factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Specifically, the ALJ failed to “explain the inconsistencies” between Tatjana E.’s activities of daily living, her complaints of pain, and the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom intensity and persistence using the record and relevant factors such as daily activities, treatment, work history, and inconsistencies when determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Nills v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-15

Although the ALJ did not expressly cite to Polaski, the ALJ conducted an analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and considered factors such as Nills’s daily activities, the duration and frequency of Nills’s pain, Nills’s relevant work history, and inconsistencies in the record. ... By doing so, the ALJ determined Nills’s RFC and provided “good reasons” to discredit Nills’s subjective complaints. Thus, the court finds the ALJ did not err in his credibility determination.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom testimony and permits consideration of objective medical evidence, but does not allow a negative credibility finding based solely on the absence of objective support.

Rounds v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-21(a), (c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence, treatment history, healthcare providers' findings, a claimant's statements, daily activities, and medical opinions when evaluating symptoms.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-22

As required by § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, the ALJ considered the objective medical evidence; the course of treatment; the findings of the healthcare providers on mental exams; plaintiff’s own statements to her treaters; her daily activities; and the medical opinions.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s symptoms using all available evidence and to accept alleged functional limitations only to the extent they are consistent with the objective and other evidence.

Riesberg v. Saul · filed 2019-11-26(a)-(d)

The ALJ first considers whether the claimant suffers from "medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant's] symptoms." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) to (c)(1). A medically determinable impairment must be demonstrated by medical signs or laboratory evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If this step is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant's symptoms to determine how they limit the claimant's ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). This again requires the ALJ to review all available evidence, including statements by the claimant, "objective medical evidence," and "other evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) to (3). The ALJ then considers the claimant's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms, and evaluates them in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence. § 404.1529(c)(4). Ultimately, symptoms will be determined to diminish the claimant's capacity for basic work activities, and thus impact the claimant's RFC, "to the extent that [the claimant's] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms . . . can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence." Id.; § 404.1529(d)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ, when a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce pain, to evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant's symptoms to determine how they limit the claimant's capacity to work and to consider all available evidence.

Vaughn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-12-09(c)(1)

If the ALJ determines that a claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his pain, he must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine if they limit his capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(1). The ALJ should consider all available evidence in making this determination. Id.

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

Mims v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-08(c)(4)

After careful consideration of the evidence, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the evidence of record. (Tr. 43–45.) See SSR 96–7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *2 (“whenever the individual’s statements . . . [regarding her] symptoms are not substantiated by objective medical evidence, the adjudicator must make a finding on the credibility of the individual’s statements based on a consideration of the entire case record”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). An “ALJ's findings regarding the debilitating effect of the subjective complaints are entitled to considerable judicial deference.” James v. Bowen, 793 F.2d 702, 706 (5th Cir. 1986). As noted previously, the ALJ here reasonably found that Plaintiff’s subjective claims of “very poor” vision were not supported by the objective medical evidence and therefore did not warrant the inclusion of visual limitations in the RFC. (See Tr. 45.)

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits a claimant's daily activities to be considered in assessing the nature and severity of the claimant's symptoms.

Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-17(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ indirectly attacked the treating physicians’ opinions by implicitly juxtaposing Kerr’s participation in activities of daily living with their opinions that she was unable to work because of physical and emotional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (daily activities may be useful to assess nature and severity of claimant's symptoms); see also Walters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 532 (6th Cir. 1997) (“An ALJ may also consider household and social activities engaged in by the claimant in evaluating a claimant's assertions of pain or ailments”).

Section 404.1529 permits an adjudicator to consider a claimant’s daily activities, together with the other evidence, when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(c)(3)(i)

“[I]t is entirely appropriate for an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities in assessing her credibility and capacity to perform work-related activities.” ... Here, the ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s engagement in a variety of routine activities. ... Rather, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s daily activities along with the other medical and opinion evidence in formulating an RFC that “is for work with no public contact, restricted supervisory contact, and limited exposure to stress,” R. at 23; see also Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Cir. 2013) (affirming decision in which “ALJ also relied on [claimant’s] Daily Activities Questionnaire on which she indicated that she performed numerous daily tasks, such as walking her dogs and cleaning her house, that are consistent with a residual capacity to perform light work”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider whether a claimant's symptom allegations are consistent with the evidence, including conservative treatment, and to discount the alleged severity when the treatment is relatively mild.

