20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s representations about symptoms but does not allow those statements alone to establish disability.

Hundt v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-10(a)

While an ALJ must consider a plaintiff’s representations about her symptoms and limitations, her statements about her “pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that” she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's subjective symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, pain allegations, aggravating factors, the course of treatment, and functional limitations.

Bucon v. Saul · filed 2020-04-06(c)

An ALJ must consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, allegations of pain, aggravating factors, course of treatment, and functional limitations when assessing a claimant’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *1 (2017).

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant's statements about pain or symptoms alone cannot establish disability and directs the ALJ to assess their consistency with objective and other evidence, including treatment history and daily activities.

COSME v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-30(a), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

A claimant’s statements about his pain or symptoms cannot alone establish that he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Instead, to evaluate credibility, an ALJ considers the extent to which the self-reported symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” Id. The ALJ also considers factors such as the claimant’s treatment history and his daily activities. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). If the ALJ finds the claimant’s subjective complaints inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, the ALJ may discount them. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Here, the ALJ duly considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and hearing testimony. Tr. at 32–33. ... Based on this record, the Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s claim that the ALJ’s finding regarding Plaintiff’s subjective complaints was based on “mere speculation.” Instead, the Court finds that the reasons provided by the ALJ, for not giving more credit to Plaintiff’s complaints, are legitimate, objective, and supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Court will not remand to consider Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the symptom, then assess the symptom’s intensity, persistence, and functional effects.

Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-12

An evaluation of subjective complaints should reflect a two-step analysis. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929.7 First, the ALJ must determine whether the evidence reflects that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment or impairments that could produce the relevant symptom. See id. Next, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of [the] symptom[s].” Id.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount subjective symptom statements that are inconsistent with the record and requires evaluating them against objective medical and other evidence.

DENNIS-ORSHAK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-07-30(a), (c)(4)

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints if they are inconsistent with the evidence of record. 20 CFR § 404.1529(a); Schaudeck, 181 F.3d at 433. Therefore, an ALJ will consider a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, but will evaluate those statements “in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” in reaching a conclusion as to whether a claimant is disabled. 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptoms by considering the record and relevant factors, including daily activities, the nature of the symptoms, and treatment, and to provide specific reasons for the assessment.

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

The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. ... In this case, the ALJ was clearly aware of his obligations to evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and the Court finds no error requiring remand. The record indicates the ALJ undertook a careful consideration of relevant factors. ... Overall, the ALJ identified substantial evidence to conclude Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not consistent with the record evidence, including Plaintiff’s hearing testimony and her reports to medical providers.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider factors including daily activities, the characteristics of pain and other symptoms, aggravating factors, medication side effects, and treatment or other measures used for relief.

Gable v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-17(c)(3)(i)-(vi)

“When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider such things as: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) adverse side-effects of medications; and (5) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms.” Davis v. Astrue, 287 F. App’x 748, 760 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi)). ... Nor did the ALJ evaluate the relevant factors except to generally discuss portions of the medical evidence. Tr. at 23-25. ... The ALJ’s Decision does not allow for meaningful review of the findings regarding Plaintiff’s testimony about her impairments. On remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(a) requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s pain or other symptoms: first determine whether medically documented impairments could cause the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work against the objective medical record.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2020-09-17(a)

Federal regulation 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) provides the authoritative standard for the evaluation of subjective complaints of pain and symptomology, whereby “the determination of whether a person is disabled by pain or other symptoms is a two-step process.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 593-94. First, the ALJ must objectively determine whether the claimant has medically documented impairments that could cause his or her alleged symptoms. S.S.R. 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3 (Mar. 16, 2016) (effective Mar. 28, 2016); Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 564 (4th Cir. 2006). If the ALJ makes that determination, he must then evaluate “the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain[,] and the extent to which it affects her ability to work,” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595, and whether the claimant’s statements are supported by the objective medical record. S.S.R. 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4; Hines, 453 F.3d at 564-65.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s pain and other subjective symptoms throughout the disability evaluation and assess whether the claimant’s symptom statements are consistent with the record when objective evidence shows an impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms.

Sahra M. v. Saul · filed 2020-10-08(a), (c)(4), (d)

When determining disability, an ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s impairment-related pain and other subjective symptoms at each step of the sequential evaluation process. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (d). ... However, in assessing plaintiff’s subjective statements, the ALJ clearly identified each of plaintiff’s primary allegations and gave clear and convincing reasons to discount the severity of her symptoms, supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons to discount plaintiff’s testimony regarding the limiting effects of her symptoms, and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and functional limitations using objective medical evidence and the other regulatory factors.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-17(c)

The ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff’s subjective complaints in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c) and SSR 16-3p. The ALJ determined that plaintiff had medically determinable physical and mental impairments that could reasonably be expected to cause her alleged symptoms. (Tr. 28). However, the ALJ found that plaintiff’s statements as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of claimed symptoms, including consideration of the seven subsection (c)(3) factors, and does not permit an ALJ to rely selectively on daily activities without accounting for the claimant’s limitations in performing them.

Aviles-Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-18(a), (b), (c)(3)

In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, “[t]he ALJ must follow a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s assertions of pain and other symptoms.” ... “At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” ... “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” ... The relevant regulations set out a seven-factor test to evaluate a plaintiff’s own subjective statements regarding his symptoms.22 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The ALJ’s reliance on Plaintiff’s daily activities to discredit his statements of limited functionality is thus inappropriate in light of the record, and warrants remand for further consideration.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider all available evidence, and a material symptom finding based on an incorrect account of the claimant’s testimony cannot stand.

Southard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-24(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider all available evidence, including objective medical evidence and opinions; the claimant’s daily activities; the type, dosage, and effectiveness of medications taken to alleviate the symptoms; and factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p. ... Because the ALJ’s finding regarding the claimant’s testimony at the hearing about the frequency of his gouty flares was based on incorrect facts, the court cannot find that substantial evidence supports her decision on this issue. ... And because the frequency of the claimant’s gouty flares was a basis for the ALJ’s decision, the court finds that the ALJ committed reversible error in relying on an incorrect fact regarding this issue.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step inquiry into whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and how their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects restrict functioning, while providing that subjective allegations alone do not establish disability.

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

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must employ a two-step inquiry where he must (1) determine whether an underlying medically determinable mental impairment or impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and, if so, (2) evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)-(c). ... Additionally, a claimant’s subjective allegations of symptoms alone will not establish that he has functional limitations or is disabled. 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1529(a). Applying the above standard, the Court finds that the ALJ committed no error in assessing Welker’s symptom allegations and the credibility of his long-time girlfriend, Jennifer Lowman.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom allegations by weighing the claimant’s subjective complaints, relevant objective evidence, and the seven listed categories of other evidence, and to explain the evaluation with specific reasons supported by the record.

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

The ALJ must weigh the claimant’s subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following factors: (i) The individual’s daily activities; (ii) Location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) Type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (v) Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain or other symptoms; (vi) Other measures taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; (vii) Other factors concerning functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Clearly, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms is patently wrong as the ALJ failed to explain her evaluation of the above points with specific reasons that are supported in the record. Thus remand is required.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom inquiry and, under subsection (c)(3), consideration of daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional limitations.

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

An evaluation of subjective complaints should reflect a two-step analysis. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. First, the ALJ must determine whether the evidence reflects that the claimant has a medically-determinable impairment or impairments that could produce the relevant symptoms. See id. Next, the ALJ must evaluate “the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of [the] symptom[s].” Id. The relevant factors for the ALJ to weigh include: ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the ALJ applied the proper legal standards in analyzing plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff’s complaints were not consistent with the record evidence for the reasons she stated.

Section 404.1529(a) requires a claimant relying on subjective testimony to show an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation of the alleged severity or that the condition could reasonably be expected to cause the claimed pain.

Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(a)

When a claimant seeks to establish disability based on subjective testimony, he must satisfy two parts of a three-part test, showing: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Here, substantial evidence supported the finding that Alvarez’s symptoms were not as severe, intense, or pervasive as he reported. Among other things, the ALJ noted the conservative nature of Alvarez’s treatment history and noted that he declined behavioral therapy to address his psychiatric symptoms. ... And Alvarez’s argument that his self-reported symptoms were consistent with his hearing testimony is self-serving and immaterial to the inquiry of whether his reported symptoms could be corroborated by the objective medical evidence of his impairments. See Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the claimant’s daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication and side effects, other treatment and relief measures, and other functional limitations.

Monroe v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-01(c)(3)

Additionally, the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) are to be considered. Id. These factors include: “claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; medications and their side effects; non-medication treatments; any other measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain and other symptoms.” Id. (citing SSR 16-3p, at *7-8). ... In the aggregate, these were appropriate considerations. In doing so, the ALJ also discussed perceived inconsistences between Plaintiff’s daily activities and the medical evidence. Thus, the ALJ properly assessed the extent to which Plaintiff’s subjective allegations were consistent with and supported by other record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) begins a two-step symptom inquiry by asking whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, after which the ALJ evaluates their intensity and persistence using all available evidence.

Desimone E v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(c)(1)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints, the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claims require ALJs to employ a two-step inquiry. Meadors v. Astrue, 370 F. App’x 179, 183 (2d Cir. 2010). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a ‘medically determinable impairment[ ] that could reasonably be expected to produce’” her symptoms. Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) ). “Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms considering all of the available evidence; and, to the extent that the claimant’s [subjective] contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Id. The ALJ applied the two-step inquiry in this case and determined that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not fully credible. ... Further, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ did not find that she was capable of holding down employment because she was able to engage in activities of daily living. Instead, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s activities of daily living were inconsistent with the level of impairment she claimed. ... Here, the ALJ appropriately concluded that Plaintiff’s self-reported activities of daily living were inconsistent with her subjective complaints; this was not error. See Farszmil v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:19-CV-00390 EAW, 2020 WL 3496296, at *5 (W.D.N.Y. June 29, 2020).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires an ALJ, after identifying an impairment capable of causing the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work limitations using the claimant’s history and statements, medical evidence and opinions, and evidence of daily activities.

Colbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416929(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including the claimant’s history, the medical records and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. at §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3). “If the ALJ decides not to credit a claimant’s testimony as to her pain, he must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561-62. The Court will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1562. ... The ALJ did not, as the Claimant argues, ignore evidence concerning the Claimant’s history of pain when considering his testimony. The ALJ expressly considered such evidence and, while he found the Claimant not as limited as he alleged to be due to his pain, he nevertheless concluded that additional limitations, such as a limitation to sedentary work and the need for a sit-stand option, were warranted due to the Claimant’s pain. (R. 17). The Claimant does not otherwise challenge how the ALJ accounted for his testimony regarding pain and, therefore, has waived any challenge to that aspect of the ALJ’s credibility determination. See Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1161.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires an ALJ, after identifying an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms, to assess their intensity, persistence, and work effects using the claimant’s history and statements, medical evidence and opinions, and evidence of daily activities.

Tubens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416929(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including the claimant’s history, the medical records and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. at §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3). “If the ALJ decides not to credit a claimant’s testimony as to her pain, he must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561-62. The Court will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1562. ... The foregoing excerpt demonstrates that the ALJ’s credibility determination was not limited to the boilerplate credibility language found in most disability decisions. Instead, the ALJ provided several reasons in support of his credibility determination, including Dr. Krishnamurthy’s opinion, the lack or limited observations of strength deficits, gait abnormalities, or signs of poor endurance, and the Claimant’s ability to consistently perform part-time work. (Id.). Considering these reasons, the Claimant’s argument challenging the sufficiency of the ALJ’s credibility determination is unpersuasive.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects when an impairment could reasonably produce the symptoms but objective evidence does not confirm their severity, and to give explicit, adequate reasons for discounting them.

Ryerson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-30(c)

If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the plaintiff’s alleged symptoms but the plaintiff establishes she has an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms and their effect on her ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), (d), 416.929(c), (d); SSR 16-3p; Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225−26. To discredit the plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ must clearly “articulate explicit and adequate reasons.” See Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210. ... The ALJ noted Ryerson’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause some of the alleged symptoms, satisfying part of the pain standard. (Tr. at 22). However, the ALJ found Ryerson’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Id.). The ALJ reviewed a variety of evidence to support his conclusion, including objective medical evidence, treatment history, and daily activities (including her current part-time position as an auditor). (Tr. at 18, 22-3). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion in this case.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of an impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms before the agency assesses their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects against the record as a whole, with objective medical evidence serving as a useful indicator.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-18(a), (b), (c), and (c)(2)

A claimant’s subjective allegations of pain or other symptoms alone can never establish disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1528(a), 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 119029, at *2 (Mar. 16, 2016). Rather, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [statements about subjective] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence” in the record. Id. ... First, a claimant must provide objective medical evidence showing that a medical impairment exists, which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); Craig, 76 F.3d at 594. If the claimant meets this threshold obligation, the ALJ then considers the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, and the extent to which it affects his ability to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. The ALJ has the sole responsibility to weigh the claimant’s complaints against the record as a whole, and he may discount them when they are unsupported. Craig, 76 F.3d at 592-95. ... The ALJ then discussed the objective medical evidence of record. Tr. 22-23. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work”). ... Here, the ALJ followed the applicable regulations in considering and discounting some of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Tr. 22-23. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s decision is no reason to overturn it. Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d at 653 (quoting Craig, 76 F.3d at 589). The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is unsupported by substantial evidence or controlled by an error of law.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the agency, when objective medical evidence alone does not support a fully favorable decision, to assess symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using other record evidence, including treatment other than medication.

