20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and other relevant evidence.

JIAMPETTI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-12-13(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. ... 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 the ALJ to consider factors including daily activities, treatment, medication, and functional limits when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Jordan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-21(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s testimony, the ALJ should consider: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 867 (11th Cir. 2019). ... Further, the ALJ improperly relied mainly on objective imaging and clinical examinations to find Plaintiff’s subjective statements of the intensity, persistency, and limiting effects of her fibromyalgia symptoms were inconsistent with objective imaging and clinical examinations.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and limiting effects of reported symptoms using the entire record.

Norwood v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-09(c)

This is consistent with the two-step process described above, and the cited medical opinions constitute substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings. Accordingly, Mr. N. has demonstrated no error in the ALJ’s consideration of subjective symptom evidence related to sitting.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider daily activities, medication, treatment, and other relevant factors when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Brown v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2024-02-02(c)(3)

The ALJ also must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), including (1) daily activities; ... After a review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently explained her reasoning for discrediting Brown’s subjective complaints and symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms and explain the assessment using the relevant evidence.

Obrien v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-09(c)

The ALJ recited medical evidence that may fit into the Section 1529 categories listed above but failed to discuss all the factors clearly.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi) directs consideration of medication effectiveness, other treatment, and measures used to relieve symptoms when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Lemon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-07(c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

Relevant factors for the ALJ to consider when evaluating symptom testimony include “[t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” the plaintiff takes to alleviate symptoms, as well as treatment besides medication that relieves symptoms, and other measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(vi).

Section 404.1529(c) directs an ALJ to consider treatment, daily activities, and medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Moy v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-05(c)

The ALJ followed 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) by considering Ferida’s symptoms, including treatment, daily activities, and the medical record.

Section 404.1529(a) requires adjudicators to consider reported symptoms, including pain, and assess whether the evidence supports their claimed effects.

Tollett v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-13(a)

The regulations provide that when making a ... disability determination, the adjudicator must consider subjective symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which those symptoms can be reasonably accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The ALJ provided specific reasons for not crediting the extent of Tollett’s claimed symptoms consistent with the requirements of the governing regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to weigh a claimant’s reported symptoms against the evidence of record.

Rudloff v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-15(c)(3)

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).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s statements about symptoms are consistent with the record as a whole.

Chamblis v. O'Malley (CONSENT) · filed 2024-03-26(c)(4)

The ALJ must examine the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms in relation to all other evidence and consider whether they are consistent with the record as a whole. ... Accordingly, the evidence here provides substantial support for the ALJ’s evaluation of Chamblis’ symptoms, and the record reflects that the ALJ sufficiently addressed Chamblis’ subjective symptoms in accordance with the regulations.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and effect on work capacity.

PADGETT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-05-28(b)-(c)

As is required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the ALJ must utilize a two-step test to evaluate a claimant's subjective symptoms, beginning by evaluating whether the claimant has a medically determinable impairment. ... The Court therefore finds no reversible error with regard to the ALJ's consideration of Claimant's fatigue.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider medical and nonmedical evidence when evaluating how a claimant’s symptoms affect her.

Blalock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-21(c)

The ALJ appropriately evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility and subjective complaints under the applicable regulations.

Section 404.1529 directs an ALJ to consider relevant factors, including daily activities, treatment, and inconsistencies in the evidence, when assessing symptoms that objective medical evidence does not fully explain.

Payton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-16(c)(3)-(4)

Because ALJ McMahon discussed the subjective and objective medical evidence at length, weighed Claimant’s testimony against the record evidence, and considered Claimant’s subjective complaints using the regulatory factors, the Court finds that ALJ McMahon’s evaluation of Claimant’s subjective allegations is supported by substantial evidence and complies with applicable regulations.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s testimony about subjective symptoms.

Smith-Stewart v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-06

The determination of whether to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 (citations omitted). First, the ALJ must determine whether there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms.

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

Watkins v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-21(c)

However, after reviewing relevant caselaw, the ALJ’s opinion, and the administrative record, it’s clear that the ALJ applied an improper standard at the second prong here, failing to properly consider Plaintiff's subjective complaints as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of het own symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to evaluate subjective symptoms using evidence that includes daily activities and the effects of treatment.

Thomas v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3)

Thus, although Plaintiff accuses the ALJ of only discussing the objective medical evidence in discrediting his subjective pain complaints, the record shows that the ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s significant activities and improvement with treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider medical evidence and other relevant evidence, including treatment.

SORANNO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-06-23(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) ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s statement that Plaintiff testified that he was not undergoing any current treatment mischaracterized both the hearing testimony and the medical evidence. ... Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s subjective statements or the physical RFC determination.

Section 404.1529 calls for consideration of nonmedication treatment and measures used to relieve symptoms, but this court did not require separate analysis of those two factors.

Hunt v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2025-07-02

Social Security Regulations 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929 require the analysis of two additional factors: (1) “treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms” and (2) “any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.).” However, under Polaski and its progeny, the Eighth Circuit has not yet required the analysis of these additional factors. See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007). Thus, this Court will not require the analysis of these additional factors in this case.

Section 404.1529(a) permits an ALJ to discount claimed symptom limitations when the assessment is explained and supported by the evidence.

Webb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-17(a)

The ALJ has satisfied his burden to explain his reasons for partially discrediting Webb’s subjective complaints and supported his decision with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause the alleged symptoms, then assess their intensity, persistence, and effect on the claimant’s ability to work.

Speaks v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-29

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, ALJs use the two-step analytical framework set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and described in SSR 16-3p. ... This represents an adequate analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Therefore, the Court declines Plaintiff’s invitation to remand on this basis.

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

Saechao v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-29

As explained below, the ALJ did not provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider other evidence, including a claimant’s subjective complaints, when objective medical evidence does not substantiate the reported effects of symptoms.

A.L. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that, contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and agrees with the ALJ’s finding that the alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s condition is inconsistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) identifies seven factors for evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, including daily activities, pain characteristics, treatment, and resulting limitations.

Massa · filed 2025-11-02(c)(3)

This inquiry involves seven (7) factors: (1) the claimant's daily activities; ... and (7) other factors concerning the claimant's functional limitations and restrictions as a result of the pain. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii)). ... Here, the ALJ offered specific support for the decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, including a reasonable reading of the treatment record, appropriate reconciliation of the medical opinion evidence, and proper consideration of the activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529(c) calls for consideration of medical evidence, daily activities, symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Adams · filed 2025-11-18(c)

In the Court’s view, these reasons more than minimally support the ALJ’s decision not to fully credit Claimant’s subjective complaints or her daughter’s reports about Claimant’s alleged symptoms and limitations.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and limiting effects of symptoms using the entire record and to explain why reported symptoms are discounted.

Moore · filed 2026-03-16(c)

The only reasons offered for discounting the plaintiff’s reported symptoms are nonspecific comments about “stable” or “intact” medical findings with no further explanation. ... For these reasons, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s subjective statements is not supported by substantial evidence, which precludes meaningful review.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s reported symptoms and explain why the claimant’s statements are inconsistent with the record.