Chrisp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(c)(4)

Evidence of conservative treatment is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment. See Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 750–51 (9th Cir.2007); see also Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir.1999) (rejecting subjective pain complaints where petitioner’s “claim that she experienced pain approaching the highest level imaginable was inconsistent with the ‘minimal, conservative treatment’ that she received”). The ALJ noted there is no indication that Plaintiff has been considered for spinal surgery and that her treatment has primarily consisted of prescription medications, heat therapy, and stretching exercises. Tr. 26, 302, 306, 311. Plaintiff does not challenge this finding, and the ALJ properly considered the relatively mild treatment received by Plaintiff in evaluating her symptoms claims. This is a specific, clear and convincing reason supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats a claimant’s pattern of daily living as an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of symptoms, allowing an ALJ to consider daily activities when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms.

Gaudette v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-16(c)(3)

It was proper for the ALJ to consider Plaintiff’s daily activities in assessing how supported Welch’s opinions are, as the regulations provide that a claimant’s “pattern of daily living” is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see Rusin v. Berryhill, 726 F. App’x 837, 839 (2d Cir. 2018) (finding that ALJ did not err in declining to afford controlling weight to physician’s opinion in part because opinion was inconsistent with claimant’s “reported activities of daily living”).

Section 404.1529(c) directs the ALJ to consider objective medical evidence, the claimant’s statements, statements from others, and other relevant factors, including daily activities, when assessing symptom severity.

Vitt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-11-09(c)(3)(i)

Here, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ’s decision shows that he considered the objective medical evidence, Plaintiff’s statements and statements from other individuals, and other factors under the regulation, 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c). ... The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s daily activities in discounting the severity of her symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (the ALJ is to consider activities of daily living when assessing Plaintiff’s symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the amount of treatment an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, permitting conservative treatment to weigh against disabling symptom allegations unless the claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive care.

Thompson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-28(c)(3)

Routine, conservative treatment can be sufficient to discount a claimant’s subjective testimony regarding 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). ... Whether this is true or not, the ALJ’s position that Plaintiff’s claim that he is bedridden and debilitated by pain for days at a time after doing simple errands cannot be fully credited in light of Plaintiff’s failure to try other types of pain medication or treatment is a clear, convincing reason supported by substantial evidence for giving less than full weight to Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of household and social activities when determining whether alleged pain is disabling.

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

A plaintiff's level of daily activity is a factor which the Administrative Law Judge may consider in determining the extent to which pain is of disabling severity.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires analysis of daily activities and permits an ALJ to find alleged symptom severity inconsistent with significant work, travel, recreation, and household activities.

Cornpeach v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-22(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also observed, in his required analysis of Plaintiff’s activities under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i), that Plaintiff was still able to perform significant daily activities that seemed implausible for someone with the degree of symptoms Plaintiff alleged. ... The ALJ found that these activities suggest Plaintiff was less limited than she said. This finding is reasonable and supported by the record, therefore this court finds that the ALJ decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s retained daily activities when deciding whether the claimant is capable of work.

Belser v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-12-27(c)(3)

The ALJ was permitted to consider these statements when deciding whether Belser was capable of light work during that period.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities in evaluating subjective symptoms, provided activities are one of several factors rather than treated as dispositive by themselves.

Clemow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-28(c)(3)(i)

However, Plaintiff’s daily activity level was but one of several factors that the ALJ considered in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjectively reported symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities as one factor in evaluating subjective statements even though short-duration activities do not necessarily disqualify a claimant from disability.

Lemons v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)(i)

Although a claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not necessarily disqualify the claimant from disability, … that does not mean it is improper for the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities at all.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of regular exercise and other daily activities when evaluating subjective statements, especially when the activities suggest greater functioning than alleged.

MCCUE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-02-17(c)(3)(i)

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s ability to work out on a regular basis when discounting Plaintiff’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits daily activities to be considered as one among several reasons for finding subjective symptom complaints inconsistent with the evidence.

Roland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-18(c)(3)

The ALJ mentioned Roland’s ability to perform household chores and manage her medication as one among several reasons to support his finding that her subjective symptom complaints were inconsistent with the evidence. See Sellards v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:21-cv-1567, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102781, at *28–29 (N.D. Ohio June 8, 2022). The ALJ could, consistent with the regulations, consider it as part of his analysis. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *18.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to be considered with objective medical evidence, but not alone, when evaluating subjective testimony.

Reynolds v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3)(i)

Although an ALJ may not rely on a claimant’s daily activities alone, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating subjective testimony. See Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (listing daily activities as a factor to consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to use daily activities, symptom frequency, medication, treatment, and relief measures to assess symptom severity.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-07(c)(3)

Finally, the ALJ did not err in considering Plaintiff’s ADLs—not in support of the proposition that Plaintiff could work full time, but as evidence that Plaintiff capable of more than her testimony suggested. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(3). ... The ALJ was permitted to consider these factors in determining how much weight to give Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to rely on activities such as driving, shopping, preparing meals, doing laundry, and caring for a pet when assessing whether claimed limitations are as severe as alleged.