LONG v. SAUL · filed 2021-05-20(c)(3) and (c)(3)(v)

If an ALJ cannot make a fully favorable disability determination “based solely on objective medical evidence,” then she should “carefully consider other evidence in the record” and the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) to evaluate “the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017), at *6–8; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). These factors include “treatment, other than medication, [an individual] receive[s] or has received for relief of . . . pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). ... The ALJ also recognized her duty to “consider other evidence in the record” if the objective medical evidence alone could not substantiate Plaintiff's “statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other symptoms.” Id. at 45. And the ALJ addressed Plaintiff's “treatment, other than medication” as required by SSR 16-3p by pointing to Plaintiff's “long history of pain management treatment with her primary care physician” and the lack of “updated objective testing.” Dkt. 7-2 at 47. The ALJ also noted that the record did not “depict different treatment modalities such as injections or a referral to physical therapy.” Id. She also considered that Plaintiff had been referred to—but had not yet done—physical therapy, and that “there [was] no other evidence of treatment for her back pain specifically.” Id. at 46. ... Because the ALJ built a logical bridge from the evidence to her conclusion that Plaintiff's statements concerning the intensity of her symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence, remand is not required on this ground.

Section 404.1529(b) requires a two-step subjective-symptom evaluation: first determine whether objective evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on the ability to work.

WOODRUFF v. SAUL · filed 2021-05-20(b)

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). ... Thus, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ provided only a “boilerplate statement” in evaluating Plaintiff’s complaints, Doc. 19 at 13-14, the ALJ in fact discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints because they were not entirely consistent with his self-reported activities, his testimony, his course of treatment, and the objective medical evidence. ... For these reasons, I conclude that ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation in which an objectively documented impairment that could cause the alleged symptoms is followed by consideration of the entire record to determine their intensity, persistence, and work-related limitations, and unsupported allegations may be discounted.

Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-20(c)

Under Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 591-96 (4th Cir. 1996), subjective complaints are evaluated in two steps. First, there must be documentation by objective medical evidence of the presence of an underlying impairment that would reasonably be expected to cause the subjective complaints of the severity and persistence alleged. Not until such underlying impairment is deemed established does the fact-finder proceed to the second step: consideration of the entire record, including objective and subjective evidence, to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms to determine how symptoms limit capacity for work. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR16-3p, *4. ... A claimant’s statements about intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms, which are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, are less likely to reduce his capacity to perform work related activities. SSR 16-3p, at *7; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... A claimant’s allegations alone can never establish that she is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. An ALJ can discount a Plaintiff’s subjective complaints when they are unsupported by the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 595 (4th Cir. 1996). ... The ALJ sufficiently explained how Plaintiff’s subjective allegations were not entirely consistent with the evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) permits the agency to evaluate subjective symptom allegations using objective medical evidence and other factors such as daily activities, pain levels, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations, with daily activities serving as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence.

Shelton v. Saul · filed 2021-05-24(c) and (c)(3)(i)

The ALJ must justify his or her subjective symptom evaluation with “specific reasons supported by the record,” Pepper v. Colvin, 712 F.3d 351, 367 (7th Cir. 2013), and in doing so, may consider several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, his level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... The ALJ weighed the above-described activities of daily living and reasonably concluded that, on balance, they undercut Plaintiff’s own subjective testimony about her symptoms and impairments. ... In particular, the ALJ’s reliance on the fact that Claimant was able to drive, pick up groceries, and run errands for several elderly clients for up to twenty hours a week was substantial and convincing evidence that Claimant was not as disabled as she portrayed herself to be. ... Similarly, the ALJ pointed to Claimant’s course of treatment as another factor supporting her credibility determination. As discussed above, the ALJ and the Appeals Council both noted that Claimant improved quickly after her surgery in December of 2015. This improvement was consistent with her surgeon’s recommended course of treatment: “a conservative treatment approach with limited fusion while understanding that more surgery may have been required in the future.” (R. 700). Similarly, Claimant responded well to epidural injections as part of her pain management and herself noted that her pain was brought down or improved after those treatments. (R. 7, 41-42); (R. 722) (“On patient’s last visit, she reported a moderate amount of pain approximately 5/10 that she feels was brought down by her last cervical injection.”). These factors – medication and treatment – are specifically contemplated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and also helped the ALJ build a logical bridge between the evidence and her conclusion that Claimant’s testimony was not entirely credible. ... The credibility determination by the ALJ and Appeals Council will stand.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the agency first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and, if so, to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on basic work activities.

Harper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-25(a)

The regulations prescribe a two-step process for evaluating subjective symptom complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ must first determine whether there is an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. Id. If there is, the ALJ must then evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms on the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. Id.; SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4 *4 (Mar. 16, 2016). ... If an ALJ discounts or rejects a claimant’s subjective complaints, he must clearly state his reasons for doing so. ... The ALJ failed to apply proper legal standards in evaluating Harper’s subjective symptom complaints related to her migraine headaches because he failed to provide sufficiently clear reasons for discounting her complaints. ... What is missing from the ALJ’s evaluation of Harper’s chronic migraines? For one, there’s no acknowledgment of the relevant factors or discussion of Harper’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, or intensity of her migraine headaches; the effectiveness of Harper’s treatment for chronic migraines; any measures taken by Harper to relieve her pain; and the limiting effects of her migraines. ... Because the ALJ’s discussion of why he discounted Harper’s subjective symptom complaints regarding her migraine headaches was inadequate, I recommend that this matter be remanded to the ALJ for an analysis of Harper’s subjective symptoms that fully complies with SSA regulations.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: first identify a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and work effects from the entire record without rejecting them solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Alfaro v. Saul · filed 2021-05-26(b) and (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. ... Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms; however, [her] statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record for the reasons explained in this decision.” R. at 23. ... The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s testimony that she had used a prosthetic leg and cane for fourteen years, before her alleged onset date of disability; the opinion evidence in the record; and her activities of daily living, including caring for her children, shopping for groceries with her daughter, and traveling domestically and internationally. R. at 23, 25-26. ... “Because the ALJ did not rely exclusively on objective evidence in assessing the severity of [Plaintiff’s] symptoms, [her] argument is without merit.” Id.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c)(4) provide that symptom statements alone cannot establish disability, require their consistency with objective medical and other evidence to be evaluated, and permit inconsistent complaints to be discounted.

ROCK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-05-28(a) and (c)(4)

A claimant’s statements about his pain or symptoms, however, cannot alone establish that he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Instead, to evaluate credibility, an ALJ considers the extent to which the self-reported symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” Id. SSR 03-02p states that, “whenever the individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of pain or other 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.” The Social Security Administration defines “objective medical evidence” as “evidence that provides signs or laboratory findings” which are made by “medically acceptable clinical diagnostic techniques that can be observed apart from an individual’s symptoms.” SSR 16-3p. If the ALJ finds the claimant’s subjective complaints inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, the ALJ may discount the complaints. 20 CFR § 404.1529(c)(4). ... However, the ALJ simply found, taking into account the entire record, that the objective medical evidence did not support Plaintiff’s claims that his impairments rose to the level of disability in accordance with the requirements of SSR 03-2p. Tr. at 503.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the agency to evaluate whether symptoms are disabling using relevant factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations, without requiring a formal factor-by-factor recital.

Mahboub v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-01(c)(3)

Factors under the regulations relevant to the determination of whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include: (i) Your daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of your pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, *7-8; see Watts, 2017 WL 4862424, at *3. Findings as to a claimant’s subjective pain “should be closely and affirmatively linked to substantial evidence and not just a conclusion in the guise of findings. . . . But we do not require a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Watts, 2017 WL 4862424, at *3 (citing Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995); Qualls v. Apfel, 206 F.3d 1368, 1371 (10th Cir. 2000)). To the contrary, an ALJ need only discuss those factors that are “relevant to the case.” SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, *8. ... Relevant to this appeal, when formulating Mr. Mahboub’s RFC ALJ Leppala discussed a function report he submitted on July 31, 2017, his testimony at the hearing, his medical records spanning from September 10, 2016 through July 5, 2018, the medical opinions in the file, and a third party function report submitted by Mr. Mahboub’s girlfriend. [AR at 28-36]. Based on this evidence, ALJ Leppala concluded that Mr. Mahboub’s statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record. [AR at 31]. ... Thus, while there may have been conflicting evidence in the record, there was at least substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision. ... Therefore, the Court will not reverse the ALJ’s symptom evaluation or RFC finding on this ground.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c)(3) require an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and work-related effects.

MARCHESE v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-02(b), (c)(3)

When an ALJ considers a claimant’s representation of his symptoms, the ALJ must first determine whether “a medically determinable impairment . . . could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms” alleged. Baum v. Colvin, No. CV 15-277-E, 2017 WL 1090790, at *1 n.1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)); Cosme v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 845 F. App’x 128, 133 (3d Cir. 2021) (“A claimant’s own statements about pain or symptoms are not, by themselves, sufficient to establish that he is disabled.”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a). If the claimant satisfies that initial inquiry, then the ALJ will “evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which those symptoms limit his or her ability to work.” Baum, 2017 WL 1090790, at *1 n.1 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... Therefore, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, it was not inappropriate for the ALJ to consider the delay in treatment in his assessment of Plaintiff’s symptoms. Further, Plaintiff’s delay of treatment was just one of several factors that led the ALJ to find Plaintiff lacked consistency and reliability. (R. 21).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) adds nonmedication treatment and other symptom-relief measures to the five Polaski symptom factors, although this court did not require separate analysis of those two additional factors absent Eighth Circuit precedent.

Wright v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-06-03(c)(3)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. ... The factors to consider are as follows: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the functional restrictions. See Polaski, 739 at 1322. ... Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” However, under Polaski and its progeny, the Eighth Circuit has not yet required the analysis of these additional factors. See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case. ... In the present action, this Court finds the ALJ properly addressed and discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. In his opinion, the ALJ addressed the factors from Polaski, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929, and stated inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony and the record. (Tr. 16-21). ... These findings are valid reasons supporting the ALJ’s credibility determination, and this Court finds the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and should be affirmed.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess whether symptom statements are consistent with the record as a whole and to consider all complaint-related evidence, including the factors listed in subsection (c)(3), before discounting the statements for adequately explained reasons.

Nolan v. Saul · filed 2021-06-03(c) and (c)(3)

When considering a claimant’s self-reported symptoms and limitations, the ALJ must evaluate whether the claimant’s subjective statements are consistent with and supported by the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p. ... When determining the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ must consider all evidence relating to the complaints, including the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of the symptoms; any precipitating and aggravating factors; the dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and any functional restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p; Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931 (8th Cir. 2010); Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. ... It is not enough that the record contains inconsistencies. Instead, the ALJ must specifically demonstrate in her decision that she considered all of the evidence. Id. at 738; see also Cline v. Sullivan, 939 F.2d 560, 565 (8th Cir. 1991). Where an ALJ explicitly considers the relevant factors but then discredits a claimant’s complaints for good reason, the decision should be upheld. Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th Cir. 2001). ... Here, the ALJ summarized plaintiff’s testimony regarding her daily activities and subjective allegations of pain and found plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects only partially consistent with the evidence of record. The ALJ acknowledged plaintiff’s reported symptoms and went on to weigh these allegations against the evidence of record as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The ALJ expressly acknowledged that plaintiff was experiencing pain and had some limitations on the use of her hands, but concluded, after evaluating the entirety of the record, that plaintiff’s limitations were not so severe as to be disabling. Where, as here, an ALJ seriously considers but for good reasons explicitly discounts a claimant’s subjective complaints, the Court will not disturb the ALJ’s credibility determination.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation that first asks whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms and then assesses their consistency with the entire record, while forbidding rejection of their intensity and persistence solely for lack of substantiating medical evidence.

Hale v. Saul · filed 2021-06-09(a), (b), and (c)(2)

“The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant's assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider 'the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence' of record.” Genier, 606 F.3d at 49 (alterations in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “In determining whether [an individual is] disabled, [the ALJ will] consider all [of an individual's] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [his or her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). While statements of pain are insufficient, an ALJ may not reject statements of intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms affecting an individual's ability to work because of a lack of substantiating medical evidence. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Here, at step one, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff suffered from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Tr. at 16. However, at step two, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff's “statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms [were] not entirely consistent with the evidence.” Id. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the ALJ did examine inconsistencies in the record. The ALJ acknowledged that while Plaintiff testified that he could only stand for about twenty minutes and walk about fifty feet, Dr. Lorensen opined that Plaintiff had no limitations sitting, standing or walking. Id. at 16-17. Further, while Plaintiff testified that he cannot be around groups of people due to anxiety, his medical records indicate that he does not suffer from anxiety attacks and Dr. Alexander recorded only mild limitations in interacting adequately with supervisors, coworkers, and the public. Id. at 16-17, 661, 705. ... The Court therefore rejects Plaintiff's assertion that the ALJ improperly evaluated his credibility. Having found no reversible error, the Court affirms the ALJ's determination.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation that first asks whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then assesses their work effects using objective and other evidence under seven factors, with specific reasons required but no need to expressly reference every factor when the rationale is otherwise supported and discernible.