Thornton · filed 2026-03-23(a)

Federal regulations 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a) and 416.929(a) provide 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.” ... The ALJ omitted any such explanation from the decision, leaving the court to guess why the ALJ found Claimant’s subjective complaints inconsistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(c) directs an ALJ to assess reported symptoms using evidence such as medical findings, treatment, daily activities, and inconsistencies in the claimant’s statements.

Bisignano · filed 2026-03-31(c)

These factors include objective medical evidence, information from a claimant’s medical sources about his symptoms, a claimant’s daily activities, a claimant’s course of treatment, inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements, and other evidence. ... Joseph has not shown that the ALJ’s evaluation of his symptoms lacked substantial evidentiary support or was “patently wrong.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to account for pertinent symptom evidence and explain the assessment of a claimant's reported limitations.

Jordan T. R. v. Bisignano · filed 2026-03-31(c)

The Commissioner is correct that an ALJ need not explicitly weigh every factor, but the ALJ must nonetheless sufficiently account for the pertinent factors and build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to the conclusion. ... Because the ALJ failed to address Plaintiff's asserted need to nap daily, the Court is unable to "trace the path of [his] reasoning," and thus, remand is warranted.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Boytz v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-08(c)(4)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective statements, the ALJ may consider evidentiary inconsistencies, including “‘conflicts between [the claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony that conflicts with medical findings, daily activities, treatment efforts, treatment efficacy, or other functional evidence.

Lumpkin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

An ALJ is not required to accept a claimant’s subjective symptom complaints and may properly discount the claimant’s testimony about her symptoms when it is inconsistent with other evidence. ... In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom complaints, an ALJ may consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, the nature of the claimant’s symptoms, the claimant’s efforts to alleviate her symptoms, the type and efficacy of any treatment, and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4 *15-19; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3); see also Temples v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 515 F. App’x 460, 462 (6th Cir. 2013) (stating that an ALJ properly considered a claimant’s ability to perform day-to-day activities in determining whether his testimony regarding his pain was credible).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to address inconsistencies between a claimant's symptom statements and the rest of the evidence, including inconsistent accounts of travel and daily activity.

Hiduchick v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-17(c)(4)

Indeed, the ALJ is responsible for addressing such inconsistencies. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to compare symptom testimony with prior statements and other record evidence, and a mistaken treatment statement is harmless when it would not change the RFC result.

Wilder v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-04(c)

It is certainly possible that her condition had deteriorated by September 2018 when the hearing took place, but the ALJ was entitled to consider whether her testimony that she falls three times a week was consistent with the record. ... Because the court can “predict with great confidence what the result of remand will be,” any error was harmless.

Section 404.1529 allows an ALJ to consider activities, inconsistencies, medication effectiveness, and side effects when symptom allegations suggest limitations greater than objective evidence substantiates.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)-(4)

As Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of these symptoms suggested impairments of greater severity than could be substantiated by the objective medical evidence, the ALJ appropriately considered other information and factors which may be relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). For example, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s level of daily activity, which included part time work at the medium to heavy exertional level through the date of the hearing, in determining the extent to which Plaintiff’s symptoms are of disabling severity (Tr. 20-22). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i). ... Another factor the ALJ considered is whether there were any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there were any conflicts between Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of the evidence (Id.). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4). The ALJ also considered the medications prescribed, their effectiveness, and their side effects (Id.). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv). ... For the above reasons, the ALJ’s findings concerning Plaintiff’s chronic symptoms is supported by substantial evidence and fully comports with applicable law.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) permit consideration of enumerated factors and inconsistencies with medical evidence.

Sampedro v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-15(c)(3), (4)

The ALJ may also consider ... inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s statements regarding pain and the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits consideration of inconsistencies between pain statements and objective evidence.

Evans v. Social Security · filed 2023-03-08(c)(4)

An ALJ may consider inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s statements regarding pain and the ... objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider conflicts and inconsistencies between a claimant's statements and the rest of the evidence when deciding whether symptoms reduce work capacity.

Hallman Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-26(c)(4)

The ALJ must also consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant's] statements and the rest of the evidence ...” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). Accordingly, a claimant's alleged symptoms are determined to diminish his capacity to work “to extent that [the claimant's] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements about symptoms and the other evidence.

Clem v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-05-30(c)(4)

The ALJ also considers any inconsistencies between the evidence and the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Social Security Ruling 16-3p. ... As such, it is clear to the Court that the ALJ “considered [Clem’s] medical condition as a whole,” and the Court will not second-guess the ALJ’s determination that there were inconsistencies between Clem’s subjective complaints and the evidence in the record that undermined Clem’s allegations as to the full extent of her limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) allows an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements about pain and the medical evidence.

Mayo v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-08(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.

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

Gross v. Saul · filed 2021-07-15(c)(4)

In addition, the ALJ should consider inconsistencies in the evidence to determine whether a claimant’s subjective claims regarding her symptoms and impairments can reasonably be accepted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) calls for considering inconsistencies in the evidence, including conflicting statements by a claimant and treating sources, when evaluating symptoms.

ST. CLAIR v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-11-22(c)(4)

The ALJ should also consider any inconsistencies within the evidence, including conflicting statements made by the claimant and others like treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony based on inconsistencies in the medical record or the claimant’s statements.

Kesic · filed 2025-11-06(c)(4)

An ALJ may rely on inconsistencies in the medical record and in statements to reject testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); ... The ALJ reasonably inferred that these discrepancies undermined plaintiff's credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's symptom testimony and all available evidence from medical sources.

Newton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-13(a), (c)(1)

An ALJ must consider both a claimant’s testimony about his symptoms and “all of the available evidence from [his] medical sources... .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c)(1); § 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider all record evidence, including the claimant's testimony and statements about daily activities, before evaluating the credibility of symptom reports.

Edmonds v. Saul · filed 2019-12-04

However, before concluding that the plaintiff is “not a credible reporter of [her] own limitations, the ALJ [must] consider all of the evidence of the record, including [the claimant’s testimony] and other statements with respect to [her] daily activities.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 404.1545(a)(3)); ... The ALJ’s decision is subject to deference as long as he provides specific reasons for his determination, and the “record evidence permits [the Court] to glean the rationale of the ALJ’s decision[.]” Cichocki, 534 F. App’x at 76.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the Administration to consider all evidence presented, including information about a claimant’s prior work record, when making a disability determination.

Sanchez v. Saul · filed 2020-01-02(c)(3)

Title 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) specifically directs that, in making the disability determination, the Administration “will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), the ALJ did not err by considering Sanchez’s work history in reaching a conclusion regarding his disability.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ evaluating symptom severity and limiting effects to consider daily activities, objective medical evidence, and treatment history, including whether treatment alleviates symptoms.