Knapp v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2023-10-16(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ reasonably relied on Knapp’s ability to carry out some activities of daily living, such as driving, shopping, fixing meals, doing small loads of laundry, and feeding and caring for her pet dog, in concluding that she was not as limited as she had claimed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Tipton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 847 F. App’x 290, 295 (6th Cir. 2021); O’Brien v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 819 F. App’x 409, 417 (6th Cir. 2020) (collecting cases).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to compare a claimant’s daily activities with allegations of disabling symptoms when evaluating consistency with the record as a whole.

Abdallah v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)(i)

Next, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s statements were not entirely consistent with her reported activities. Tr. 29. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (An ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the consistency of allegations of disability with the record as a whole.); see also Ewing v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-68S, 2018 WL 6060484, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2018) (“Indeed, the Commissioner’s regulations expressly identify ‘daily activities’ as a factor the ALJ should consider in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(i)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to compare routine cooking, cleaning, shopping, and childcare with alleged disabling limitations.

Olkowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-13(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also properly considered Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (An ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the consistency of allegations of disability with the record as a whole.).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits use of travel, sports, social activity, and other daily activities when evaluating the consistency of claimed limitations.

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

The ALJ also properly considered Plaintiff’s wide range of daily activities of daily. Tr. 26. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (An ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the consistency of allegations of disability with the record as a whole.).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to support a nonseverity or adverse symptom finding when they contradict the alleged limitations.

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

The ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff did not have a severe mental impairment is also supported by Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, which the ALJ noted were “essentially normal.” Tr. 17. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (An ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the consistency of allegations of disability with the record as a whole.).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to use daily activities when evaluating the consistency of disability allegations with the whole record.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-15(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities in evaluating the consistency of allegations of disability with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits daily activities to support a finding about social interaction when they conflict with the alleged restriction.

Almarawi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-08(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also properly considered Plaintiff’s daily activities in support of his finding that Plaintiff was not restricted in his ability to interact with others, as Dr. Thomas opined.

Section 404.1529(a) treats statements about a claimant’s daily activities as evidence to consider when evaluating symptoms.

Blackmon v. Chater · filed 1997-02-28(a)

Further, statements regarding daily activities are evidence to be considered under the Secretary’s regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a); 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as one factor when evaluating the limiting effects of symptoms.

ROACH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-09-21(c)(3)

The ALJ committed no error by considering, as one factor in his analysis, these activities, which are not indicative of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(3) (“Consideration of other evidence”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires the adjudicator to assess how far a claimant's alleged functional limitations and restrictions can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the evidence.

O'DONNELL v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-10-21(a)

The ALJ did not utilize the wrong legal standard when he described O’Donnell’s allegations as “not fully consistent with her treatment notes.” R. at 26. He was required to assess “the extent to which [O’Donnell’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions . . . [could] reasonably be accepted as consistent” with the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to compare a claimant’s statements about symptom intensity and persistence with objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Leigh v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-12(c)(4)

The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s non-severe mental limitations throughout the sequential evaluation process and contrasted those limitations with other findings from the relevant time frame showing that Plaintiff exhibited normal mental status, insight, judgment, orientation, concentration, mood and affect.

Section 404.1529’s standard asks whether subjective complaints can reasonably be accepted as consistent with medical and other evidence; describing allegations as “not entirely consistent” does not apply a heightened clear-and-convincing evidence standard.

Williams v. SAUL · filed 2021-11-12(a), (c)(4)

Williams’s argument that the ALJ applied the “clear and convincing” evidence standard by finding her allegations “not entirely consistent” is unpersuasive and meritless.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) permit consideration of daily activities, treatment frequency, medication, and inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Payne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-17(c)(3)–(4)

A plaintiff's level of daily activity is a factor which the Administrative Law Judge may consider in determining the extent to which pain is of disabling severity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993); Blacha v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 927 F.2d 228, 231 (6th Cir. 1990) (As a matter of law, the Administrative Law Judge may consider household and social activities in evaluating complaints of disabling pain.). Also considered in assessing their complaints is the frequency that a claimant has sought treatment for their impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v). Additionally, another factor that may be considered is 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 . . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Sections 404.1529(c) and (d) require evaluation of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects, including inconsistencies between claimant statements and medical or other evidence.

Lane v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-01-31(c)–(d)

If a claimant satisfies the first part of the test, the ALJ must evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) & (d); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(c) & (d). While evaluating the evidence, the ALJ must consider whether inconsistencies exist within the evidence or between the claimant’s statements and the evidence, including his history, medical signs and laboratory findings, along with statements by medical or other sources about how his symptoms affect him. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) & 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of reported symptoms and whether they are reasonably consistent with objective and other evidence.