Green v. Saul · filed 2021-06-16(a), (b), and (c)(3)

In 2016 the Commissioner eliminated the use of term “credibility” from the “sub-regulatory policy” because the regulations themselves do not use that term. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1020935, at *14167. Instead, symptom evaluation tracks the language of the regulations, and involves a two-step process. First, the ALJ must determine, based upon the objective medical evidence, whether the medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged . . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b); 416.929(a), (b). If so, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “‘the extent to which [the claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the [objective medical evidence] and other evidence to decide how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [his or her] ability to work.’” Barry v. Colvin, 606 F. App’x 621, 623 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (additional citations omitted). If the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the claimant’s symptoms, “the ALJ must consider the other evidence . . . .” Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 76 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (citation omitted). The ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective complaints by considering the record in light of the following symptom-related factors: (1) claimant’s daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of claimant’s symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to relieve symptoms; (5) other treatment received to relieve symptoms; (6) any measures taken by the claimant to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. See Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76. However, the failure to specifically reference a particular relevant factor does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the determination. See id.; see also Del Carmen Fernandez, 2019 WL 667743 at *11 (citing Rousey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 285 F. Supp. 3d 723, 744 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)). “[R]emand is not required where ‘the evidence of record allows the court to glean the rationale of an ALJ’s decision.’” Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76 (quoting Mongeur, 722 F.2d at 1040). ... Here, the ALJ provided substantial evidence by explaining the evidence related to plaintiff’s medical treatment, daily activities, and imaging reports that prompted her to discount plaintiff’s testimony regarding his functional limitations; therefore, remand is not required.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to assess alleged symptom intensity and functional effects by considering factors including treatment history, objective findings, and daily activities.

Linville v. Saul · filed 2021-06-17(c)(3)

Defendant states in his brief: To support this finding, the ALJ acknowledged Mr. Linville’s allegations and explained his rationale when examining the medical evidence and addressing relevant factors including Mr. Linville’s treatment history, objective findings, and daily activities (Tr. 22-27). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For instance, the ALJ observed that an ophthalmologist treated Mr. Linville’s vision impairment and prescribed glasses (Tr. 25 citing Tr. 415 (Mr. Linville should wear bifocal corrective lenses full time to address vision deficits)). (See Gross v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1163, 1166 (4th Cir. 1986) (noting that a symptom that can be reasonably controlled by medication or treatment is not disabling)). (Document No. 22, p. 7). ... The undersigned finds Defendant’s argument to be persuasive. The undersigned observes that the ALJ, citing evidence of record, thoroughly discussed Plaintiff’s vision impairments and related headaches. See (Tr. 24-25). The ALJ’s explanation of his process demonstrates that he did, in fact, account for the vocationally limiting effects of Plaintiff’s congenital nystagmus and dry eye syndrome. Id. The ALJ identified the severe impairments that could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, and he concluded that the alleged limiting effects of those symptoms was not consistent with the record. (Document No. 22, p. 7). Further, the ALJ discussed the treatment Plaintiff has received for his eye impairments, and he observed that such treatments limit the ill effects of the impairments. (Tr. 25). The undersigned is satisfied that the ALJ thoroughly and adequately accounted for the effects of Plaintiff’s visual impairments. Id.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(3) permit consideration of objective medical evidence and treatment effectiveness when evaluating symptom severity, but objective evidence cannot be the sole basis for discounting symptom testimony.

Peck v. Saul · filed 2021-06-22(c)(2) and (c)(3)

Factors to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms include: 1) daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and 7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s symptom claims were inconsistent with the objective evidence. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason, along with the other reasons offered, to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints. ... 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) (a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant’s complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations). ... While Plaintiff argues she had ongoing symptoms despite some improvement, ECF No. 14 at 7-8, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s symptoms, when treated, were not as limiting as Plaintiff claimed. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints. Plaintiff is not entitled to remand on these grounds.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires subjective symptom reports to be evaluated against the entire record, including medical records, statements, daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, aggravating factors, and functional restrictions.

Collora v. Saul · filed 2021-06-24(c)(3)

In analyzing a claimant’s subjective reports, the ALJ considers the entire record, including: medical records; statements from the claimant and third parties; the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency and intensity of pain; the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; precipitating and aggravating factors; and functional restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984). The Court defers to the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s subjective complaints if that assessment is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence. Nash v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 907 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir. 2018). See also Juszczyk v. Astrue, 542 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2008). Here, the ALJ provided valid and well-supported reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective reports. First, the ALJ found the medical record was not fully consistent with Plaintiff’s subjective allegations of disabling impairments. Plaintiff repeatedly refused hernia repair (Tr. 1097, 1045-77, 1209-44, 1282-1379), and showed no interest in treatment with a therapist or psychiatrist for his polysubstance abuse (Tr. 272). Failure to pursue a course of treatment may detract from a claimant’s credibility. See O’Donnell v. Barnhart, 318 F.3d 811, 819 (8th Cir. 2003). ... Because the ALJ has provided several valid and well-supported reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s allegations, the Court finds no error here.

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 and persistence using all available evidence.

Ingraham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-24(c)(1)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints, the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claims require ALJs to employ a two-step inquiry. Meadors v. Astrue, 370 F. App’x 179, 183 (2d Cir. 2010). “First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a ‘medically determinable impairment[ ] that could reasonably be expected to produce’” her symptoms. Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) ). “Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms considering all of the available evidence; and, to the extent that the claimant’s [subjective] contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Id. The ALJ applied the two-step inquiry in this case and determined that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not fully credible. (Dkt. 6 at 23).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires symptom allegations to be evaluated using factors such as daily activities, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional restrictions, while subsection (c)(2) bars rejecting them solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Wheaton v. Saul · filed 2021-06-28(c)(2) and (c)(3)

Under SSR 16-3p, the ALJ shall determine whether to credit a claimant’s statements about her pain and limitations by referring to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), which include: the claimant’s daily activities; the factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; the claimant’s treatment, other than medication, for the symptoms; any other measure that the individual uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and, finally, “any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions.” SSR 16-3p. However, the lack of objective medical evidence supporting a claimant’s allegations cannot provide the sole basis for rejecting his statements about the severity of his symptoms and limitations. Id.; see also Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 679; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). ... Second, contrary to Plaintiff’s position, the ALJ did not rely solely on the medical evidence in discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. Instead, the ALJ pointed to specific inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony about the intensity and limiting effects of her impairment and her activities. ... For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and free from material legal error. Neither reversal of the ALJ’s decision nor remand is warranted.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of factors that precipitate or aggravate symptoms, medication, and other symptom-relief measures when evaluating a claimant’s allegations.

Drake v. Saul · filed 2021-07-01(c)(3)(iii), (iv), and (vi)

Plaintiff contends the ALJ failed to properly evaluate her symptoms by using misleading conclusions to discount her continuing panic attacks, crying spells, and anxiety. (Doc. No. 19, p. 22) The Social Security regulations clearly state that “consideration of other factors” will be undertaken when analyzing symptoms and specifically state that “precipitating or aggravating factors” will be a part of the analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ’s decision clearly weighed multiple factors in assessing Plaintiff’s symptoms, including factors that seemingly exacerbate her symptoms, such as the use of marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine contrary to the advice of medical professionals, and others that the ALJ indicated which seemed to alleviate the symptoms, including a service dog and a new medication, all of which were listed in the RFC. (Tr. 17). These are all valid considerations for the ALJ to make in the formation of her decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (vi).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider symptom testimony to the extent the alleged symptoms could reasonably arise from documented medical impairments and to evaluate symptom severity and work effects using the other evidence of record.

BRUNNER v. SAUL · filed 2021-07-02(a)

ALJs must consider all evidence in their formulation of the RFC. Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 121 (3d Cir. 2000). When the ALJ considers a claimant’s testimony about his symptoms and limitations, the ALJ will credit that testimony to the extent the claimant’s alleged symptoms “could reasonably be expected” to arise from documented medical impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ also considers objective medical evidence and medical opinion evidence to understand how severe symptoms are and how they affect the claimant. SSR 16-3p. ... As is required, the ALJ considered whether Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms were borne out by the other evidence in the record and found they were not. He considered Plaintiff’s sparse treatment record, but acknowledged Plaintiff lacked insurance for a time. In the end, the ALJ included all limitations he found supported in the record in Plaintiff’s RFC determination, and this Court’s review of the record has not revealed an oversight or unresolved evidentiary conflict that might undermine the ALJ’s decision.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, but not objective proof of the pain itself, followed by evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence to determine work-related limitations.

Whidbee v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-06(b) and (c)

Upon review of the record and decision, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s findings are not supported by the record and that the ALJ erred in finding that plaintiff could perform reduced work at the medium exertional level. The regulations provide a two-step analysis for evaluating a person’s subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 591-96 (4th Cir. 1996). First, the adjudicator must determine whether there is objective medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment that could be reasonably expected to produce the pain or other alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). However, an ALJ cannot require subjective evidence of pain for an individual’s statements regarding their pain to be considered credible. Hyatt v. Sullivan, 899 F.2d 329, 332-33 (4th Cir. 1990). Second, the adjudicator evaluates the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how they limit the capacity for work. 20 C.F.C. § 404.1529(c). Here, plaintiff has a documented medical diagnosis and history with symptoms that have limited her functional ability to perform work on a sustained basis. The symptoms and functional limitations are supported by objective testing and observations corroborated over a substantial period. ... The Court in its discretion finds that reversal and remand for benefits is appropriate, as plaintiff clearly is unable to do even reduced medium work. The record properly supports such a finding.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider seven specified factors, discuss the claimant’s explanations, explain how the factors were balanced, and identify the extent to which the claimant’s testimony was credited.

Monteith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-09(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

If a plaintiff’s allegations are not supported by “objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in [an evaluation of subjective symptoms].” Meadors v. Astrue, 370 F. App’x 179, 183 (2d Cir. 2010). However, the ALJ “is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints without question.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010). Specifically, in evaluating subjective symptoms, the ALJ must consider “(1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the] claimant’s pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) any treatment, other than medication, the claimant has received; (6) any other measures the claimant employs to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions as a result of pain or other symptoms.” Gallagher v. Colvin, 243 F. Supp. 3d 299, 306-07 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)). ALJ Malvey acknowledged his duty to “evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit [her] functional limitations,” and, if lacking objective medical evidence, “consider other evidence in the record to determine if [her] symptoms limit the ability to do work-related activities.” (Tr. 17-18.) However, he did not discuss the plaintiff’s account of the causes of her symptoms,10 explain how he balanced the various credibility factors or specify the extent to which he credited the plaintiff’s testimony other than to deem it inconsistent with objective medical evidence. (Tr. 18-20.) These omissions are grounds for remand. See Kane v. Astrue, 942 F. Supp. 2d 301, 314 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (finding legal error when the ALJ did not explicitly refer to or discuss any of the credibility factors) (collecting cases).

Sections 404.1529(a) and (c)(1) require a two-step symptom evaluation: determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects using the entire case record.

Keith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-14(a), (c)(1)

Under SSR 16-3p, if a claimant alleges impairment-related symptoms, such as pain, those symptoms must be evaluated by the ALJ using a two-step process. SSR 16-3p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Once the ALJ finds the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, he must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which they impede the claimant’s ability to perform work-related tasks. SSR 16-3p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). When considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must “examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” SSR 16-3p. ... In sum, Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ omitted any contrary evidence or otherwise failed to consider the entire record of evidence when he crafted an RFC that does not reference Plaintiff’s reported need to alternate positions.

Section 404.1529 does not allow subjective pain complaints alone to establish disability; a claimant must show an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation of the alleged severity or that the condition could reasonably produce the claimed pain, after which the ALJ must evaluate and adequately explain the assessment of symptom testimony.

Bowling v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-16

The Social Security Regulations provide that a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain alone cannot establish disability. Rather, the regulations describe additional objective evidence that permits a finding of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Interpreting these regulations, the Eleventh Circuit has articulated a “pain standard” that applies when a claimant attempts to establish disability through her own testimony of pain or other subjective symptoms. When establishing disability in this manner, a claimant must satisfy two parts of the Eleventh Circuit’s three-part pain standard: “(1) evidence of an underlying medical condition; and (2) either (a) objective medical evidence confirming the severity of the alleged pain; or (b) that the objectively determined medical condition can reasonably be expected to give rise to the claimed pain.” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). ... The ALJ found that Bowling’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms.” R. 15. However, the ALJ also concluded that Bowling’s “statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms are not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” R. 15. ... For these reasons, the court finds that there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that Bowling’s testimony regarding the severity of his pain is not entirely consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) makes the assessment of a claimant’s symptom credibility depend partly on the medical evidence, so credibility must be reassessed when the medical evidence is evaluated anew on remand.

Levingston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-22(c)

The Court already has concluded that the ALJ commit harmful error at Step 5, see supra, Sections I and II; that some of the medical evidence should be reviewed anew, see supra, Section III; and, that this matter should be reversed and remanded for further consideration, see supra, Sections I-II. In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider whether the symptoms are consistent with all the evidence and to consider daily activities, symptom duration, frequency and intensity, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, and functional restrictions.