Lee v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-19(c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv), (c)(3)(v)

Plaintiff’s documented level of activity is a clear and convincing basis for the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s allegations of disabling pain and physical limitations are not fully credible. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1039 (“The ALJ may consider many factors in weighing a claimant’s credibility,” including “the claimant’s daily activities”). ... Second, the ALJ’s finding the objective medical evidence does not corroborate plaintiff’s statements regarding the severity of her pain and physical limitations is also well-supported by the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 (“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects”). ... Furthermore, there is no error with respect to the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s treatment history was inconsistent with her allegations of disabling pain and physical limitations. (AR 23-27.) See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c)(3)(iv), (v). Plaintiff’s treatment consisted primarily of conservative measures, such as over-the-counter pain medication, yoga and stretching, and periodic epidural steroid injections, all of which she reported helped to alleviate her symptoms. (AR 39-41, 45, 227-32, 299, 303, 306, 334-35, 338, 342.)

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and then to evaluate their intensity and persistence using all available evidence.

Wacker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-25(c)(1)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant's subjective complaints, the Commissioner's regulations 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.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant’s subjective symptoms to examine and apply factors including daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication effects, and functional restrictions.

Foster v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-12-02(c)

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. § 416.929.1 See Shultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (2007).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms to consider factors including medications, functional limitations, pain allegations, aggravating factors, objective medical evidence, and daily activities.

Katoll-Koons v. Saul · filed 2019-12-03(c)(3)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, an ALJ should consider the medications taken, functional limitations, allegations of pain, aggravating factors, objective medical evidence, and daily activities. Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p.

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

Englert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-03(a), (c), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints, first an ALJ must determine whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (a). If objective medical evidence alone establishes the existence of such impairments, then the ALJ need only evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant's symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant's capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). However, when objective evidence alone does not substantiate the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ is directed to assess the credibility of the claimant’s subjective complaints with consideration of the following factors: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) any 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 utilized to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's subjective symptoms to consider reported daily activities together with medical and other evidence in the record.

Dooley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-04

In addition to plaintiff’s activities, as required by § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, the ALJ considered the medical evidence including Dr. Anderson’s observations, the course of treatment, the findings of the various doctors on physical exams, plaintiff’s own statements to his treating doctors, and the medical opinions. The ALJ’s conclusion as to the accuracy of plaintiff’s statements was supported by the evidence and was not “patently wrong;” it must therefore be upheld.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms and consider the listed factors, although the ALJ need not discuss every factor.

Minor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-04

When a claimant alleges impairment-related symptoms, an ALJ must follow a two-step process to evaluate those symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *2-8.2. ... Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to perform work-related activities. Id. at *3, 5-8. ... In addition to this evidence, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Id. at *7-8. ... Although the ALJ must “consider” the listed factors, there is no requirement that she discuss every factor. White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272, 287 (6th Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication and treatment, measures used for relief, and other functional limitations when evaluating reported symptoms.

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

In evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms, an ALJ must consider: (i) [the claimant’s] daily activities; (ii) [t]he location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [the claimant’s] pain or other symptoms; (iii) [p]recipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) [t]he type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate . . . pain or other symptoms; (v) [t]reatment, other than medication, [the claimant] receive[s] or ha[s] received for relief of . . . pain or other symptoms; (vi) [a]ny measures [the claimant] use[s] or ha[s] used to relieve . . . 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) [o]ther factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); Leiter v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 377 Fed. Appx. 944, 947 (11th Cir. 2010). ... On this record, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to partially discredit Ms. Davis’s testimony concerning the limitations that she attributes to pain.

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms before evaluating the symptoms’ severity and limiting effects.

Prophet v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-08(b)

On de novo review, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s failure to make an explicit finding at step one of the two-step pain assessment necessitates remand. Here, the ALJ did not determine whether Prophet met his threshold obligation of showing by objective medical evidence a condition reasonably likely to cause the pain claimed, as Craig requires. 76 F.3d at 595 (“It is only after a claimant has met [his or] her threshold obligation of showing by objective medical evidence a medical impairment reasonably likely to cause the pain claimed, that the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s pain, and the extent to which it affects [his or] her ability to work, must be evaluated.”) (emphasis in original).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider pain and other subjective symptoms related to a medically determinable impairment when assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity and to determine whether the complaints are credible.

Rudzianski v. Saul · filed 2020-01-08

Pain, and other subjective symptoms related to a medically determinable impairment, may affect both the exertional and non-exertional functions of work, and are also factored into the residual functional capacity assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929. The ALJ's decision must address complaints and pain, and other symptoms, and determine whether such subjective complaints are credible and affect the claimant's RFC.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider all available evidence, bars rejecting subjective symptoms solely for lack of objective support, and permits considering consistency with medical evidence and daily activities.

Smith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-01-09(c)(2), (c)(3)(i)

An ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s subjective symptoms testimony solely because it is not substantiated by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); SSR 16-3p. However, the consistency of alleged subjective symptoms with objective medical evidence is an appropriate part of a subjective symptoms analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); SSR 16-3p. Similarly, while a claimant’s participation in daily activities of short duration does not necessarily disqualify her from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), an ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities as part of a subjective symptoms analysis, see Hoffman v. Astrue, 259 F. App’x 213, 219 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting Lewis holding does not mean it is improper for an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities at all); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (identifying claimant’s daily activities as one factor relevant to evaluating subjective symptoms); SSR 16-3p (same).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective symptom complaints to consider a claimant’s efforts to alleviate symptoms and the treatment received.

Gora v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)

Her efforts to alleviate her symptoms and the treatment she received were appropriate factors for the ALJ to consider. SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4 *15-19; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 sets out the Commissioner’s duties when evaluating whether a claimant suffers from disabling symptoms, including assessing an underlying condition and the severity or expected effects of alleged pain.

Gentry v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-08

Plaintiff’s argument requires evaluation under the standard set forth by the Sixth Circuit in Duncan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 801 F.2d 847 (6th Cir. 1986), which directs the ALJ to assess whether the claimant has satisfied two requirements: first, the claimant must produce objective evidence of an underlying condition; second, the claimant must either present (1) “objective medical evidence to confirm the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition,” or (2) “the objectively determined medical condition must be of a severity which can reasonably be expected to give rise to the alleged pain.” Id. at 853. The Duncan test is a “more succinct form” of the requirements contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which delineates the Commissioner’s duties when evaluating whether a claimant suffers from disabling symptoms. Felisky, 35 F.3d at 1038.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider all presented evidence, including the claimant's prior work record, symptoms, medical-source evidence, and observations by agency employees and others, but does not require an explicit discussion reconciling the work record with the symptom findings.

GOREE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-10-26(c)(3)

The ALJ did not explicitly reconcile Plaintiff’s substantial work record with his findings that Plaintiff’s complaints about his functional limitations were not entirely consistent with the record as a whole. But the Regulations did not require the explicit discussion that Plaintiff suggests. They instead require only that the ALJ “consider all of the evidence presented, including information about [the claimant’s] prior work record, [his] statements about [his] symptoms, evidence submitted by [his] medical sources, and observations by [Agency] employees and other persons.” 20 CFR §404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ satisfied his obligation in this regard.