Moore v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-28(a)

The regulations and Social Security Ruling 16-3p require consideration of the reported symptoms and the extent to which they “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and the other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis; allegations alone do not establish disability, objective evidence cannot be the sole rejection ground, and inconsistencies may be considered.

Colter v. Saul · filed 2022-03-10(a)–(c)

There is a two-step process to determine “whether a claimant’s symptoms affect her ability to perform basic work activities.” Callaway, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 297 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). ... A claimant’s allegations alone do not establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. While an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about pain “solely because they are not substantiated by objective medical evidence,” the ALJ may consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1004–1005.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess symptoms for reasonable consistency with objective and other evidence when formulating residual functional capacity.

Beckett v. Saul · filed 2022-03-18

In making these factual findings regarding Beckett’s RFC, the ALJ considered her symptoms and the extent to which they could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304.

Section 404.1529 permits symptom frequency, intensity, and duration to affect residual functional capacity only to the extent consistent with other record evidence.

Southworth v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-21

A plaintiff’s statements about the frequency, intensity, and duration of her symptoms will only impact her RFC to the extent they are consistent with other evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (describing the Commissioner’s process for evaluating subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529 requires symptoms to be assessed for reasonable consistency with objective and other evidence when formulating residual functional capacity.

Niemczyk v. Colvin · filed 2022-03-25

In making these factual findings regarding Niemczyk’s RFC, the ALJ considered his symptoms and the extent to which they could reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record. See generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Soc. Sec. Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (revised Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529 permits discounting alleged symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects where the evidence does not fully support them.

STRUCICH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-31

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s allegations about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of his symptoms where the evidence does not fully support those allegations, and “need only include in the RFC those limitations which he finds to be credible.” Salles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec, 229 F. App’x 140, 147 (3d Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of reported symptoms and their reasonable consistency with objective and other evidence.

Asbury v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-29(a)

The regulations and Social Security Ruling 16-3p require consideration of the reported symptoms and the extent to which they “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and the other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires all symptoms to be assessed for reasonable consistency with objective and other evidence when determining RFC.

Mallory v. Social Security · filed 2022-05-23

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all of the 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 and 416.929; SSRs 96-4p, 96-7p.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) permit reduced weight for symptom complaints inconsistent with medical and other evidence.

Anderson v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-05-24(c)(2)–(3)

The ALJ explained the reason for discount: Anderson’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely credible because they were inconsistent with medical and other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (3).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of objective evidence, daily activities, and inconsistencies when evaluating disabling symptoms.

Martin v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-26(c)

To determine the credibility of allegations of disabling symptoms, an ALJ may consider factors including objective medical evidence, daily activities, and any inconsistencies between the allegations and the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires symptoms to be assessed for reasonable consistency with objective and other evidence.

Bingham v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-09

The other limitations are likewise supported. As the ALJ noted, Plaintiff’s mental status examinations were largely within normal limits, which is inconsistent with her complaints of disabling symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (“we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence”).

Although an ALJ must carefully consider a claimant’s symptom statements, Section 404.1529(a) does not require the ALJ to credit them beyond the extent that they are reasonably consistent with objective evidence.

DICASTANADO v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-06-28(a)

She concluded Mr. Dicastanado’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause his symptoms, but his statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. She accepted Mr. Dicastanado’s statements as to his condition only to the extent as they can be reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective evidence. ... She explained why she discounted Mr. Dicastanado’s subjective reports. While “‘any statements of the individual concerning his … symptoms must be carefully considered,’ … the [administrative law judge] is not required to credit them.” ... We overrule Mr. Dicastanado’s objection.

Once an impairment capable of producing symptoms is shown, Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires assessing symptom intensity, persistence, and work limits against objective evidence and claimant and medical-source statements, including inconsistencies with the rest of the record.

Fleagle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-21(c)(1)

If the record shows the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her symptoms,” the ALJ must assess the “intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work” in light of the objective medical evidence and statements by the claimant and their doctors. See Costigan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 603 F. App’x 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). The ALJ must also examine the claimant’s testimony in relation to the other evidence to ascertain whether there are any “inconsistencies or conflicts between those statements and the record.” Id. ... The ALJ articulated why he did not credit Dr. Abbott’s opinion about the extent of Fleagle’s limitations by referring to conflicting observations in Fleagle’s medical records, including notes that Dr. Abbott made during her visits, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c), and the ALJ relied on apparent discrepancies between Fleagle’s testimony, self-report, and allegations to bolster his findings, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); Costigan, 603 F. App’x at 786. As a result, the court cannot disturb the ALJ’s decision on this ground.

Section 404.1529(a) asks whether claimed symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the evidence; it does not require the symptoms to be entirely consistent with the evidence.