Romero v. Saul · filed 2021-05-17(a), (c)(3)

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider all of a claimant’s alleged “symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [those] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” The ALJ must evaluate all of the claimant’s statements about her “symptoms, such as pain, and any description [the claimant’s] medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect [her] activities of daily living and [her] ability to work.” ... When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, an ALJ considers (1) “the claimant’s daily activities”; (2) “the duration, frequency, and intensity of [her] pain”; (3) “precipitating and aggravating factors”; (4) “dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication”; and (5) any “functional restrictions.” Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322; accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Overall, the ALJ adequately considered Angela’s daily activities; the persistence, intensity, and limiting effects of her pain; the positive effects of her medication; her functional limitations, and other relevant factors. ... The Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Angela’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms before the ALJ evaluates the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on work against the record as a whole.

Delesline-Meggett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-11(a)-(c)

A claimant’s subjective allegations of pain or other symptoms alone can never establish disability. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1528(a), 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 119029, at *2 (Mar. 16, 2016). Rather, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [statements about subjective] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence” in the record. Id. The Fourth Circuit has established a two-step process for determining whether a claimant is disabled by pain or other symptoms. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 594 (4th Cir. 1996). First, a claimant must provide objective medical evidence showing that a medical impairment exists, which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); Craig, 76 F.3d at 594. If the claimant meets this threshold obligation, the ALJ then considers the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, and the extent to which it affects his ability to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. The ALJ has the sole responsibility to weigh the claimant’s complaints against the record as a whole, and he may discount them when they are unsupported. Craig, 76 F.3d at 592-95. ... The ALJ adequately explained the reasons supporting his determination that Plaintiff’s statements of disabling symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record evidence. Here, the ALJ followed the applicable regulations in considering and discounting some of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Tr. 22-23. Plaintiff’s disagreement with the ALJ’s decision is no reason to overturn it. Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d at 653 (quoting Craig, 76 F.3d at 589). The court therefore finds that Plaintiff has failed to show that the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is deficient, unsupported by substantial evidence, or controlled by an error of law.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to evaluate symptom testimony by considering inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence.

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(c)(4)

The ALJ thus reasonably concluded that the medical evidence and Plaintiff’s prior statements were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s claims of severe and worsening MS-related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence . . . .). The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the Commissioner, after finding an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence using all medical and nonmedical evidence and to consider information beyond objective medical evidence alone.

Desa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(c)(1), (c)(3)

When a claimant has “medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain, [the Commissioner] must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1); id. § 416.929(c)(1). When conducting that evaluation, the Commissioner must “consider all of the evidence from [the claimant’s] medical and nonmedical sources about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [the claimant].” Id. § 404.1529(c)(1) (emphasis added); id. § 416.929(c)(1) (emphasis added). “Because symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone,” the Commissioner must “carefully consider any other information [the claimant] may submit about [the claimant’s] symptoms.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(3); id. § 416.929(c)(3). ... The Commissioner should have credited Desa’s testimony. A medical record that demonstrates less than aggressive treatment cannot, without more, justify rejection of a claimant’s self-reported symptoms, even if that record does not explicitly corroborate the claimant’s testimony. See Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129; Henningsen, 111 F. Supp. 3d at 268. While the Commissioner’s decision cited some medical evidence showing “normal” or “unremarkable” findings (R. 18–21), nothing in the record warrants giving less than full credit to Desa’s explanation of the way her seizures impacted her ability to work. This Court must therefore vacate the Commissioner’s decision and remand for reconsideration with proper weight to Desa’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating whether alleged limitations are consistent with the record and assessing the claimant’s level of functioning.

Burley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-29(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also explained that Plaintiff’s daily activities “suggest[ed] a greater physical functional ability than alleged, especially pertaining to the claimant’s use of his hands and upper extremities.” 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.); 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)). As the ALJ noted, Plaintiff used a lawn mower, drove for extended periods, lived alone, shopped, cooked, and played video games. Tr. 26, 226-27, 308, 313, 460, 494, 635. Plaintiff’s activities of daily living are an important indicator of his level of functioning. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017); Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Cir. 2013). As the ALJ explained, Plaintiff’s activities were inconsistent with his allegations of disabling upper extremity limitations. Tr. 26.

Section 404.1529(c) and (d) require an ALJ who finds an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on work, and permit treatment history to be considered when assessing those allegations.

McSpadden v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-30(c), (d)

If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the plaintiff’s alleged symptoms but the plaintiff establishes he has an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms and their effect on his ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), (d); 416.929 (c), (d); SSR 16-3p; Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225-26. To discredit the plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ must clearly “articulate explicit and adequate reasons.” See Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1225-26. ... The ALJ properly found that McSpadden’s lack of desire for additional medication or more aggressive treatment for his narcolepsy was inconsistent with his allegations of disabling symptoms. ... The ALJ articulated reasons in great detail for finding McSpadden’s subjective complaints were inconsistent with the medical evidence of record. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination to give little weight to McSpadden’s testimony.

Sections 404.1529(a) and (c)(3) require a two-step symptom analysis considering seven specified factors, but an ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor when the reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Sanita v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-30(a), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

The ALJ must employ a two-step analysis to evaluate plaintiff's reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. First, the ALJ must determine whether, based on the objective medical evidence, plaintiff's medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). Second, if the medical evidence establishes the existence of such impairments, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit plaintiff's ability to do work. See id. ... At this second step, the ALJ must consider: (1) plaintiff's daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of plaintiff's pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (5) other treatment plaintiff receives or has received to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures that plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning plaintiff's functional limitations and restrictions due to his pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Where an ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulations is clear, she is not required to explicitly go through each and every factor of the regulation. Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App'x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiff challenged ALJ's failure to review explicitly each factor provided for in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the Court held that “no such slavish recitation of each and every factor [was required] where the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation [was] clear”). Although ALJ Cordovani did not explicitly evaluate every factor outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c), the ALJ's adherence to the regulations was clear and his determination supported by substantial evidence. ... The ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s activities of daily living in evaluating plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ who finds an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related limitations by considering daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication side effects, and treatment or other relief measures.

Booth v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-02(c)(1), (c)(3)(i)-(vi)

If the ALJ finds that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his symptoms, “the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.” Costigan v. Comm’r, 603 F. App’x 783, 786 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). In this evaluation, the ALJ must consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) adverse side-effects of medications, and (5) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms. Id. at 786-87 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi)). ... Moreover, the medical records discussed above provide substantial support for the ALJ’s finding that Booth’s subjective testimony about the limiting effects of his back pain was not consistent with the objective medical evidence. See R. 77. Thus, in light of the substantial deference owed to the Commissioner’s decision, see Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1212, the court affirms the ALJ’s ruling discounting Booth’s subjective accounts of pain.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess the intensity, persistence, and work-related effects of symptoms using the claimant’s history, medical evidence, statements, and seven specified factors; daily activities are relevant to that assessment but are not alone dispositive of the ability to work.

Popp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-02(c)(1), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including, but not limited to, the claimant’s history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3). Factors relevant to the ALJ’s consideration regarding a claimant’s allegations of pain include: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives for pain; (6) measures used for pain relief; and (7) other factors pertaining to functional limitations and restrictions due to pain. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). ... Be that as it may, the ALJ properly considered Claimant’s daily activities in assessing his claims of disabling limitations, and in ultimately concluding that Claimant’s limitations do not preclude him from performing sedentary work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Specifically, the ALJ relied on Claimant’s testimony that he let the dog out, read, watched TV, drove, and spent time with his daughter. (R. 34, 68-70). While a claimant’s daily activities alone are not dispositive of his or her ability to perform sedentary work, see Venette v. Apfel, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1307, 1314 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (citing Walker v. Heckler, 826 F.2d 996 (11th Cir. 1987)), as explained above, they are relevant to the ALJ’s determination regarding a claimant’s allegations of pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). And here, the ALJ found that Claimant’s own testimony about his daily activities, which the ALJ considered along with the medical evidence of record, (R. 28-35), contradicted his testimony about the extent of his symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) makes the assessment of a claimant’s symptom allegations depend in part on the assessment of medical evidence, so the symptom assessment should be performed anew when the medical evidence must be reevaluated on remand.

Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-03(c)

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ erred by failing to provide sufficient reasons for not incorporating fully plaintiff’s subjective claims; however, the Court already has concluded that the ALJ commit harmful error and the medical evidence should be reviewed anew, see supra, Sections I and II. In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints to examine the relevant symptom factors and forbids discounting those complaints solely because objective medical evidence does not fully support them.

Sizemore v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-08-03(c)

The Court notes that in assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. ... The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints. See Lowe v. Apfel, 226 F.3d 969, 971-72 (8th Cir. 2000). As long as the ALJ properly applies these five factors and gives several valid reasons for finding that the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints are not entirely credible, the ALJ’s credibility determination is entitled to deference. See id.; Cox v. Barnhart, 471 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2006). The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints].” Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. ... Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints based upon her medical records alone. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (holding a claimant’s subjective complaints cannot be discounted “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]”). Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529 establishes a two-step symptom analysis and permits an ALJ to weigh daily activities as one factor in assessing subjective complaints even when those activities do not prove an ability to perform full-time competitive work.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-03(b), (c)(3)(i)

“The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “That requirement stems from the fact that subjective assertions of pain alone cannot ground a finding of disability. If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted). The ALJ must consider several other factors when making a credibility assessment, including the claimant’s daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). ... The ALJ had no obligation to do so, however. While activities of daily living may not “definitively prove [a claimant’s] ability to work,” an ALJ can “permissibly consider [them] as one factor among many in evaluating the consistency of [the claimant’s] subjective complaints with the record as a whole.” Chelsea V. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV-501, 2021 WL 2649650, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2021); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). Thus, even if Plaintiff’s daily activities were not “comparable to full-time competitive work,” ECF No. 9-1 at 27, the ALJ could reasonably consider them in assessing whether Plaintiff was as debilitated by pain as she claimed.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate how the intensity and persistence of reasonably produced symptoms limit work by considering the claimant’s history, medical findings, statements, medical opinions, daily activities, and other evidence.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including, but not limited to, the claimant’s history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3). ... The Court finds that the ALJ provided explicit and adequate reasons for rejecting Claimant’s subjective complaints. First, the ALJ cited record evidence and explained how that evidence was inconsistent with Claimant’s testimony. R. 19-20. ... The ALJ also considered Claimant’s activities of daily living. R. 19. ... Thus, the ALJ found Claimant’s subjective complaints inconsistent with the record evidence and supported her determination with substantial evidence. R. 19-21. Claimant’s arguments to the contrary essentially ask the Court to reweigh the evidence, which is not this Court’s function. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178. The Court finds no error with respect to the ALJ’s credibility finding.

Section 404.1529 requires medical evidence of an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms and, when the reported severity exceeds the objective evidence, permits consideration of daily activities, medication, and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the record.

Sikes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(a), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv), (c)(4)

A claimant’s statement that he is experiencing pain or other symptoms will not, taken alone, establish that he is disabled; there must be medical signs and laboratory findings which show the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to give rise to the pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); SSR 16-3p. ... When, as in this case, the reported pain and other symptoms suggest an impairment of greater severity than can be shown by objective medical evidence, the Administrative Law Judge will consider other information and factors which may be relevant to the degree of pain alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p. ... For example, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s level of daily activity as a factor in determining the extent to which pain and other symptoms are of disabling severity. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i); SSR 16-3p; 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). The ALJ also noted inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there were conflicts between Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); SSR 16-3p. Another factor the ALJ considered was the medications used to alleviate Plaintiff’s alleged pain and other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). ... The undersigned concludes the above-mentioned findings regarding Plaintiff’s subjective statements are supported by substantial evidence and fully comport with applicable law.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider the nature of a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating whether alleged disabling symptoms are consistent with the record as a whole.

Loftus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ also considered that Plaintiff is able to perform housework, grocery shop, care for her pets, do crafts, go to a senior center with her mother-in-law once a week, and watch her grandchildren. Tr. 26, 57-58, 380, 385, 653. In July 2018, she reported being very busy watching her grandchildren five days per week. Tr. 26, 653. 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)); Poupore, 566 F.3d at 307 (claimant’s abilities to watch television, read, drive, and do household chores supported ALJ’s finding that his testimony was not fully credible). ... For all the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the record as a whole, including the medical opinion evidence, treatment reports, and diagnostic testing, as well as Plaintiffs activities of daily living, and his findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the Court finds no error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all evidence and relevant symptom factors, and necessary childcare cannot support an adverse symptom assessment without examining its flexibility, available assistance, and inconsistency with the claimant’s allegations.

MARTINI JR. v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

If a fully favorable determination cannot be made based solely on the objective medical evidence, SSR 16-3p directs the ALJ to consider “all of the evidence to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms,” including the regulatory factors relevant to a claimant's symptoms, such as daily activities, the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms, factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms, the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; and treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p (S.S.A Oct. 25, 2017), 2017 WL 5180304, at *6-8; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... The specifics of the childcare—including his ability to take breaks or his wife's availability to help—were unexplored during the hearing. ... Other than conclusory and undeveloped use of Fred M.'s necessary childcare, the ALJ did not explain that activities of daily living were a factor used generally to discredit his allegations, let alone explain how specific activities were inconsistent with those allegations. ... Accordingly, further consideration of Fred M.'s subjective statements consistent with this entry is needed on remand.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of an impairment that could produce alleged symptoms, but at the second step subjective evidence alone may establish disabling severity, and daily activities must be evaluated by the extent to which the claimant can perform them.