Section 404.1529(c) requires meaningful consideration of pertinent pain-management records before an ALJ may find symptoms well-managed or relieved by conservative treatment.

Blackmon v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-25(c)

Without meaningful discussion of these records, the court cannot find the ALJ properly considered all of the evidence or decipher how she resolved apparent inconsistencies. ... The ALJ’s failure to consider or discuss the above records does not provide a logical bridge between her finding that Plaintiff’s allegations are inconsistent with the record evidence and, specifically, that Plaintiff’s pain was resolved with conservative treatment or that symptoms were well-managed or relieved.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) through (3) require an ALJ who finds a symptom-producing impairment to evaluate how symptom intensity and persistence limit work using the claimant’s history and statements, medical findings and opinions, and evidence of daily activities.

Welch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-05(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).

Section 404.1529 requires a residual-functional-capacity assessment to rest on all relevant evidence and to be consistent with both objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Martinez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-23

An RFC must be based on all relevant evidence and consistent with both objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ’s decision meets the standard of substantial evidence.

Under section 404.1529, work-absence and tardiness summaries need not be specifically discussed when they do not explain why work was missed and therefore do not materially support claimed symptom limitations.

Lewis v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-14

Therefore, the work and absence summaries, by themselves, are not probative as to why Plaintiff missed or was late to work, and the ALJ did not have to specifically discuss them.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires assessment of symptom intensity and persistence against the whole record, including medical evidence, claimant and physician statements, activities, symptom characteristics, medication, and treatment.

Matthews v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-01-10(c)(1)

The ALJ must consider “all of the record,” including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s history, and statements by the claimant and the claimant’s doctors, and the ALJ may consider factors like the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication; and treatments other than medication. Id. Last, the ALJ must examine the claimant’s symptom-related testimony in relation to all of the other evidence, considering whether there are any “inconsistencies or conflicts between those statements and the record.” Id.

Section 404.1529(a) makes medical history, signs, laboratory findings, and statements about symptom effects relevant to the residual-functional-capacity assessment.

Lantz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-10(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5, at *13-14.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider headache statements and supporting medical and lay evidence, connect that evidence to the symptom finding, and account for the resulting limitations in the RFC.

Murr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-19(a), (c)(3)

However, the only discussion of medical evidence regarding Plaintiff’s headaches is in the earlier step 3 section and ignores the medical records reporting the active problem of chronic intractable headache. ... In short, the Court is not assured that the ALJ considered the important evidence, and the Court is unable to afford meaningful review to the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s allegations of his limitations due to headaches, the supporting evidence of which was largely ignored by the ALJ in her decision. The Court remands this matter on this basis.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) through (3) requires consideration of all available evidence, including medical history, signs, claimant and physician statements, objective evidence, and other submitted information.

Terry v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(c)(1)–(3)

The ALJ must consider all the available evidence, including the claimant's medical history, medical signs, statements by the claimant and her treating or examining physicians, objective medical evidence of pain, and any other information proffered by the claimant. John Gary U. v. Saul, No. CV ADC-19-3145, 2021 WL 37673, at *2 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)–(3), 416.929(c)(1)–(3)).

Section 404.1529(c) requires examination of the record as a whole, including objective evidence, claimant statements, medical-provider information, third-party statements, and other relevant evidence.

(SS) Huff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-10(c)

The ALJ must examine the record as a whole, including objective medical evidence; the claimant’s representations of the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of his symptoms; statements and other information from medical providers and other third parties; and any other relevant evidence included in the individual’s administrative record. S.S.R. 16-3p at 5.

Section 404.1529(c) requires examination of the entire case record, including claimant statements, medical and nonmedical-source information, and objective evidence.

Maldonado v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-11(c)

At this stage, 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.” Id.; see also id. at *4-7 (elaborating on factors to consider); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (same).

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) require consideration of all available evidence because symptoms may suggest greater severity than objective evidence alone shows.

Stammer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-25(c)(3)–(4)

In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must consider “all of the available evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). The regulations acknowledge that “symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all symptoms and their consistency with objective medical evidence and other evidence, including medical history and treatment statements.

Plair v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-09

Adjudicators, as the regulations dictate (i.e., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529), are to consider all the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Id.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all available evidence when evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Cardwell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-18(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s testimony regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of his symptoms, an ALJ considers all available evidence. Hollingsworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 846 F. App’x 749, 752 (11th Cir. 2021); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires assessment of symptom intensity and persistence against the whole record, including medical evidence, claimant and physician statements, activities, medication, and treatment.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-18(c)(1)

The ALJ must consider “all of the record,” including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s history, and statements of the claimant and the claimant’s doctors, and the ALJ may consider factors like the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant’s medication; and treatments other than medication. Id.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) and (2) require consideration of the entire record, including objective evidence, history, and claimant and physician statements.

Chambers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-25(c)(1)–(2)

“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ considers the entire record, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s history, and statements of the claimant and [his or] her doctors.” Belser v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, No. 20-12121, 2021 WL 6116639, at *6 (11th Cir. Dec. 27, 2021) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(2)).

Section 404.1529 requires symptom intensity and persistence to be evaluated using all available evidence and the listed regulatory factors.

Jackson v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(a)–(c)

The intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms must be evaluated based on all the available evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a)-(c), 416.929(a)-(c).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ assessing RFC to consider asserted symptoms, activities, pain frequency and intensity, medication effects, and all medical evidence.

Oden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-23

Unlike a treating physician, an ALJ assessing a claimant’s RFC considers symptoms asserted by the claimant in her documents and at her hearing, daily activities, the frequency and intensity of pain, the effects of medication, as well as all other medical evidence and opinion statements in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-part symptom analysis using all available evidence at the second stage.

Chittams v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-26(a)–(c)

Once the claimant makes that threshold showing, the ALJ must evaluate the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity to work. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). At this second stage, the ALJ must consider all available evidence, including medical history, objective medical evidence, and statements by the claimant. Id.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of nonobjective evidence including activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, and other restrictions.

Hernandezz v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-09(c)

Collectively, these exhibits demonstrate the non-objective, “other evidence” that the ALJ considered as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(a) makes medical history, signs, laboratory findings, and statements about symptom effects relevant to RFC.

Ontko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5.

In determining residual functional capacity, Section 404.1529(a) makes a claimant’s statements about how symptoms affect the claimant part of the relevant evidence.

Keller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-27(a)

As stated above, at Step Four of the sequential evaluation process, the ALJ must determine a claimant’s RFC by considering all relevant medical and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e). The RFC is an assessment of a claimant’s ability to do work despite her impairments. Walton v. Astrue, 773 F. Supp. 2d 742, 747 (N.D. Ohio 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1) and SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5 (July 2, 1996)). “In assessing RFC, the [ALJ] must consider limitations and restrictions imposed by all of an individual’s impairments, even those that are not ‘severe.’” SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5. Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5. The ALJ applied proper legal standards in making her RFC assessment.