Kuczero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(a)

The ALJ’s statement and presumption that symptoms need to be “entirely consistent” with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record “is inconsistent with the governing regulations,” which require the ALJ “to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms and determine ‘the extent to which [ ] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.’” Brenda L. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21CV859, 2022 WL 2763561, at *7 (N.D. Ind. July 15, 2022) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

The phrase ‘not entirely consistent’ does not impose an improper evidentiary standard when the ALJ partially credits symptom statements as required by § 404.1529(a)’s inquiry into the extent of consistency with the record.

BAUZA-LOPEZ v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-12-20(a)

Instead, the ALJ merely accepted in part – but not completely – Bauza’s statements about her symptoms and limitations. This is consistent with the requirement in the regulations that an ALJ determine the extent to which a claimant’s subjective complaints are consistent with the other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires evaluation of symptom statements for consistency with other evidence.

Beamon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-22(c)(4)

The ALJ must evaluate the credibility of claimant’s own subjective statements about the severity of their symptoms in relation to the other evidence in the record, i.e., whether the statements are consistent with the other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

After an impairment is shown capable of producing the alleged symptoms, § 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires evaluation of the symptom factors followed by comparison of the claimant’s statements with the evidence and consideration of inconsistencies.

Baker v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-06-12(c)(3)-(4)

Once the plaintiff establishes that she has an impairment that one could reasonably expect would produce her alleged symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate “(1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the ‘duration, frequency, and intensity’ of the claimant’s symptoms; (3) ‘[p]recipitating and aggravating factors’; (4) the effectiveness and side effects of any medications; and (5) treatment or other measures taken by the claimant to alleviate symptoms.” Nye, 524 F. App’x at 543 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3)). Then, the ALJ evaluates the plaintiff’s statements in light of the evidence and considers any inconsistencies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... In doing so, the ALJ provided a sufficient rationale linking his conclusion to the record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) makes subjective complaints relevant but does not require accepting them without question; the ALJ may compare their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects with objective evidence, daily activities, and opinion evidence.

PEDDER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-06-29(c)(4)

However, while a claimant’s testimony regarding his subjective complaints is certainly relevant, an ALJ is not under an obligation to simply accept what the claimant said without question. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Chandler, 667 F.3d at 363. Although the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s conditions could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, he found that Plaintiff’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms were not entirely consistent with the evidence. He proceeded to discuss at significant length the objective medical evidence, including Dr. Fowler’s records, Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, and the medical opinion evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)’s consistency inquiry is satisfied when the ALJ recounts the claimant’s reported symptoms and evaluates them alongside the remaining record evidence rather than ignoring or disregarding them.

Frame v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-07(c)

The ALJ in this case did not “ignore” or “disregard” Ms. Frame’s reported symptoms; rather, he reiterated them and considered them alongside the remaining evidence in the record, which is exactly the kind of consistency inquiry required under SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount symptom complaints that are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole.

Solorzano v. Saul · filed 2022-02-18(c)(4)

In conclusion, the Court finds the ALJ adequately, if not expressly, applied the Polaski factors and other factors, and sufficiently considered Plaintiff’s complaints of disabling pain and symptoms but expressly discredited them for good cause because they were inconsistent with the evidence as a whole.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider inconsistencies in the evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Begzadic v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-25(c)(4)

Especially given that one could rationally interpret the overall record as indicating either malingering or somatic symptom disorder, it was incumbent on the ALJ to resolve the inconsistencies.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) directs an ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment when assessing a claimant's subjective complaints.

ROMANO-CHICK v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ considered the record evidence of improvement of the Claimant’s symptoms with recommended treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v) (directing the ALJ to consider the effectiveness of treatment in assessing subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, but improvement must be assessed within the overall diagnostic picture.

Lee-Yong v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). For example, “[i]mpairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.” Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006). Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats improvement with treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, but the improvement must be weighed within the overall diagnostic picture.

Lee-Yong v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-11(c)(3)

A claimant’s improvement with treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of . . . symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). For example, “[i]mpairments that can be controlled effectively with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.” Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006). Symptom improvement, however, must be weighed within the context of an “overall diagnostic picture.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1205 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of effective symptom control through treatment when evaluating alleged severity.

Mondragon v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-26(c)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (ALJ properly considered treatment when evaluating symptoms); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (an impairment that can be controlled effectively with treatment is not disabling).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits successful symptom relief from medication and treatment to undermine disability allegations.

Garvey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)(iv)

Regarding the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s symptoms improved with treatment, in appropriate cases this reasoning can serve as a clear and convincing reason for discounting the claimant’s testimony. 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).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of medication and other treatment when evaluating symptoms.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)

The ALJ may consider “whether the claimant takes medication or undergoes other treatment for the symptoms.” Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1040; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Under § 404.1529(c)(2) and (3), documented improvement with treatment may support discounting symptom testimony when substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s interpretation of that improvement.