Tayman v. Saul · filed 2021-08-16(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. ... Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. ... Thus, ALJs who require a claimant’s subjective descriptions of his symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence improperly increase the claimant’s burden of proof. Id. at 96. Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove that his symptoms were so continuous or severe that they prevented him from working a full eight-hour day. See id.; see also id. at 97 (“And we have previously held that ALJs apply an incorrect legal standard by requiring objective evidence of symptoms even when they also consider other evidence in the record.”). ... Thus, “[a]n ALJ may not consider the type of activities a claimant can perform without also considering the extent to which she can perform them.” Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018). ... The ALJ here did not “explain how those activities showed that [Plaintiff] could sustain a full-time job” and could actually perform the tasks required by light work. Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 269 (4th Cir. 2017); see Arakas, 983 F.3d at 100 (citing Woods, 888 F.3d at 694). The Court remands this case to afford the ALJ the opportunity to do so.

Section 404.1529 requires objective evidence of an impairment that could produce alleged symptoms, but at the second step subjective evidence alone may establish disabling severity, and daily activities must be evaluated by the extent to which the claimant can perform them.

Holt v. Saul · filed 2021-08-16(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. ... Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. ... Thus, ALJs who require a claimant’s subjective descriptions of her symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence improperly increase the claimant’s burden of proof. Id. at 96. Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove that her symptoms were so continuous or severe that they prevented her from working a full eight-hour day. See id.; see also id. at 97 (“And we have previously held that ALJs apply an incorrect legal standard by requiring objective evidence of symptoms even when they also consider other evidence in the record.”). ... Thus, “[a]n ALJ may not consider the type of activities a claimant can perform without also considering the extent to which she can perform them.” Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 694 (4th Cir. 2018). ... The ALJ here did not “explain how those activities showed that [Plaintiff] could sustain a full-time job” and could actually perform the tasks required by sedentary work. Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 269 (4th Cir. 2017); see Arakas, 983 F.3d at 100 (citing Woods, 888 F.3d at 694). The Court remands this case to afford the ALJ the opportunity to do so.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of daily activities, precipitating and aggravating factors, treatment, symptom frequency and intensity, and other functional evidence when evaluating subjective complaints.

Battaglia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-18(c)(3)(i)-(vii)

Plaintiff next asserts that the ALJ erred in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility in relation to his impairments. ECF No. 10-1 at 14. The Court disagrees. The Commissioner will consider factors such as daily activities, precipitating and aggravating factors, treatment, and other factors concerning Plaintiff’s functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(3)(i)-(vii). For the reasons discussed above, the ALJ can reasonably rely on the objective evidence when discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). But Plaintiff’s testimony was also internally inconsistent: He testified that he has to lay down three to four times in a day—depending on his activities—and cannot sit or stand for more than twenty minutes at a time. Tr. 67-68. However, when the ALJ asked why Plaintiff could not do his job anymore, Plaintiff responded, “I probably could, Your Honor. I would have to sit/stand. It’s difficult to sit behind a desk all day.” Tr. 67. Plaintiff also testified that he golfs a “couple times a week.” Tr. 71; see also Aponte v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. of the U.S., 728 F.2d 588, 591 (2d Cir. 1984) (“If the Secretary’s findings are supported by substantial evidence . . . the court must uphold the ALJ’s decision to discount a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain.”). There is also evidence that Plaintiff was quite active during his conservative treatments for his back and leg pain. Tr. 523, 679 (reporting pain but maintaining ability to play golf); see also Hart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-cv-00042, 2020 WL 2525769, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020) (“Plaintiff’s argument that the activities noted by the ALJ, such as mowing, doing home repairs and golfing, do not show the ability to perform medium work is not persuasive.”).

Section 404.1529(c) permits treatment history and lack of objective corroboration to inform symptom severity, but surgery is generally not conservative treatment and objective evidence cannot be the sole reason for rejecting symptom testimony.

Love v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-18(c)(2)-(3)

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); 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). Here, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s treatment history is “conservative.” Plaintiff has undergone cervical surgery to treat her pain. See AR 30, 283. Surgery is generally not a conservative course of treatment. See Cagle v. Colvin, 2016 WL 3912950, at *8 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2016) (finding that an ALJ erred in concluding that a plaintiff who underwent invasive surgery to treat back pain had engaged in a conservative course of treatment). ... Thus, the ALJ erred when she discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony because of Plaintiff’s treatment history. ... An ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain.” Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857. The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that the objective medical evidence does not support Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Jensen v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-16(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1529(a) asks whether symptom testimony can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical evidence, but an ALJ’s phrase “not entirely consistent” does not impose a higher standard when the ensuing analysis applies the correct rule.

Richardson v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-26(a)

Richardson’s primary argument that the ALJ erred in his evaluation of her testimony is that he tacitly applied a higher standard than appropriate when he stated that her statements were “not entirely consistent” with the medical evidence. As Richardson correctly notes, the ALJ is required to determine only whether her testimony “can reasonably be accepted as consistent” with the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). However, the ALJ’s use of the phrase “not entirely consistent” cannot fairly be read to suggest that the ALJ imported and applied an improperly high standard in evaluating Richardson’s subjective testimony, particularly in light of his subsequent detailed discussion of Richardson’s testimony and of its inconsistency with the medical evidence of record. Id. at 19-20. Numerous courts have considered and rejected the argument that an ALJ’s use of a phrase like “not entirely consistent” is evidence that the ALJ applied an incorrect standard, in particular where, as here, the ALJ’s deployment of the phrase is followed by a discussion that is consistent with the appropriate standard. See, e.g., Melanie S. v. Saul, No. 18-cv-00369, 2019 WL 4024097, at *10 (D.R.I. Aug. 27, 2019); Seibel v. Saul, No. 19-cv-643, 2020 WL 1812448, at *7 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 8, 2020).

Section 404.1529(c) requires specific, record-supported reasons that clearly explain the weight given to subjective complaints; a conclusory statement or mere recitation of regulatory factors is insufficient.

Schwartz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-16(c)

It is not sufficient for an ALJ to make a single conclusory statement that the individual’s allegations have been considered, that the allegations are or are not credible, or to simply recite the factors that are described in the Regulations for evaluating symptoms; rather, the ALJ’s decision must contain specific reasons for the finding on credibility, supported by evidence of record, that are sufficiently specific to make clear the weight that the ALJ gave to the claimant’s subjective complaints and the reasons therefor. Murphy v. Colvin, No. CIV.A. 14-1110, 2015 WL 5060131, at *6 (E.D. La. Aug. 25, 2015).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires specific reasons for a symptom determination, but failure to expressly reference a particular factor does not undermine an assessment supported by substantial evidence.

Lutters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3)

The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x at 76. However, the failure to specifically reference a particular relevant factor does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, other treatment and relief measures, and functional limitations.

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

Factors an ALJ considers in evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms include: 1. Daily activities; 2. The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3. Factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4. The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5. Treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6. Any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on his or her back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, or sleeping on a board); and 7. Any other factors concerning an individual's functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (2016); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929; see also Moreno, 366 F. App’x at 28 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)). “A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1562.

Sections 404.1529(b) and (c) require the agency first to determine whether an impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and work-related effects, with explicit reasons required for discounting subjective testimony.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-14(b), (c)

As indicated, in addition to the objective evidence of record, the Commissioner must consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective evidence and other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *2. Consideration of a claimant’s symptoms involves a two-step process, wherein the SSA first considers whether an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, such as pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3-9. If the SSA determines that an underlying physical or mental impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, the SSA evaluates the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3-9. When the ALJ discredits the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so. Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225 (citation omitted). A reviewing court will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding regarding a claimant’s subjective complaints supported by substantial evidence in the record. Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ who finds a medically determinable impairment capable of causing pain to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity and persistence using all available medical and nonmedical evidence, even if the claimant did not identify specific work-related limitations.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-16(c)(1)

In addition, the ALJ’s statement that Ms. Martinez did not identify “any work-related functional limitations associated with this impairment” does not excuse the ALJ’s failure to consider endometriosis in formulating Ms. Martinez’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) (when claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could cause pain, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity ... and persistence of claimant’s symptoms and must consider “all of the available evidence” from claimant’s medical sources and nonmedical sources about how symptoms affect claimant).

Section 404.1529(c) uses a two-step symptom evaluation that considers hearing testimony, medical-source statements, objective studies, reported activities, and treatment records to determine how established impairments limit work.

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-21(c)

Here, consistent with SSR 16-3p and the regulations, the ALJ considered the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s symptoms and determined the extent they limited her ability to perform work following the two-step process identified by the Commissioner, ... where he first determined that Plaintiff suffered from several severe impairments and then analyzed whether they caused any work-related limitations by considering Plaintiff’s hearing testimony, statements made by her medical sources, objective studies, reported activities, and treatment records from her mental and physical examinations. See SSR 16- 3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms: the adjudicator first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluates their intensity, persistence, and limiting effect on the claimant’s capacity for work using the available evidence and specified regulatory factors.

Selke v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-10(a), (c)(1), and (c)(3)

The social security regulations set forth a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s statements about the symptoms allegedly caused by his impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ determines whether a medically determinable impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” § 404.1529(a). If so, the ALJ then “evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence” of a claimant’s symptoms and determines how they limit the claimant’s “capacity for work.” § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers the available evidence as well as the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of his pain or other symptoms; (3) the precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) other treatment; and (6) any other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. See § 404.1529(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p. ... The ALJ’s discussion of the medical evidence in relation to Selke’s symptoms complied with the SSA’s regulations and rulings on assessing claimant credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) directs an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider evidence from nonmedical sources, so a lay statement cannot be rejected merely because it is based on observation, lacks a function-by-function assessment, or does not come from an acceptable medical source.

Latham v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-13(c)(1)

The regulations indicate that ALJs will consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating a claim of disability. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(3). ... The ALJ observed that lay witness statements are “based upon casual observation, rather than objective medical examination and testing,” do not provide a function-by-function assessment of a claimant’s abilities, and are not given by an acceptable medical source. Tr. 29. These are not germane reasons for rejecting the lay witness statement because an ALJ is directed to consider evidence from nonmedical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(3). ... Thus, any error in evaluating the lay witness statement is harmless.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms, but the agency must also consider the claimant’s alleged symptoms, longitudinal medical record, treatment, and treatment effectiveness rather than discounting the complaints solely for lack of objective support.

Giuffre v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-16(c)(2)

However, the Report comprehensively and ably discussed Plaintiff’s medical records. In particular, the Report states: review of the ALJ’s decision reveals that the ALJ did not rely solely on the absence of objective medical evidence to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Rather, in accordance with the regulations, the ALJ considered the longitudinal medical record of Plaintiff’s pain, along with his alleged symptoms, the diagnostic imaging and test results, treatment modalities, and effectiveness of those modalities and reasonably concluded Plaintiff’s statements concerning the severity of his symptoms were inconsistent with the other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms . . . may have on your ability to work . . . .”); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (“A report of minimal or negative findings or inconsistencies in the objective medical evidence is one of the many factors we must consider in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.”). ... Accordingly, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s first objection.

Section 404.1529 provides a two-step process for evaluating symptoms and requires consideration of objective evidence, subjective complaints, work history, source information, daily activities, medication, treatment, and other symptom-related limitations.

Weese v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-17(a), (c)(3)

Under the two-step process used to assess the limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, a determination is first 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. SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49462, 49463; Rogers v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 247 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(a)). If that requirement is met, the second step is to evaluate of the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49462, 49463; Rogers, 486 F.3d at 247. There is no dispute that the first step is met in this case (Tr. 1136), so the discussion will focus on the ALJ’s compliance with the second step. In undertaking this analysis, an ALJ should consider objective medical evidence, a claimant’s subjective complaints, information about a claimant’s prior work record, and information from medical and non-medical sources. SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49462, 49464-49466; 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3). Factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms include daily activities, types and effectiveness of medications, treatment received to address symptoms, and other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. at 49465-49466; 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider all objective and subjective evidence, including the nature of the symptoms, treatment and medication, daily activities, and conflicts with other evidence.

Burks v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-09-18(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; SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *3–10. The ALJ may consider the nature of a claimant’s symptoms, the effectiveness of medication, a claimant’s method of treatment, a claimant’s activities, and any conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)–(4); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 at *3–10. ... Finally, the ALJ relied on Burks’ reported activities of daily living. ... The ALJ was entitled to consider these activities in the context of Burks’ subjective testimony. See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184 at *5 (July 2, 1996); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *7 (Oct. 25, 2017); Macia v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 1009, 1012 (11th Cir. 1987). ... Burks has not shown that the ALJ erred in discounting his pain testimony.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) require an ALJ to consider the listed symptom factors in relation to the other record evidence and any conflicts with the claimant’s statements.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-18(c)(3)-(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Moreover, the ALJ complied with applicable authority in addressing her subjective complaints. The ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ, after confirming a medically determinable impairment that could cause the claimed symptoms, to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work using objective evidence and the regulation’s listed factors.