After finding an impairment capable of producing symptoms, an ALJ must evaluate how symptom intensity and persistence limit work using history, medical records, laboratory findings, claimant statements, medical opinions, and evidence of daily and work activities.

Laws v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-27(c)(1)-(3)

If the ALJ determines that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the claimant’s alleged pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must then evaluate the extent to which the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In doing so, the ALJ considers a variety of evidence, including the claimant’s history, the medical records and laboratory findings, the claimant’s statements, medical source opinions, and other evidence of how the pain affects the claimant’s daily activities and ability to work. Id. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3). “If the ALJ decides not to credit a claimant’s testimony as to her pain, he must articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561–62. The Court will not disturb a clearly articulated credibility finding that is supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1562.

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of the entire record and permits an ALJ to compare symptom statements with medical and nonmedical evidence, daily activities, aggravating factors, treatment, and medication effects.

Lavia v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(c)

In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms, the ALJ examines the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; the claimant’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 case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4‒7. ... In sum, the ALJ examined and analyzed both subjective evidence and objective evidence in the record. It was only after evaluating the entire record and explaining his findings that the ALJ formulated Plaintiff’s RFC. The ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC is supported by substantial evidence in this case.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires careful consideration of all evidence about symptoms, including daily activities and the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms.

Bronson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-15(c)(3)

The ALJ must “‘carefully consider’” all the evidence presented by claimants regarding their symptoms, which fall into seven relevant factors including ‘daily activities’ and the ‘location, duration, frequency, and intensity of [their] pain or other symptoms.’” Del Carmen Fernandez v. Berryhill, No. 18-CV-326, 2019 WL 667743, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, Titles II and XVI: Evaluation of Symptoms in Disability Claims, 81 FR 14166-01 at 14169-70, 2016 WL 1020935 (Mar. 16, 2016)).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ weighing symptom testimony to consider the claimant's work record and testimony from doctors and third parties about the nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-06(c)

An ALJ also may consider the claimant’s work record and testimony from doctors and third parties regarding the “nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms” of which the claimant complains. Thomas, 278 F.3d at 958–59 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 does not require express citation to hearing testimony when the testimony is cumulative of symptom allegations in function reports, disability forms, and other evidence that the ALJ expressly considered.

Villegas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-22(c)

While an explicit mention of Villegas’s testimony would have been helpful, the ALJ’s omission in his decision does not require remand because Villegas’s hearing testimony is largely cumulative of her subjective complaints in her function report, disability determination, and in medical evidence and other evidence that the ALJ expressly considered.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(ii) permits an ALJ to compare a claimant’s reported symptom frequency with prior reports and treatment records when assessing consistency.

Melow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-23(c)(3)(ii)

However, the ALJ relied on these records to illustrate an inconsistency between Plaintiff’s statements about the migraines’ frequency, rather than to show that his symptoms were amenable to improvement.

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to assess reported pain in light of the medical evidence and reported relief from medication.

Roberts v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-22(c)

The ALJ concluded that plaintiffs testimony was not supported by the medical evidence of record. ... Plaintiff reported relief with the use of medication on more than one occasion. ... The ALJ considered all the relevant evidence and adequately discussed the bases for her RFC determination in her findings and evaluation of the evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history but does not make a good work history determinative of symptom consistency.

Jones v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)

The regulations provide that in evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms, “[w]e will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, a good work history is neither the sole nor the determinative factor in establishing consistency, but rather an ALJ may find other reasons discrediting a claimant’s consistency.

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

Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-04(c)(3)

In assessing Plaintiff’s testimony, especially as it relates to her employment activities, the ALJ erred by not considering Plaintiff’s excellent work history. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (An ALJ will consider evidence about an individual’s prior work record when evaluating symptoms); see also Archer v. Apfel, 66 Fed.Appx. 121, 121 (9th Cir. 2003) (A good work history over an extended period enhances a Social Security claimant’s credibility). It is unnecessary for the ALJ to “discuss all evidence presented”. Vincent on Behalf of Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1394-95 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). The ALJ must only explain why “significant probative evidence has been rejected.” Id. Here, Plaintiff’s excellent work history is significant probative evidence that enhances her credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an administrative law judge to consider the effectiveness of a claimant’s treatment when evaluating subjective complaints.

Merino v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-13(c)(3)

The effectiveness of treatment is a factor an ALJ may consider in evaluating subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) & 416.929(c)(3). Further, the Ninth Circuit has instructed that a favorable response to treatment can suffice as a clear and convincing reason to reject a claimant’s testimony. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 353 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats a claimant’s work history as one of several factors relevant to symptom evaluation, and incomplete consideration of that history may be harmless when substantial evidence otherwise supports the evaluation.

Turner-Clewis v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-19(c)(3)

When assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements, the ALJ considers, in addition to the objective medical evidence, the following: (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, which the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional capacity, limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404,1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. ... Moreover, as stated by Turner-Clewis, work history is one of several factors for the ALJ to consider and any error by the ALJ, if any, in fully considering Turner-Clewis’ strong work history is harmless as substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s credibility determination.” Thus, remand is not required on this basis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats work history as one non-dispositive symptom-evaluation factor and does not require its explicit discussion when the ALJ adequately explains other evidence undermining the claimant’s complaints.

MULLEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-07-16(c)(3)

Plaintiff goes on to argue that an ALJ is required to consider a claimant’s exemplary work history when assessing subjective complaints. Id. at 30–31 (citing, inter alia, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 96-8p; SSR 16-3p). The Court is not persuaded that this issue requires remand. ... “[W]ork history is only one of many factors the ALJ may consider in assessing claimant’s credibility. . . . Work history is not dispositive of credibility and the question of credibility is left to the ALJ’s discretion after considering all of the relevant factors.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently explained her reasoning in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints; 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 consideration of a claimant's prior work record as part of all the evidence, but a long, steady work history is not a listed factor that automatically requires crediting subjective complaints.

Armington v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

The Commissioner is correct that work history—either positive or negative—is not a listed factor. Nevertheless, Armington is correct that Courts have mentioned a claimant’s “extensive work history and attempts to continue working despite [their] disability [as] support [for their] credibility.” White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 312 F. App’x 779, 789 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (“We will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record…”). Still, the Court has concluded that the ALJ properly assessed Armington’s subjective statements, and that substantial evidence supports those findings. Moreover, as the Commissioner notes, there is no indication that the ALJ used Armington’s extensive work history negatively. C.f. Gilliam v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:18–CV–12793, 2019 WL 6112696, *11 (N.D. Ohio July 10, 2019) (noting that, while work history is a valid consideration, it is not to be used “to support a finding that a claimant is not credible because [of] her sporadic work history”). As such, the Court declines to place a thumb on the scale in Armington’s favor simply because she had decades of steady work history.

Although prior work history is a factor under section 404.1529(c)(3), an ALJ need consider only pertinent factors and need not expressly discuss work history in the symptom analysis.