Delgadillo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-17(c)(2)-(3)

Although Plaintiff argues that her “brief” periods of reprieve following treatment ... do not support a finding that her pain is controlled (Doc. 17 at 23), the Court finds that the ... ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s documented improvement is supported by substantial ... evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of medication or other treatment relevant to the severity of alleged symptoms, and successful relief may undermine a disability claim.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-24(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication or treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); 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.”); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes the effectiveness of medication or treatment relevant to symptom severity, so relief from medication may undermine allegations of disabling symptoms.

(SS) Sheehy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-07(c)(3)

The effectiveness of medication or 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); 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.”); Warre v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 439 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Impairments that can be effectively controlled with medication are not disabling for the purpose of determining eligibility for SSI benefits.”). ... This argument is not wholly persuasive because there is no dispute Plaintiff testified that Xanax helped with her anxiety attacks, (AR 46), and the record includes evidence intimating that not only was her panic disorder an independent disorder, but it also was related to her PTSD.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of a medication’s effectiveness when evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Wise v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(c)

In assessing a claimant’s symptom testimony, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... The fact that plaintiff’s condition improved after treatment compliance is a specific, clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) allows an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints against the evidence rather than accept them without question.

KOONTZ v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-03-27(c)(4)

The Court notes that while a claimant’s testimony regarding his subjective complaints is certainly relevant, an ALJ is not under an obligation to simply accept what the claimant said without question. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Chandler, 667 F.3d at 363. ... In sum, the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s capacity for work to consider the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications the claimant takes or has taken.

Linton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)(iv)

When evaluating a claimant’s capacity for work, the ALJ is required to consider “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or ha[s] taken.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv) (emphasis added).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires an ALJ to consider medication side effects when evaluating allegations of disabling symptoms.

Bussanich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)(iv)

Social Security regulations require an ALJ to consider side effects of medication taken for pain or other symptoms when assessing allegations of disabling symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). ... While the ALJ considered this evidence, he does not appear to have specifically discounted Plaintiff’s statements regarding the side effects of his pain medication or assessed an RFC limitation that would account for Plaintiff’s driving difficulties. ... On remand, the ALJ shall either provide a clear and convincing reason for not including a limitation related to the side effects of Plaintiff’s medication in the RFC, or if crediting Plaintiff’s statements as true, assess the functional impact of such a limitation on Plaintiff’s ability to perform other work at step five.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires consideration of medication side effects, and when a claimant testifies that prescribed medication impairs work ability, the ALJ must elicit testimony and make findings sufficient for review.

Stanford v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-12-09(c)(3)(iv)

Where a claimant testifies that her prescribed medications have a deleterious effect on her ability to work, the ALJ must elicit testimony and make findings on the … claimant’s claim, thereby “making it possible for a reviewing tribunal to know that the claim was not entirely ignored.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider evidence of medication side effects on a claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities.

Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-18(c)(3)

However, although the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “allegations of disabling symptoms and limitations from pain are consistent with th[e] evidence,” R. 20, nowhere did the ALJ expressly consider the side effects, if any, of Plaintiff’s medications on his ability to engage in work-related activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of medication side effects, and the record must permit review of whether dizziness, drowsiness, or other potentially debilitating effects were incorporated into the RFC.

Estrada v. O'Malley · filed 2023-07-12(c)(3)

An ALJ must consider the “side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptom.” ... Here, the ALJ did not expressly address Plaintiff’s testimony or the other evidence in the record indicating that her prescribed medications cause significant dizziness and drowsiness. ... Nor did the ALJ make any inquiries regarding these side effects. This, despite Dr. Vincenty’s medical opinion that the side effects of Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia medication were potentially debilitating. The Court is therefore left without sufficient information to assess whether the ALJ adequately accounted for the side effects of Plaintiff’s medication when crafting the RFC. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) requires evaluation of documented medication side effects and their impact on residual functional capacity.

Royalty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c)(3)(iv)

Based on this record, the ALJ’s decision failed to address plaintiff’s allegation of medication side effects. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv). Accordingly, on remand, the ALJ should also evaluate the extent to which plaintiff’s medication side effects impact his RFC.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of evidence about a claimant’s symptoms, including medication side effects, when evaluating the claimant’s statements.

Gould v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-09-21(c)(3), (4)

When evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s statements regarding the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of her symptoms, the ALJ considers all evidence, objective and subjective. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16–3p, 1996 WL 364186 at *4–5. ... The ALJ was simply incorrect to state that Gould never complained of medication side effects when the records she cited are full of such complaints, and wrong to conclude (if that was her conclusion) that checkboxes indicating Gould denied side effects were representative of the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a two-step evaluation of alleged symptoms: first determining whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce them, then evaluating their intensity, persistence, and effect on work-related activities.