Nelson v. Social Security Administation, Commissioner · filed 2024-09-23(a)–(c)

The Eleventh Circuit applies a two-part pain standard when a claimant claims disability due to pain or other subjective symptoms. The claimant must show evidence of an underlying medical condition and either (1) objective medical evidence that confirms the severity of the alleged symptoms arising from the condition, or (2) that the objectively determined medical condition is of such severity that it can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (b); Social Security Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3–*4 (Oct. 25, 2017) (“SSR 16-3p”); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225 (11th Cir. 2002). If the first part of the pain standard is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s alleged symptoms and their effect on her ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225–26. In evaluating the extent to which a claimant’s symptoms affect her capacity to perform basic work activities, the ALJ will consider (1) objective medical evidence, (2) the nature of a claimant’s symptoms, (3) the claimant’s daily activities, (4) precipitating and aggravating factors, (5) the effectiveness of medication, (6) treatment sought for relief of symptoms, (7) any measures the claimant takes to relieve symptoms, and (8) consistency between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), (4); SSR 16-3p at *4, *7–*8. ... The ALJ properly evaluated Ms. Nelson’s symptoms consistent with the Eleventh Circuit’s pain standard and her decision was supported by substantial evidence. ... Accordingly, there is no error in the ALJ’s consideration of Ms. Nelson’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements about pain and the medical evidence, but the ALJ must identify those inconsistencies specifically.

Hodgdon v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-23(c)(4)

The ALJ may also consider inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s statements regarding pain and the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); SSR 16-3p. ... First, the ALJ does not explain how the medical evidence contradicts Plaintiff’s alleged need to use the restroom for forty-five to sixty minutes. While the Court may be able to draw inferences about what testimony is inconsistent, the ALJ must identify those inconsistencies with specificity.

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

De Rubio v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-23(c)

An ALJ considers several factors when assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, his level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5–8. ... Here, the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s symptoms was adequately supported with evidence and explanation. The ALJ discussed Plaintiff's testimony relating to her pain intensity, functional limitations, and treatment course. R. 22.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, but does not require discussion of every factor or a factor-by-factor analysis.

Snyder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-23(c)(3)

An ALJ should consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) but “is not required to discuss every factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to assess a claimant’s subjective symptoms, determine their intensity and persistence after finding a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce them, and consider the pertinent regulatory factors in evaluating their limiting effects.

Cabell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-24(a), (c)(1), (c)(3)

When forming an RFC, an ALJ must assess the claimant’s subjective allegations regarding his or her symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a) (2023). ... If the ALJ finds that there is a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must then assess the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms to determine how those symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... The regulations only require an ALJ to consider the pertinent factors; they do not require the ALJ to discuss all the factors in his or her opinion. ... The ALJ’s decision contains no such detailed analysis. While the ALJ did rely on the Claimant’s daily activities, his inability to make an accurate citation to the record regarding the same calls into question his analysis and leads the Court to conclude that he did not comply with the relevant regulations and SSR.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider relevant factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medications, treatment, relief measures, and other functional limitations, but the ALJ need not analyze every factor.

Neal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-24(c)(3)

In addition, the ALJ uses the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3) to evaluate the claimant’s statements. ... The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, only those germane to the alleged symptoms. See Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F.Supp.2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005). ... The ALJ’s analysis articulated multiple factors in SSR 16-3p and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), including Ms. Neal’s daily activities, her medications and treatment, and the objective medical evidence. The record provides substantial evidence for each factor.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: the claimant must first show a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, after which the adjudicator considers all available evidence and the regulatory factors in assessing the symptoms' intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

MOORE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-24(b), (c)(3)

A two-part test governs the evaluation of a claimant’s statements about symptoms. “First, there must be objective medical evidence showing ‘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.’” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 594 (4th Cir. 1996) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(b), 404.1529(b)). The second part of the test then requires an ALJ to consider all available evidence, including the claimant’s statements about pain, in order to determine whether the claimant is disabled. Id. at 595-596. While the ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements and other subjective evidence at step two, she need not credit them if they conflict with the objective medical evidence or if the underlying impairment could not reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms alleged. Id. Where the ALJ has considered the relevant factors, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), and heard the claimant’s testimony and observed her demeanor, the ALJ’s determination regarding Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is entitled to deference. Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987, 989 (4th Cir. 1984).

An ALJ must consider the seven regulatory factors concerning pain and other symptoms in relation to the other record evidence and any conflicts with the claimant’s statements.

Winchester v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-23(c)(3), (c)(4)

The Regulations provide that an ALJ “will” consider the following factors related to symptoms such as pain: (i) [The claimant’s] daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, [the claimant] receive[s] or ha[s] received for relief of [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures [the claimant] use[s] or ha[s] used to relieve [his or her] pain or other symptoms . . .; and (vii) Other factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii); see Raper v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 89 F.4th 1261, 1277 (11th Cir. 2024). The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c) bars an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, but permits discounting complaints that are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Hart v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-25(c)(2)–(3)

Although the ALJ cannot reject “statements . . . about the effect [the claimant’s] symptoms have on [the claimant’s] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] symptoms,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), “an ALJ is entitled to make a factual determination that a claimant’s subjective pain complaints are not credible in light of objective medical evidence to the contrary.” ... Because Plaintiff’s subjective complaints could not “reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence,” the ALJ properly discredited Plaintiff’s statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vi) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s pain statements to consider daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, other treatment, and other pain-relief measures.

McDonald v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)(i)–(vi)

When determining whether a claimant’s statements about his pain are credible, the ALJ considers: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain; (5) treatment, other than medication, used to relieve pain; and (6) any measures used to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vi). ... Here, the ALJ properly evaluated McDonald’s subjective complaints in light of the evidence of record, and the ALJ sufficiently cited evidence in the record for finding that McDonald’s statements were not entirely consistent with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant symptom-evaluation factors and adequately explain the inconsistencies relied on to discount a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Ratliff v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-26(c)

The relevant factors include: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, intensity, and frequency of pain; (3) any precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions; (6) the claimant’s work history; and (7) the absence of objective medical evidence supporting the claimant’s complaints. Id. at 1065–66; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While an ALJ must consider these factors, she need not discuss how each factor supports her determination. ... In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ did not explain the purported inconsistencies between Ratliff’s statements regarding the frequency and severity of her migraines and the evidence in the record. Without further explanation, the Court is unable to determine whether the ALJ properly discounted her statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ to consider the listed symptom-related factors in relation to the other record evidence and any conflicts with the claimant’s statements.

Otero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-27(c)(3)-(4)

The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” ... Besides detailing the evidence on both the mental and physical limitations, Tr. at 71-83 (physical), 83-88 (mental), the ALJ wrote entirely separate sections making findings about Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, Tr. at 89, medications and effects, Tr. at 89, and alternative methods of treatment, Tr. at 90. Plaintiff does not challenge any of these detailed findings; they are supported by substantial evidence, reflect adequate consideration of the factors, and need not be disturbed.

Section 404.1529 requires the agency to consider all symptoms, including pain, but permits it to discount statements about their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects when they are inconsistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Lucio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-27(a), (c)(2)

Finally, Plaintiff’s arguments that the ALJ “failed to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms under SSR 16-3p,” Doc. 22 at 19, are also unavailing, as they lack legal and factual foundation. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ cannot reject subjective pain complaints “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [these] statements.” Doc. 22 at 19 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). Plaintiff conveniently omits the first sentence of that statute which provides, “[i]n determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017) (“Under our regulations, an individual’s statements of symptoms alone are not enough . . . . We must consider whether an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his or her symptoms are consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings of record.”); Chambliss v. Massanari, 269 F.3d 520, 522 (5th Cir. 2001) (“Subjective complaints of pain must also be corroborated by objective medical evidence.”).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation and bars an ALJ from rejecting statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

TURMELLE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-30(b), (c)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. 20 CFR. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the AL] must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. At this step, objective evidence is of required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4-5. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. at *4. Thus, the AL] must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. Id. at *5. ... Despite having ordered the examination in otder to build a full and fair picture of Plaintiffs limitations, it appears that the AL] etroneously discounted the examiner’s findings when—and because—they supported the subjective complaints of both Plaintiff and his mother. In doing so, she violated both Arakas and Shelley C..

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s subjective complaints but does not require the ALJ to accept them without question when they are inconsistent with other evidence.

OLINGER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-30(c)(4)

However, while a claimant’s testimony regarding her subjective complaints is certainly relevant and must be considered, 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 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011). In this matter, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s complaints regarding her back pain and also discussed Plaintiff’s pain after back surgery during the administrative hearing. (R. 30-31, 62-64). In her decision, the ALJ stated that Plaintiff’s complaints were not consistent with post-operative treatment records and examinations, as Plaintiff frequently reported her pain management medications were effective and that her pain was stable. (R. 31). Accordingly, the ALJ complied with SSR 16-3p and adequately evaluated Plaintiff’s complaints of back pain following her surgery.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to compare a claimant’s statements about pain with the objective medical evidence but forbids rejecting those statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate the alleged severity.

Steven A v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-30(c)(3)

To comply with this requirement, an ALJ must consider a claimant’s statements about pain and determine the extent to which they are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence but also may not disregard them “solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... I find no error in the ALJ’s well-supported treatment of Plaintiff’s subjective statements and do not recommend remand for further consideration of them.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms, considering the entire record, and permits an ALJ to consider both the absence of objective support and contradictions in the claimant’s statements without requiring objective proof of symptom severity.

Ragland v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-10-04(a), (b), (c)(4)

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must apply the two-step evaluation process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. See Arakas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. Id. (citing to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *3). Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine their effect on claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. The ALJ considers all available evidence, including medical history, medical signs and laboratory findings, and claimant’s statements. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). At this step, “objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled,” however, the ALJ may consider lack of objective medical evidence as one factor. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. (emphasis in original). The ALJ “must consider the entire case record and may ‘not disregard an individual’s statement about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate’ them.” Id. ... There is no error in the ALJ relying on contradictory statements to determine that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not entirely consistent with the evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). Accordingly, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s self-described limitations were not consistent with the record evidence as whole, and this finding was sufficiently articulated and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptom statements to consider the listed factors that are germane to the alleged symptoms, and permits consideration of marijuana use as a cause and aggravating factor.

Skrzypiec v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-11(c)(3)

In addition, the ALJ uses the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) to evaluate the claimant’s statements. ... The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors, only those germane to the alleged symptoms. ... Here, the ALJ applied those factors to conclude Ms. Skryzpiec’s marijuana use was a cause and aggravating factor of her abdominal pain and nausea.

Section 404.1529 provides that a claimant’s statements alone do not establish disability, permits subjective complaints to be discounted when inconsistent with objective medical evidence, and allows daily activities to be considered when evaluating symptom consistency.

HOOGERHYDE v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-10-18(a), (c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

A claimant’s own statements about pain or other symptoms are not sufficient, by themselves, to establish that a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Part of the RFC analysis includes whether complained of symptoms are “reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” § 404.1529(c)(4). Thus, an ALJ may discount subjective complaints if they are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. Id.; see Weber v. Massanari, 156 F. Supp. 2d 475, 485 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (explaining an ALJ “has the right, as the fact finder, to reject partially, or even entirely” subjective complaints if they are not fully credible) (citations omitted). ... The ALJ is permitted to consider Plaintiff’s daily activities when assessing the consistency of a claimant’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

An ALJ may satisfy § 404.1529(c)(3) by adequately explaining why subjective symptom statements are not fully consistent with treatment records, medical opinions, and other evidence.

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-18(c)(3)

Pena argues that the ALJ failed to provide a specific reason for discrediting Pena’s testimony and failed to consider every “regulatory factor” under Section 404.1529(c)(3). Here, the ALJ found that the statements of Pena and his wife were “not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record.” Tr. 18. The ALJ then discussed Pena’s treatment records, the opinions of several state agency consultants, and Pena’s service-connected disability rating. Tr. 18-22. The ALJ specifically and adequately described the basis for not entirely crediting Pena’s and his wife’s subjective statements. Contrary to Pena’s argument, the ALJ neither broadly rejected Pena’s subjective complaints nor failed to support his finding. Rather, the ALJ credited Pena’s testimony, except as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of Pena’s symptoms. In doing so, the ALJ provided substantial evidence in support of his conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate whether a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Welch v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-21(c)(2)-(3)

Rather, when a claimant has produced objective evidence of an impairment that could reasonably cause his alleged symptoms, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the symptoms. See SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *8. The ALJ then must evaluate whether the claimant’s subjective statements about their symptoms are consistent with: (1) the objective medical evidence; and (2) the other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3); SSR 16-3p. ... And, as set forth above, the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and his evaluation of Plaintiff’s mental health impairments is permeated with citations to the record—including Plaintiff’s own testimony and self-reports—supporting the ALJ’s analyses and conclusions.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount the alleged degree and severity of subjective symptoms when they are not supported by the medical evidence.

Claeyssen v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-24(c)(4)

The ALJ sufficiently evaluated Plaintiff's subjective symptoms related to her mental impairments and included limitations supported by the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (stating that the ALJ is empowered to determine whether a claimant’s subjective complaints are supported by medical evidence and, if not, the ALJ may discount the claimed degree and severity of the alleged symptoms).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and consideration of the regulatory factors pertinent to the record.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-24(c)(1), (c)(3)

Social Security regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other symptoms: First, “the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] symptoms.” [Second], the ALJ “must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms” to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. ... However, the ALJ is only required to discuss factors that are “pertinent to the evidence of record.” ... Therefore, the ALJ applied the proper legal standard when evaluating Plaintiff’s credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-part evaluation of subjective complaints: objective medical evidence must establish an impairment reasonably capable of producing the symptoms, and the adjudicator must then evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s capacity for work.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-25(b), (c)(1)

The ALJ evaluates a claimant's subjective complaints using a two-part process. ... First, “medical signs or laboratory findings” must show the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [his] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [his] symptoms so that [he] can determine how [his] symptoms limit [his] capacity for work.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, and other relevant factors bearing on the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and functional effects.