Mahoney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

One such factor to consider is a claimant’s prior work record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). However, the regulations only require an ALJ to consider the pertinent factors; they do not require the ALJ to discuss all the factors, including a claimant’s work history, in his or her opinion.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s part-time work when evaluating the severity of subjective symptoms.

Young-Roach v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-05(c)(3)

The Court finds substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s assessment of Young-Roach’s subjective complaints. The record evidence, as noted by the ALJ, is not entirely consistent with Young-Roach’s allegations of disabling conditions. (Id. at 17-26.) The ALJ considered evidence regarding several of the regulatory factors. (Id.) The ALJ also properly considered Young-Roach’s ability to work part-time throughout a part of the adjudicated period in evaluating Young-Roach’s subjective symptoms. Miner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 524 F. App’x 191, 194 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 404.1571)).

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of prior work record and efforts to work when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence.

(SS) Hensley v. Commisioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-28(c)(1), (c)(3)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, an ALJ may consider a claimant’s “efforts to work” in assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), (3)(“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 . . . including information about your prior work record”); see also Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d at 959. Thus, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s work history.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of a claimant’s prior work history and non-disability reasons for longstanding unemployment when evaluating symptom complaints.

Iracheta v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-10

The ALJ observed Plaintiff’s work history reports and earnings record show a poor work history and that he has never worked at a level constituting substantial gainful activity. Tr. 24, 197-203, 205-09. The ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s history of incarceration and felony convictions are possible non-disability reasons for not working. Tr. 25, 295, 346. The ALJ reasonably concluded the longstanding lack of employment is caused by factors other than his current medical conditions. Tr. 25.

Although prior work history is part of the Section 404.1529(c)(3) symptom-consistency analysis, an ALJ need not expressly discuss work history in the decision.

Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30(c)(3)

Finally, the ALJ was under no obligation to explicitly address plaintiff’s work history in her assessment of the consistency of plaintiff’s symptoms with the record. While a claimant’s work history is part of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) analysis, it need not be articulated by the ALJ in her decision. The cases cited by plaintiff merely establish that work history may be a relevant consideration but not that it must be articulated. (See Doc. 14 at PAGEID 550-51). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination that plaintiff had no severe impairments was based on substantial evidence.

Although an ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom representations, Section 404.1529(a) does not make those statements conclusive; absent malingering, rejection requires clear and convincing reasons, but the ALJ need not expressly discuss work history.

Robinson v. Social Security · filed 2022-07-15(a)

While an ALJ must consider a plaintiff’s representations about his symptoms and limitations, his statements about his “pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that” he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). In fact, an “ALJ cannot be required to believe every allegation of [disability], or else disability benefits would be available for the asking, a result plainly contrary to [the Act].” Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989). However, absent affirmative evidence that the claimant is malingering, the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony must be clear and convincing. ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ properly articulated clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s testimony and was not required to articulate his exemplary work history in deciding whether to reject it.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of work history but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss it when the decision otherwise considers the whole condition.

Chestang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)

Put another way, the ALJ was required to consider all of the evidence presented, including Plaintiff’s work history, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), however, he was not required to expressly discuss it. ... In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ considered the entire record of evidence and appropriately found it inconsistent with Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain.

Under § 404.1529’s two-step symptom analysis, work performed during the alleged disability period may undermine an assertion that subjective symptoms prevented all work.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(b)

Miller’s work activity undermined his assertion that his subjective symptoms prevented him from working altogether; and he did not seem to have frequent or severe COPD issues in the period when he was at Dexter Axle or after leaving due to some flare-ups.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of prior work history, but a positive or steady work record does not by itself negate specific inconsistencies in symptom testimony, and failure to discuss it expressly may be harmless.

Eldridge v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-05(c)(3)

The regulation states “[w]e will consider all of the evidence presented, including information about your prior work record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... While it may be that “[e]vidence of a poor work history is a clear and convincing reason to discredit plaintiff’s credibility,” Plaintiff provides no case law suggesting that a positive or consistent work history alone can negate other inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. ... Therefore, even if the ALJ was required to specifically address Plaintiff’s work history in the opinion, failure to do so was harmless error. ... Plaintiff fails to show how the ALJ’s assessment of his work history, even if it made him more “credible” in a generalized sense, negate the inconsistencies that form the basis of his credibility finding.

Although § 404.1529(c)(3) includes prior work history among the evidence considered in symptom evaluation, an ALJ need not discuss it specifically when detailed, substantial-evidence-supported reasons otherwise explain the finding.

Davis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-08(c)(3)

A claimant’s prior work record is among the “other evidence” to be considered in evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms. ... However, the Tenth Circuit has held an ALJ is not required to discuss every factor in evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms. ... Under these circumstances, the ALJ did not err in failing to specifically discuss her work history in evaluating her subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits prior work history to discount symptom testimony only when the work record is inconsistent with the alleged severity of the symptoms.

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

The ALJ may consider a claimant’s work record in ... assessing her testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). But the ALJ may only discount the claimant’s testimony based on her prior work record where it is inconsistent with the alleged severity of her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a more detailed review of work history when the ALJ acknowledges prior work and the claimant does not explain how further detail would affect the assessment of her symptoms.

Lacourse v. SSA · filed 2016-08-17(c)(3)

In light of this, and the fact that Lacourse does not explain how a more detailed analysis of Lacourse’s work history and attempts to find part-time and other work would alter the ALJ’s credibility analysis, the court rejects this argument.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider prior work history when evaluating symptoms, but does not require a separate discussion of work history when the ALJ relies on other permissible factors.

Lovett v. Saul · filed 2022-09-01(c)(3)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) sets forth numerous factors that an ALJ may consider when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including a claimant’s “prior work record,” statements about the symptoms, evidence submitted by the claimant’s medical sources, observations by others, the claimant’s daily activities, and medication and other treatments. ... Accordingly, the undersigned is not persuaded that the ALJ’s failure to discuss Plaintiff's work history requires remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes prior work history relevant to evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but does not require heightened weight for the claimant’s testimony based solely on that history.

GRAHAM v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-10-18(c)(3)

A claimant’s “prior work record” is relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s representation of his or her symptoms. ... The Court detects no fault in the ALJ’s omission of further discussion of Plaintiff’s work history from her decision.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) makes work history relevant to evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, but a long work history alone does not require an ALJ to give the claimant’s account heightened weight.

COOPEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3)

A claimant’s work history is a relevant factor in this evaluation. ... Considering the importance of work history in subjective symptom evaluations, this Court and others have explained that though a long work history supports a claimant’s allegations, an ALJ does “not err by failing to afford [a claimant] heightened credibility based solely on his [or her] work history.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats work history as one factor in evaluating subjective symptoms; an excellent work history does not require the ALJ to give those statements greater weight.