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

When a claimant alleges impairment-related symptoms, a two-step process is used to evaluate those symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); 2017 WL 5180304, * 2-8. First, a determination is made as to whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, e.g., pain. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, * 3-4. Second, once the foregoing is demonstrated, an evaluation of the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms is necessary to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. Id. at * 3, 5-8. ... Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ either overlooked or misconstrued evidence when assessing Teodecki’s subjective allegations of extreme fatigue. Therefore, without a more thorough analysis, the Court is unable to meaningfully assess whether the ALJ’s assessment of Teodecki’s subjective allegations regarding her fatigue and decision finding Teodecki not disabled are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating reported symptoms to consider the claimant’s activities, the type and effectiveness of treatment, and whether the claimant’s statements are consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Griffith v. SSA · filed 2021-07-28(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)-(v), (c)(4)

The ALJ found that objective medical evidence did not support Plaintiff’s reported symptoms. [Tr. 14-15, 17-18]; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[W]e will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence.”). ... The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s reported symptoms were inconsistent with his conservative treatment. [Tr. 14, 17]; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (ALJ considers the type and effectiveness of treatment when evaluating symptoms). ... The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living were inconsistent with his reported symptoms. [Tr. 14-15]; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (ALJ considers a claimant’s activities when evaluating symptoms). ... Here, far more than a mere scintilla of evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s reported symptoms, including his claimed need for a cane.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on work capacity.

Christian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-04(c)(1)

When a claimant alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating these symptoms. See e.g., Massey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 409 F. App’x 917, 921 (6th Cir. 2011). First, the ALJ must determine if there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce a claimant’s symptoms. Second, the ALJ “must evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [those] symptoms limit [the claimant’s] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... The ALJ referenced Christian’s allegations and then contrasted them with the medical evidence, including examination findings, as well as the opinion evidence. (Id.) Reading the decision as a whole, it is clear why the ALJ did not accept the entirety of Christian’s allegations. See SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (the ALJ’s “decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms ... and be clearly articulated so the individual and any subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s symptoms.”). The Court is able to trace the path of the ALJ’s reasoning regarding the ALJ’s subjective symptom analysis. Therefore, the Court finds there is no error in the ALJ’s subjective symptom analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence, after a medically determinable impairment is shown, to determine how the symptoms limit work capacity.

Hall v. Saul · filed 2021-08-13(c)(1)

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). “When the medical signs or laboratory findings show that [the claimant has] a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [her] symptoms, such as pain, [the ALJ] must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms so that [the ALJ] can determine how [her] symptoms limit [her] capacity for work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... The Court finds the ALJ provided a full analysis to support his finding that Hall’s testimony was inconsistent with the record, as well as the analysis to support the conclusion that Hall retained the RFC to perform light work.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating reported symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, treatment noncompliance, the type and effectiveness of treatment, and daily activities.

Griffin v. SSA · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)-(v), (c)(4)

The ALJ found that objective medical evidence was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported symptoms. [Tr. 22]; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[W]e will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence.”); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5 (“[O]bjective medical evidence is a useful indicator to help make reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms . . . .”). ... Next, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s noncompliance with treatment advice called her symptoms into question. [Tr. 22]; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (ALJ considers inconsistencies in the evidence when evaluating symptoms). ... The ALJ also found that the effectiveness of Plaintiff’s conservative treatment was inconsistent with her reported symptoms. [Tr. 22 (“Her treatment has remained very conservative and the record indicates that she is doing well with these treatment measures.”)]; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (ALJ considers the type and effectiveness of treatment when evaluating symptoms); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *9 (“[I]f the . . . extent of the treatment sought by an individual is not comparable with the degree of the individual’s subjective complaints, . . . we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record.”). ... Finally, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s daily activities were not as limited as one might expect, given her claims of extreme symptoms. [Tr. 22]; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (ALJ considers a claimant’s activities when evaluating symptoms). ... In sum, more than the requisite “mere scintilla” of evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the evidence in this case.

Section 404.1529 permits objective medical evidence to be considered but not used alone, allows daily activities to show symptom exaggeration even if they do not prove full-time work capacity, and makes medication and other treatment relevant to assessing symptom duration and frequency.