Tromler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-18(c)(1)-(3)

Next, the ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence and the claimant’s reported daily activities, as well as several other factors, to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of the claimant's symptoms. See Curler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 561 F. App’x 464, 474 (6th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *4, *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... It is clear that the ALJ meaningfully considered Tromler’s subjective complaints when formulating her RFC. She cited evidence both in favor of, and in opposition to, further limitation based on those subjective complaints, citing in particular the objective evidence with regard to her lumbar degenerative disc disease, and to the exhaustive notes of her treating sources with regard to her mental health. The ALJ considered the effectiveness of Tromler’s medication and treatment.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the full record but does not require discussion of every listed factor individually.

Kelly v. SSA · filed 2024-11-20(c)

The ALJ does not have to discuss each individual factor from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and how it comports with the record evidence. Karen F. v. Comm’r of Social Sec., No. 2:22-cv-2951, 2023 WL 3740784, at *4 (S.D. Ohio May 31, 2023). ALJ Francis complied with the regulations by considering the record, and not just Claimant’s subjective complaints or cherry-picked medical findings, in fashioning Claimant’s RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) requires an ALJ who evaluates subjective symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, and the regulation’s other factors when assessing the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and functional effects.

Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-22(c)(1)-(3)

When assessing a claimant’s subjective statements, “‘the ALJ must [first] determine whether a claimant has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.’” Grames v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 815 Fed. App’x 820, 825 (6th Cir. 2019) quoting Calvin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 437 F. App’x 370, 371 (6th Cir. 2011); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *3 (Oct. 25, 2017). Next, the ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence and the claimant’s reported daily activities, as well as several other factors, to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of the claimant's symptoms. See Curler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 561 F. App’x 464, 474 (6th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *4, *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). The ALJ must determine whether there is objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source showing that the claimant has a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged pain. If there is, the ALJ considers all the evidence to determine the extent to which the pain affects the claimant’s ability to work.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s reported symptoms reasonably align with the objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence.

Avila v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-26(a)

In discounting Plaintiff's testimony, the ALJ adhered to the regulation mandating consideration of whether Plaintiff's symptoms align reasonably with objective medical ... evidence and other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: the claimant must first establish an impairment that could reasonably produce the symptoms, after which the ALJ considers the entire record, including the regulation’s listed factors, to assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

White v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-12-03(a)-(c)

Consideration of a claimant’s symptoms therefore involves a two-step process, wherein the SSA first considers whether an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment exists that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, such as pain. ... Once an underlying physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms is established, the ALJ must then consider all of the evidence in the record to evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence of an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, but not objective proof of the symptoms themselves, and permits an ALJ to evaluate subjective complaints against all available evidence for inconsistencies.

Soileau v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2024-12-03(a), (c)

When making disability determinations, an ALJ must consider the claimant’s symptoms and the extent to which such symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). While the ALJ will consider the claimant’s statements about symptoms, such statements “will not alone establish that [the claimant is] disabled.” Id. For a claimant to succeed, there must first be objective medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Craig, 76 F.3d at 591-595 (emphasis added). Objective evidence of the pain or other alleged symptom itself is not required, as a subjective phenomenon often will not be objectively verifiable. Id. at 594. ... If this first step is satisfied, the ALJ will then evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms and the extent to which they affect the claimant’s ability to work. Id. at 595 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). The ALJ does so by considering “all of the available evidence” including medical and nonmedical sources, medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, information about the claimant’s prior work record, as well as the claimant’s statements, which are evaluated “in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” considering “whether there are any inconsistencies . . . and the extent to which there are any conflicts.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). “Although a claimant’s allegations about her pain may not be discredited solely because they are not substantiated by objective evidence of the pain itself or its severity, they need not be accepted to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. ... Here, it does not appear that the ALJ cherry-picked facts to support a finding of nondisability. The ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s symptoms in relation to the rest of the evidence. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 595 (stating that a claimant’s allegations “need not be accepted to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms to consider seven categories of evidence, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and functional limitations.

McGhee v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-04(c)(3)

In addition, when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, SSR 16-3p guides that the ALJ should also use the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3), which include: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id. ... It is manifest from the face of the Final Decision that the ALJ carefully followed the correct legal standard outlined in SSR 16-3p when formulating the RFC. ... And she clearly did just that.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting a claimant’s statements solely because medical evidence does not corroborate them, but permits discounting statements that are inconsistent with medical or other record evidence.

Williams v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-12-04(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), “a claimant’s statements will not be rejected solely because the statements are not corroborated by the medical evidence—which is a very different circumstance from when the claimant’s statements are inconsistent with the medical or other evidence of record.” Yanes v. Comm’r, SSA, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20972, at *23 n.14 (11th Cir. July 15, 2021). ... The ALJ’s decision to reject Williams’s and his lay witnesses’ subjective statements is supported by substantial evidence showing that these statements were inconsistent with the objective evidence in the record.

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

Michel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-06(a)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which those symptoms are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Considering this standard, after considering the entire record, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiffs allegations of subjective pain.

Section 404.1529(a) requires the agency to evaluate subjective symptoms, including pain, against objective medical evidence and other evidence; symptom statements alone cannot establish disability.

Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-10(a)

This finding is not a medical conclusion, as plaintiff asserts; it is a determination within the ALJ’s purview to evaluate a claimant’s subjective allegations in light of other evidence, including objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we consider all your symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which your symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. . . . However, statements about your pain or other ... symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled. There must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows you have a medical impairment(s) which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged and that, when considered with all of the other evidence (including statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms which may reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings), would lead to a conclusion that you are disabled. . . .”).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ, after finding a medically determinable impairment capable of producing the claimed symptoms, to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects on the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.

Perry v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-11(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms, the federal regulations and case law provide that “the ALJ must [first] determine whether there is a medically determinable impairment that is capable of producing that pain.” Eovaldi v. Astrue, 729 F. Supp. 2d 848, 862 (S.D. Tex. 2010). “Once the impairment is found, the ALJ evaluates the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of the symptoms on the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities.” Gachter v. Colvin, No. 4:13-cv-168, 2014 WL 2526887, at *8 (N.D. Tex. June 4, 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *1). ... Here, the ALJ made much more than a conclusory statement.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of objective medical and other evidence and the listed symptom-evaluation factors, but does not require an ALJ to discuss every piece of evidence or every possible factor.

Travis v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-12-12(c)(3)

This evaluation requires consideration of objective medical and other evidence, as well as factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). See SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4-9. However, an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, nor is he required to discuss every possible factor for evaluating subjective complaints. See Tucker v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2004). The ALJ may discount complaints if they are inconsistent with the evidence as a whole. See Chaney v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 672, 677-78 (8th Cir. 2016); Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2014). An ALJ is in a better position to evaluate allegations, and the court will defer to that evaluation when it is supported by good reasons and substantial evidence. Id. at 994.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective complaints: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and then evaluates their intensity and persistence using all available evidence.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-12(c)(1)

“First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a ‘medically determinable impairment[] that could reasonably be expected to produce’” his symptoms. Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)). “Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of those symptoms considering all of the available evidence; and, to the extent that the claimant’s [subjective] contentions are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must engage in a credibility inquiry.” Id. ... The ALJ applied the two-step inquiry and set forth well-supported reasons for finding Plaintiff’s subjective allegations less than fully credible.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: the ALJ first determines whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms, then assesses whether the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with the medical and other record evidence; lack of corroborating objective evidence alone does not justify rejection.

Lopez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-12(a)-(c)

The ALJ must follow a two-step process: (1) determine whether any medically determinable impairments (“MDIs”) could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms, then (2) determine whether the allegations concerning intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence and other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a)-(c), 416.929(a)-(c). While objective medical evidence is something an ALJ may consider when evaluating symptom testimony, the absence of corroborating objective medical evidence alone is not sufficient to reject a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process for evaluating subjective symptoms, considering both objective medical evidence and the other symptom-related factors listed in subsection (c)(3).

GUILLEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-12-30(a), (c), (c)(3)

Instead, objective medical evidence must corroborate a claimant’s subjective complaints. Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 F. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). Specifically, an ALJ must follow a two-step process in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016). First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” Id. “Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms is established, [the ALJ] evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities[.]” Id.; see also Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999) (“[Evaluation of the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom and the extent to which it affects the ability to work] obviously requires the ALJ to determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing the following factors to consider: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, currently received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures currently used or have used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms). ... Here, the ALJ followed this two-step evaluation process. ... For all these reasons, the Court concludes that the ALJ sufficiently explained her reasoning in assessing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and the ALJ’s findings in this regard are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are therefore entitled to this Court’s deference.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider daily activities, the characteristics and triggers of the symptoms, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and functional restrictions.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-03(c)(3)

Rather, the ALJ must consider factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms of pain, including (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain and other symptoms; (3) any precipitating or aggravating factors; (4) the effect of any medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; (5) any other treatment the claimant has received for symptom relief; (6) any other measures the plaintiff has used to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to their pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-viii); Poole v. Saul, 462 F. Supp. 3d 137, 157 (D. Conn. 2020). ... Although the ALJ did not entirely credit the plaintiff’s complaints of pain, the ALJ nevertheless appropriately considered these complaints in light of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-viii).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective symptoms using all the evidence and permits consideration of symptom severity factors such as duration, frequency, intensity, precipitating or aggravating circumstances, treatment, medication, daily activities, and objective medical evidence.

Patrick v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2025-01-03(c)

And although an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective complaints solely because they are not substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the extent to which such evidence supports the degree of symptom severity alleged by the claimant is a relevant factor to be considered. ... The ALJ’s evaluation of this evidence is guided by the consideration of several factors relevant to symptom severity, such as the duration, frequency, and intensity of the symptoms; what precipitates or aggravates them; the medications, treatments, or other methods that have been used to alleviate them; and how the symptoms affect the claimant’s pattern of daily living. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... In addition to the conservative nature of Patrick’s treatment, the ALJ also considered the objective medical imaging and examination findings, which he noted were inconsistent with Patrick’s reports of disabling pain and dysfunction. (ECF No. 10, pp. 22-23). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... Here, the ALJ considered relevant factors and gave good reasons, which are supported by substantial evidence, for partially discounting Patrick’s claimed symptoms. As such, the Court finds no error and defers to the ALJ’s evaluation of Patrick’s subjective symptoms relative to the weight of the medical and other evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to consider a claimant’s statements and subjective complaints beyond medical-record findings.

Perkins v. SSA · filed 2025-01-09

As part of the RFC assessment, the ALJ may consider evidence beyond the findings contained in the medical record, including statements and subjective complaints from the applicant themselves. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. ... The record and the ALJ’s opinion demonstrate that substantial evidence exists to support her findings and conclusions, thus this argument must also fail.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, the characteristics of the claimant’s pain, medication, and other symptom-relief measures.

Casale v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-17(c)

In making such a determination, the ALJ may consider numerous factors, including objective medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain; medication used for relief of pain or other symptoms; and other measures used to relieve pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, 2017 WL 5180304 (eff. March 28, 2016), at *4, *7–8; Wilson v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 1136, 1144–45 (10th Cir. 2010). ... In making this determination, the ALJ first considered Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his limitations as well as his activities of daily living. (AR at 20–22). The ALJ found Plaintiff’s subjective statements were inconsistent with the substantial objective medical evidence. (Id. at 26–31). ... Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ failed to consider or improperly construed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints is thereby unpersuasive.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to assess subjective symptoms using objective medical evidence and the regulation’s other enumerated factors, without ignoring an entire line of contrary evidence.

Thiery v. O'Malley · filed 2025-01-24(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors including: the objective medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; treatment and other measures besides medication taken to relieve pain or other symptoms; and functional limitations due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, 7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). “‘An ALJ need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor,’ but an ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence contrary to her ruling.” Benito M. v. Kijakazi, No. 20 C 5966, 2022 WL 2828741, at *8 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2022) (quoting Grotts v. Kijakazi, 27 F.4th 1273, 1278 (7th Cir. 2022)). ... Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s subjective statements was not “patently wrong.” Grotts, 27 F.4th at 1279. Plaintiff’s request to remand the case for further consideration of this issue is denied.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to discuss the symptom-evaluation factors pertinent to the record, but not to mechanically address every listed factor.

FLANAGIN v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2025-01-24(c)(3)

An ALJ need only “discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record,” which is exactly what occurred in this case. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8; see also Crocker v. Astrue, No. 07-220-P-S, 2008 WL 2775980, at *6 (D. Me. June 30, 2008) (rec. dec.) (rejecting the argument that an ALJ must mechanically address each regulatory factor), aff’d, 2008 WL 2875324 (D. Me. July 23, 2008).

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant relying on subjective complaints to show an underlying medical condition and either objective confirmation of symptom severity or that the condition could reasonably cause the symptoms, after which the ALJ must evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on the ability to work.

Heard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-01-29(a)-(d)

When a claimant attempts to prove disability based on her subjective complaints, she must provide evidence of an underlying medical condition and either objective medical evidence confirming the severity of her alleged symptoms or evidence establishing that her medical condition could be reasonably expected to give rise to her alleged symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b), 416.929(a), (b); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017); Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 2002). If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the claimant’s alleged symptoms but the claimant establishes that she has an impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her alleged symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s alleged symptoms and their effect on the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), (d), 416.929(c), (d); SSR 16-3p; Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225-26.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and the listed symptom-related factors, and permits the ALJ to discount subjective complaints that are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence.