VARGAS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-06-18(c)(3)

As Judge Strawbridge points out, work history is one of many factors that an ALJ considers when evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective statement. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). Yet, an ALJ is not required to afford more credibility to a plaintiff with an allegedly “excellent” work history, especially when the plaintiff’s subjective statements are not supported by the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s prior work record when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Court v. Saul · filed 2019-09-16(c)(3)

The ALJ was required to consider Claimant’s prior work record in ... evaluating the intensity and persistence of Claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of prior work history when evaluating symptoms, but does not require an ALJ to discuss a long work history expressly when the complaints conflict with the record.

Hinson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-09(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ did not err in failing to expressly consider Hinson’s extensive work history because he concluded that Hinson’s complaints did not match the evidence of record.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of a claimant’s work history, medical evidence, and daily activities when evaluating reported symptoms.

Lane v. Saul · filed 2020-11-25

The ALJ evaluated Plaintiff’s symptoms based on the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, which includes the Polaski factors. ... First, the Court finds the ALJ did not err by considering Plaintiff’s work history during the relevant time period.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider treatment for pain or other symptoms, but a claimed treatment gap needs a specific explanation supported by the record.

Barrera v. Saul · filed 2020-12-08(c)(3)(v)

A claimant’s “unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment” is a factor that “can cast doubt on the sincerity of the claimant’s pain testimony.” See Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v) (providing that an ALJ may consider claimant’s treatment for pain or other symptoms in evaluating symptom evidence). ... The ALJ, however, does not specifically explain what frequency of treatment would be expected for a claimant with Plaintiff’s wrist impairment, or how the frequency of Plaintiff’s treatment was deficient. (See AR 30.) Thus, this reason is legally insufficient because it was not “sufficiently specific” to enable the Court to review it.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) makes treatment history a factor in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

ANDERSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-09(c)(3)(v)

However, the ALJ properly considered Plaintiff’s routine and/or conservative treatment when assessing his subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v); Phillips v. Barnhart, 91 F. App’x 775, 782 (3d Cir. 2004) (considering the claimant’s conservative treatment history as a factor that supported the ALJ’s determination to discount the claimant’s subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529 makes work history relevant to evaluating symptoms, but an ALJ’s failure to discuss it expressly is not reversible error when the ALJ explains the symptom assessment.

Young v. Saul · filed 2021-01-25(c)(2)

Young is correct that work history is a relevant factor to be considered when assessing whether a claimant’s symptoms are consistent with the record. ... Although the ALJ did not expressly discuss Young’s work history, she provided a narrative discussion in support of her finding that Young’s subjective complaints and symptoms were not entirely consistent with the record. Tr. 19-21. Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to discuss Young’s work history is not reversible error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to assess symptoms using factors such as daily activities, treatment, and functional limitations without expressly discussing work history when the record shows it was considered.

Henley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)

The ALJ evaluated various factors, including Plaintiff’s daily activities, her improvement with physical therapy, treatment records, and other factors concerning her functional limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Although the ALJ did not specifically discuss the length of Plaintiff’s work history, he did elicit testimony from the VE at the hearing about Plaintiff’s past relevant work, and Plaintiff’s certified earnings record was a part of the administrative record. Thus, I find no error in this or any other aspect of the ALJ’s credibility analysis.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of a claimant’s work history when assessing reported symptoms.

Day v. Saul · filed 2021-05-10

Evidence of a poor work history that suggests a claimant is not motivated to work is a permissible reason to discredit a claimant’s claim that she is unable to work.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider work history as one of several factors when evaluating a claimant’s pain and other symptoms.

Green v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

Consideration of work history is proper, but it is only one of several factors that bear on an ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s pain and other symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs the ALJ to consider factors such as daily activities and other evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms; failing to discuss work history alone does not require remand when the ALJ considers other relevant factors.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ properly considered a number of other factors when assessing Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of pain and other functional limitations, including the testimony’s consistency with the medical evidence, Plaintiff's daily activities, and the opinion evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of a claimant’s work history when evaluating subjective symptoms, but work history is one factor and is not dispositive.

BURRELL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-10(c)(3)

Social Security regulations require a claimant’s past work history to be considered when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Work history, however, is but one factor that an ALJ must evaluate, and it is by no means dispositive.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of prior work history when evaluating symptoms but does not require an ALJ to give a strong work record particular weight or expressly discuss it.

Amburgey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)

Although the SSA will consider information about a claimant’s prior work record in evaluating a claimant’s pain and other symptoms and how they affect her ability to work, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4), SSR 16-3p, no binding authority requires an ALJ to give particular weight to a strong work record or to expressly state consideration of a strong work record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s work history when evaluating symptoms, but does not require an express discussion of it.

Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-01(c)(3)

Put another way, the ALJ was required to consider all the evidence presented, including Plaintiff’s work history, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); however, he was not required to expressly discuss it, see Sickmiller, 2021 WL 1186846, at *7-8 (rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that remand is required solely for failure to explicitly discuss his work history in the context of a “credibility assessment”); Mahon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 8:16-cv-1462-T-JSS, 2017 WL 3381714, at *10 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 7, 2017) (finding that the ALJ did not err by failing to discuss a plaintiff’s work history in the context of the “credibility assessment”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of other evidence, including work history, when evaluating symptoms, but does not require the ALJ to discuss every piece of evidence.

Baker v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-11(c)(3)

The undersigned is unpersuaded that the ALJ erred in her assessment of Plaintiffs prior work history or the “other evidence” described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

An ALJ may consider a claimant’s treatment history when evaluating the intensity and limiting effects of symptoms.

ROBERTS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-07-07(c)(3)(v)

In the view of this Court, this record provides substantial support for the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s subjective statements as inconsistent with the record evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider limited treatment or a lack of treatment when evaluating the alleged intensity and persistence of symptoms.

Leonard v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-23(c)(3)(v)

An ALJ may rely on limited treatment or lack of treatment when considering a plaintiff’s symptom allegations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *9 (ALJ may consider frequency and extent of treatment sought when evaluating the alleged intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms). ... The ALJ’s findings are a reasonable interpretation of the record and are backed by substantial evidence.

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

Hooks v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2019-11-25(c)(3)

Additionally, the ALJ noted that the record did not show “frequent emergency room visits, hospitalizations, or surgical interventions for any of [Plaintiff’s] impairments, especially since the alleged onset date.” R. 18; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (An ALJ may consider a claimant’s treatment history as a factor when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms.).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) makes a claimant’s treatment history, including routine or conservative treatment, relevant to evaluating symptom intensity and persistence.

Martinez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s treatment history. AR 19-21; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (listing treatments among the factors considered in subjective symptom analysis).

Section 404.1529 permits considering noncompliance with prescribed treatment in the context of all impairments, while work history is only one of many factors bearing on symptom statements.

Sole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-17(c)(3)

Although the ALJ referenced SSR 16-3p in his discussion of plaintiff’s obesity impairment, the ALJ properly considered plaintiff’s lack of compliance with prescribed treatment in the context of all his impairments. ... More significantly, a claimant’s work history is just one of many factors that the ALJ is instructed to consider in weighing the credibility of claimant testimony.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider lack of treatment and inconsistencies with the full record when evaluating alleged symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

MCCRACKEN v. KIJAZAKI · filed 2022-01-14(c)

Finally, as set forth above, lack of treatment is an appropriate matter for consideration in an ALJ’s evaluation of a plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of alleged symptoms.