Golar v. Saul · filed 2021-06-30(c)(2) and (c)(3)(i), (iv)–(v)

The ALJ performed a thorough review of Plaintiff’s medical record and found that it did not fully support Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling conditions. (AR 21-23). 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 a factor that the ALJ was permitted to consider. Id.; see also Burch, 400 F.3d at 681 (“Although lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.”); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (while a claimant’s subjective statements about symptomology “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”). 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 is permitted to consider daily living activities in his credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (daily activities are a relevant factor which will be considered in evaluating symptoms); see also Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In reaching a credibility determination, an ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, and work record, among other factors”). Daily activities may be considered to show that Plaintiff exaggerated his symptoms. See Valentine v. Astrue, 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 2009) (ALJ properly recognized that daily activities “did not suggest [claimant] could return to his old job” but “did suggest that [claimant’s] later claims about the severity of his limitations were exaggerated.”). Although Plaintiff takes issue with this, it was proper for the ALJ to have considered daily living activities in his credibility analysis. See Burch, 400 F.3d at 681. Finally, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s statements concerning her limitations “conflict with the objective medical evidence and other evidence about the duration and frequency of symptoms.” (AR 21, italics added). The ALJ noted that the evidence of record is “replete with examples of the claimant’s improved condition.” (AR 22). Discussing and citing to evidence of improvement throughout the medical record, the ALJ noted that the “duration and frequency of the claimant’s symptoms does not support the level of symptomology that the claimant alleged.” Id. It was entirely proper for the ALJ to review Plaintiff’s longitudinal treatment record in assessing the asserted symptoms and limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication and the treatment other than medication that a claimant is receiving or has received are relevant to assessing his subjective complaints). Thus, the ALJ did not err in considering that the duration and frequency of Plaintiff’s symptoms in the record do not support the level of symptoms alleged by Plaintiff in support of her claim.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms and consideration of medical evidence, claimant statements, daily activities, and treatment factors when assessing their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

SHEPPARD v. BURWELL · filed 2019-10-31(b), (c), (c)(1), (c)(3)

Social Security Regulations require a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: (1) a determination as to whether there is objective evidence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; and (2) an evaluation of the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptoms and the extent to which it affects the individual’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), (c); see also S.S.R. 16-3p, “Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims,” 2017 WL 5180304 (applicable March 28, 2016). ... In determining the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the Administration is required to consider medical history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements from the claimant or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... In addition, the factors relevant to the evaluation of symptoms include daily activities, location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, the type, dosage, and effectiveness of medication, and treatment other than medication used to treat the symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Review of the entire decision establishes that the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s medications and their effectiveness, and crafted the RFC assessment to limit any exposure to aggravating factors including noise, flickering lights, and circumstances where her dizziness could pose a risk. ... I decline to reweigh the evidence, and find no error in the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate a claimant's subjective symptoms, including their intensity, persistence, and functional effects based on the whole record when objective evidence alone is insufficient.

Laba v. Saul · filed 2019-11-08(a), (b)-(c), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The Regulations require a two-step process for the ALJ to assess a claimant’s subjective symptoms. ... First, the ALJ considers whether the medical evidence shows any impairment “which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged... .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Second, if an impairment is shown, the ALJ must evaluate the “intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects” of a claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. 8§ 404.1529(b)-(c). When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the claimant’s statements considering the details of the case record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. $§ 404.1529(c)(3)G)-(vii). ... The Court finds that the ALJ correctly followed the two-step process and committed no error by considering Plaintiff’s daily activities and recent part-time employment in his analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate symptoms against the entire record and, when needed, consider listed symptom-related factors such as daily activities, pain, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-12-05(c)

At this step, the ALJ must consider the entire record, including medical signs, laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements about her symptoms, any other information provided by treating or examining physicians, psychiatrists and psychologists, and any other relevant evidence in the record, such as the claimant’s account of how the symptoms affect her activities of daily living and ability to work. ... In determining plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ did not consider all of her symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms could be considered consistent with the record evidence, or at least failed to explain his reasoning for excluding such limitations.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant’s subjective symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce the underlying symptoms.

SEJECK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-27

A claimant’s subjective symptoms must be corroborated by objective medical evidence; i.e., evidence of a medically determinable impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the claimant's underlying symptoms. Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). ... In accordance with this regulation, the ALJ recorded Plaintiff’s subjective complaints throughout his decision, and considered them in the context of the entire record.

Section 404.1529 treats subjective symptoms as relevant to disability, but they cannot alone establish disability; the adjudicator evaluates their intensity and persistence to determine their work-related limits.

Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-28(a), (c)(1)

A claimant’s subjective symptoms are a proper consideration in a disability evaluation, but those statements alone cannot be decisive on a disability claim. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996). In deciding whether to credit a claimant’s testimony about subjective symptoms or limitations, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281. Under the first step, the claimant must produce objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce pain or other symptoms. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281. If this step is satisfied, and there is no affirmative evidence that the claimant is malingering, then the ALJ must determine the credibility of the claimant’s subjective complaints and “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms” to determine whether and how these symptoms limit a claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).