GINTER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-01-29(c)(3)-(4)

In addition to the objective medical evidence in the record, at the second step the ALJ considers factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms including: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, and frequency of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; (5) treatment, other than medication, received; (6) other measures taken to relieve pain; and (7) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii). An ALJ may discount subjective complaints if they are inconsistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); see also Garrett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 274 F. App’x 159, 164 (3d Cir. 2008) (stating “[i]nconsistencies in a claimant’s testimony or daily activities permit an ALJ to conclude that some or all of claimant’s testimony about her limitations or symptoms is less than fully credible”) (citation omitted). ... The ALJ relied on permissible grounds in the record to reject Plaintiff’s alleged disabling limitations. See e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), § 404.1529(c)(4); see also Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999) (“[a]llegations of pain and other subjective symptoms must be supported by objective medical evidence.”).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-part evaluation of subjective symptoms: objective medical evidence must establish an impairment that could reasonably produce the symptoms, and the ALJ must then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using all available evidence, including treatment and functional limitations.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-29(b), (c)(1), (c)(3)

The ALJ evaluates a claimant’s subjective complaints using a two-part process. Salazar v. Chater, 74 F.3d 1236 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). First, “medical signs or laboratory findings” must show the claimant has a “medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce [her] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Second, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [her] symptoms so that [he] can determine how [her] symptoms limit [her] capacity for work.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(1). Here, the ALJ found the first part satisfied, but during the second part noted an inconsistency between Johnson’s subjective complaints and the record as a whole. ... For part two, the ALJ considers “all of the available evidence,” § 404.1529(c)(1), including medical opinions and evidence of factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... It also shows the ALJ’s reliance on substantial evidence under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) in evaluating Johnson’s complaints. Accordingly, reversal is not necessary on Johnson’s second issue.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of alleged disabling symptoms, including consideration of objective medical evidence and other evidence under seven factors, although the ALJ need not expressly analyze every factor.

Channels v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-30(c)(3)

When a plaintiff alleges symptoms of disabling severity, the ALJ must follow a two-step process for evaluating those symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *2-3 (October 25, 2017). First, the ALJ must determine whether the individual has a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged; second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and functional limitations of those symptoms by considering objective medical evidence and other evidence according to seven factors. Relevant here, those factors include: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... While the ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors, he must still show that he considered the relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider both objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including the claimant’s activities, symptom characteristics, medications, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

GAYDOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing the following factors to consider: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, currently received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures currently used or have used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms). ... Here, the ALJ followed this two-step evaluation process.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes daily activities, symptom characteristics, medications, treatment, relief measures, and resulting functional restrictions relevant to evaluating a claimant’s allegations of disabling symptoms.

Taylor v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-01-31(c)(3)

The Commissioner has promulgated regulations suggesting relevant factors to be considered in evaluating credibility: Daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; factors precipitating and aggravating symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medications taken to relieve symptoms; treatment for symptoms; measures the plaintiff has taken to relieve symptoms; and other factors concerning limitations or restrictions resulting from symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii). ... The Commissioner has provided four reasons to discount Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms which Plaintiff agrees are supported by the record evidence but argues the court should weigh them differently than did the ALJ.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires the Commissioner, when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, to consider all available evidence from medical and nonmedical sources about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-31(c)(1)

However, that an ALJ can disregard or reject relevant lay witness evidence for no reason is inconsistent with the Commissioner’s obligation pursuant to other controlling regulations to determine Plaintiff’s RFC based upon all relevant evidence of record, including observations made by a claimant’s family, neighbors, friends, or other person. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”); id. at § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will also consider descriptions and observations of your limitations from your impairment(s), including limitations that result from your symptoms, such as pain, provided by you, your family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.”); Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that an ALJ may not reject “significant probative evidence” without explanation).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms to compare them with the medical record and consider daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, and other symptom-relief measures.

Henry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-02-03(a), (c)(3)

While the ALJ must carefully consider the medical evidence of record in rendering a decision, the ALJ must likewise consider a claimant’s own testimony regarding how any physical and mental limitations impact functioning. In doing so, the ALJ is required to consider how closely the medical record lines up with a claimant’s self-reported symptoms. Showalter v. Kijakazi, No. 22-5718, 2023 WL 2523304 at *3 (6th Cir. 2023) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). ... Instead, the regulations require the ALJ to consider factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms such as the claimant’s daily activities; the duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type and effectiveness of any medication; and any other treatment or measures to alleviate symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

An ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms must consider all evidence, including the claimant’s statements, objective medical evidence, laboratory findings, and source statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Sands v. King · filed 2025-02-10(c)(4)

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

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

Maluchnik v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-10(c)

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

Section 404.1529(c) bars rejecting a claimant’s symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them, but permits evaluating those statements against objective evidence and the nature and effectiveness of treatment.

Breazeale v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-12(c)(2)-(4)

An ALJ “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [her] symptoms have on [her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Nonetheless, objective medical evidence is highly relevant to the symptom evaluation. See id. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[W]e will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence.”); Social Security Ruling (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”). ... The ALJ concluded that Claimant received conservative treatment (medication) for her joint symptoms and had not undergone other forms of treatment such as physical therapy or injections. (Tr. 27). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v); 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.”). ... Therefore, the Court finds the ALJ supported her conclusions, citing to objective medical evidence, conservative treatment, efficacy of medication, and the conflicts between Claimant’s testimony and the medical evidence and accounted for all of Claimant’s reported symptoms in the RFC that were supported by the record.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms: objective medical evidence must first show a condition that could reasonably produce them, and the adjudicator must then assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, including inconsistencies with the other evidence.

Pinksaw v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-02-12(b), (c)

“[A]n ALJ follows a two-step analysis when considering a claimant’s subjective statements about impairments and symptoms.” Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 865–66 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), (c)). “First, the ALJ looks for objective medical evidence showing a condition that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms.” Id. at 866 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). If the ALJ concludes the claimant’s impairments could reasonably produce the symptoms he alleges, he continues to the second step in which he must “evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). ... The ALJ’s decision presents a clear analysis of Plaintiff’s treatment history, medical findings, symptom report, and other relevant evidence. See SSR 96-8p. He identified specific inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s allegations and the medical record in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and SSR 16-3p, justifying his decision not to fully credit Plaintiff’s allegations.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms and consideration of all available evidence, including daily activities, pain-related factors, medication side effects, treatment, and other measures used for relief.

Cowles v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2025-02-13(a), (c)(3)

The regulations set forth a two-step process for evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective symptoms. First, the ALJ evaluates whether objective medical evidence of an underlying condition exists and whether that condition could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p. If so, the ALJ assesses any work-related limitations by determining the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 16-3p. In sum, ALJs assess whether the symptoms claimed are “consistent with the objective medical and other evidence in the individual’s record.” SSR 16-3p. To evaluate the limiting effects of subjective symptoms, ALJs consider all available evidence, including the plaintiff’s history, laboratory findings, statements by the plaintiff, and medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). Although a plaintiff’s description of his symptoms will “not alone establish that [he] is disabled,” id., the ALJ may not disregard the plaintiff’s subjective complaints because they lack substantiating objective evidence, SSR 16-3p. Along with objective evidence, ALJs must consider a plaintiff’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, and side effects of medication to alleviate symptoms; and any other treatment or measures used to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects in light of the entire record.

Vioral v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-18(a)–(c)

The Social Security Rulings and Regulations provide a framework for evaluating the severity of a claimant’s reported symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; SSR 16–3p. Thus, the ALJ must follow a two-step process: first, the ALJ must determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the symptoms alleged; and second, the ALJ must evaluate the alleged symptoms in light of the entire administrative record. SSR 16-3p. ... Here, the ALJ considered the longitudinal medical record, which included evidence that Vioral’s symptoms improved with treatment, and determined that Vioral could perform a range of light work. The ALJ also pointed to Vioral’s activities of daily living, such as his ability to shop, do laundry, and perform household chores and personal care. Accordingly, we find these arguments unavailing and conclude that the ALJ’s decision as a whole is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount a claimant’s subjective complaints when they are inconsistent with the record as a whole, but the assessment must account for the entire record.

Jackson v. King · filed 2025-02-18

An ALJ may discount a claimant’s subjective complaints when there are inconsistencies in the record as a whole. ... With this framework in mind, the Court concludes that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s RFC determination here because the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff experienced clear improvement in her symptoms is not consistent with the entire record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the claimant’s daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, other relief measures, and resulting functional limitations.

Anapol v. O'Malley · filed 2025-02-25(c)(3)

The ALJ may not reject statements “about the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have on [the claimant’s] ability to work solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(2). Rather, the ALJ must consider factors relevant to the claimant’s symptoms of pain, including (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain and other symptoms; (3) any precipitating or aggravating factors; (4) the effect of any medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; (5) any other treatment the claimant has received for symptom relief; (6) any other measures the plaintiff has used to relieve symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to their pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-viii); see Poole v. Saul, 462 F. Supp. 3d 137, 157 (D. Conn. 2020). ... Although the ALJ did not entirely credit the plaintiff’s complaints of pain, the ALJ nevertheless appropriately considered these complaints in light of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-viii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations under the relevant listed factors, but does not require discussion of all seven factors.

Hubbard-Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-27(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors and may discuss only those relevant to the alleged symptoms. See Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005). ... Upon review, ALJ Thomas clearly articulated specific reasons for discounting Claimant’s subjective allegations related to sitting, standing, and walking. ALJ Thomas appropriately weighed Claimant’s subjective allegations of pain against several of the applicable § 404.1529(c)(3) factors.

Section 404.1529(c) requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and consideration of daily activities and other specified evidence when assessing their intensity, persistence, and work-related limiting effects.

Rollenhagen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-27(c)(1)-(3)

When a claimant alleges disabling symptoms, the ALJ follows a two-step process for evaluating those symptoms. “We determine whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment (MDI) that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms” and “[w]e evaluate the intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms such as pain and determine the extent to which an individual’s symptoms limit his or her ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *3-4 (Oct. 25, 2017). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1) and (2). ... The Commissioner also considers other evidence including: (i) Your daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of your pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Having reviewed the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s summary of plaintiff’s daily activities is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medications, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

RAVIKOVICH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-03-04(c)(3)

In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must consider the objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s subjective symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing the following factors to consider: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, currently received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures currently used or have used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms). ... In short, the ALJ appropriately considered Plaintiff’s daily activities when discounting the extent of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the Court will not re-weigh the evidence in this regard.

Section 404.1529(a) and (c) require an ALJ evaluating the limiting effects of subjective symptoms to consider the claimant’s statements, the objective and other evidence, daily activities, symptom characteristics and triggers, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional limitations.

Singer v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-06(a), (c)

In analyzing the limiting effects of subjective complaints, the ALJ considers the claimant’s statements about his or her pain and other symptoms; information from medical sources and nonmedical sources about the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions; objective medical evidence; the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate the pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of the pain or other symptoms; any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve the pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on one’s back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a),(c). ... Because the ALJ did not adequately explain how he assessed Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the Court cannot determine whether the ALJ’s RFC assessment is supported by substantial evidence. Thus, remand is required.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the symptom-evaluation factors to be considered in relation to the other record evidence and any conflicts with the claimant’s statements.

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

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

Under § 404.1529, an ALJ adequately evaluates subjective symptoms by considering the claimant’s allegations, medical records, medications and side effects, daily activities, functional limitations, assistive devices, and reports of pain.

Dixon v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-10(c)

To the extent that the ALJ did discount Plaintiff's subjective complaints, a review of the decision as a whole demonstrates that the ALJ adequately considered several of the relevant factors in her evaluation. The ALJ expressly cited 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and discussed the allegations in Plaintiff's function report, hearing testimony, and medical records (Tr. 24-29). This discussion included references to Plaintiff’s medications and their reported side effects, Plaintiff’s daily activities, her reported functional limitations, her assistive device, and reports on her experiences of pain. (Tr. 24-25).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the listed symptom-related factors in relation to the other record evidence and any conflicts between that evidence and the claimant’s statements.

Schultz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-10(c)(3)-(4)

The Regulations provide that an ALJ “will” consider the following factors related to symptoms such as pain: (i) [The claimant’s] daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, [the claimant] receive[s] or ha[s] received for relief of [his or her] pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures [the claimant] use[s] or ha[s] used to relieve [his or her] pain or other symptoms . . .; and (vii) Other factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii); see Raper v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 89 F.4th 1261, 1277 (11th Cir. 2024). The factors must be considered “in relation to other evidence in the record and whether the claimant’s statements conflict with other evidence.” Raper, 89 F.4th at 1277 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Plaintiff does not challenge any of these detailed findings; they are supported by substantial evidence, reflect adequate consideration of the factors, and need not be disturbed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider evidence bearing on whether a claimant’s pain is disabling, including treatment efforts, daily activities, and medication effects, but does not require discussion of every statement the claimant made.

Breazeale v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-03-10(c)(3)

Factors the ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include the claimant’s attempts to find relief and willingness to try any treatment prescribed; a claimant’s regular contact with a doctor; the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; the claimant’s daily activities; and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication. ... The ALJ is not required to comment on the consistency of every statement Plaintiff made. ... In sum, the ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff's subjective complaints and the objective evidence satisfies 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3), and SSR 16-3.