Although § 404.1529(c)(3) treats the amount of treatment as an indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, conservative treatment cannot support rejection of symptoms when the claimant had a good reason not to seek more aggressive care.

Clark v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-22(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider whether a conservative course of therapy and medication management effectively treated alleged symptoms.

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

So too was it appropriate for the ALJ to consider that Claimant’s recent and conservative course of treatment – namely, regular therapy and medication management – appeared to be effective at treating Claimant’s depressive symptoms. (R. 20–21); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). The regulations specifically contemplate that an ALJ will consider a claimant’s treatment history, 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(3)(v), and the Seventh Circuit has affirmed that is appropriate.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) makes the type and nature of treatment relevant when evaluating allegedly disabling symptoms.

Connors v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-09-08(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The ALJ weighed that evidence alongside Connors’s lack of treatment for knee pain during the period she alleges disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) (type and nature of claimant’s treatment are relevant factors when evaluating allegedly disabling symptoms).

The course and effectiveness of treatment may be considered when evaluating the severity and limiting effects of symptoms.

Gandara v. Saul · filed 2022-09-15(c)(3)

The ALJ noted that despite Plaintiff’s reports of anxiety, “the medical records show that she has required only minimal treatment in the form of medications…” (R. 24). The ALJ noted Plaintiff did not require any counseling, and had no episodes of decompensation due to anxiety. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (course and effectiveness of treatment can be considered when evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (There must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source that shows Plaintiff has a medical impairment, which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) treats the amount, type, and effectiveness of medication and other treatment as important indicators of symptom intensity and persistence.

Dreher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

The amount and type of treatment is an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v). Thus, the ALJ concluded that Plaintiff’s mostly conservative treatment for several of the conditions he listed as disabling called Plaintiff’s testimony into question. This conclusion is legally sound and supported by substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)(ALJs consider treatment and relief when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms).

Conservative treatment and symptom improvement with medication may support finding migraine complaints less severe than alleged.

Collier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(3)

The ALJ properly found the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints inconsistent with the objective evidence. The ALJ highlighted that Plaintiff’s migraines were being treated with medication and she had reported that the migraines had become “mild” on this medication (Tr. 21). The ALJ also reasoned that “[i]f the claimant’s symptoms were as severe as alleged, one would expect the need for more aggressive forms of treatment such as surgery, narcotic medications, referral to pain management, inpatient hospitalizations or emergency department treatment.” (Tr. 22). Instead, Plaintiff was seen mostly in outpatient visits, where physical and mental status examinations were mostly within normal limits (Tr. 22, 461, 478, 490, 498–99, 503, 515, 519, 525, 530, 534, 541, 552, 557, 610, 614). Such conservative treatment for Plaintiff’s migraines supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not as severe as alleged and did not support a finding of disability.

An ALJ’s evaluation under § 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) cannot rest on unsupported findings that a claimant was noncompliant or that treatment improved the claimant’s symptoms.

Mohamed v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3), (4)

For example, the ALJ explicitly cited noncompliance and the fact that the frequency of Mohamed’s seizures improved with treatment as reasons he discounted his subjective complaints. (Tr. 20). As explained above, there is no relevant evidence of noncompliance. Additionally, the record does not show that Mohamed’s seizures improved with treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits treatment history to be considered among several symptom factors without further inquiry into a treatment gap when that gap is not controlling.

Crenshaw v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-28(c)(3)

And, there is no indication that the gap in treatment was a controlling factor in the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by considering Plaintiff’s treatment history as one of a number of factors in the evaluation of his subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s failure to seek treatment or take prescribed medication when evaluating pain and other symptoms.

Sherfy v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-31(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

In evaluating pain, the Commissioner considers factors including: ... (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication [the claimant] take[s] or ha[s] taken to alleviate . . . pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, [the claimant] receive[s] or ha[s] received for relief of . . . pain or other symptoms; ... (vii) Other factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); see also Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167; Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268, 1273-74 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Hargis v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 1482, 1489 (10th Cir. 1991)) (describing several similar factors which should be analyzed). ... The ALJ cited evidence that the plaintiff had not sought treatment and had not taken his prescription medication, which is a proper consideration under the applicable regulations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of the claimant’s course and frequency of treatment when assessing whether the alleged intensity and persistence of symptoms are consistent with the record.

Same v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-05(c)(3)

The ALJ also considered that Plaintiff had not required any emergency care between January 2020 and March 2021, nor had he sought any low-cost options. ... This supported the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff had not been significantly limited during his absence from treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (ALJ should consider course of treatment when assessing subjective symptoms); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *9 (Oct. 25, 2017) (“if the frequency or extent of the treatment sought by an individual is not comparable with the degree of the individual’s subjective complaints, or if the individual fails to follow prescribed treatment that might improve symptoms, we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iii)–(vii) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s lack of medical treatment when evaluating the alleged severity and limiting effects of symptoms.

Dancy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-10-18(c)(3)(iii)–(vii)

An ALJ can consider a lack of medical treatment as a factor in disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iii)–(vii); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1530.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits a claimant's course of treatment and other symptom-relief measures to be considered in evaluating symptom severity, and inadequately explained failure to follow treatment may undermine symptom reports.

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

A claimant’s course of treatment and any other measures taken to relieve symptoms are relevant factor in considering the severity of symptom allegations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3); see also Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008) (recognizing that a favorable response to treatment can undermine a claimant's complaints of debilitating pain or other severe limitations). A claimant’s “unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment” can undermine symptoms reports.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(v) permits treatment history and effectiveness to inform symptom evaluation when the ALJ assesses pain testimony.

Villegas v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-08(c)(3)(iv)–(v)

Medical treatment received to relieve pain or other symptoms is a relevant factor in evaluating pain testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4)(iv)-(v).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats the amount of treatment as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence, while requiring consideration of good reasons for conservative treatment.

Hootman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-22(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of medication, treatment, and other methods when assessing symptom intensity and persistence.

MCGLINCHY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-05-30

The SSA Regulations advise than an ALJ should consider other evidence, including “what medications, treatments or other methods” the claimant uses when assessing the “intensity and persistence” of her symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529(c) makes treatment records and medication effects relevant to evaluating subjective complaints.

Eaton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-12(c)(1)-(3)

A claimant’s treatment record is relevant evidence that ALJs should consider when evaluating subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)–(3), 416.929(c)(1)–(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment for pain or other symptoms, and a sparse treatment record may support discounting the claimant’s symptom testimony.

Oviedo-Lopez v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-02-19(c)(3)(v)

Under the regulations, the treatment received by a claimant for relief of pain or other symptom is pertinent to evaluating the claimant’s symptom testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). ... Plaintiff’s sparse treatment record constituted a specific, clear, and convincing reason for the ALJ to discredit her symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires assessment of symptom intensity and persistence using all available evidence and permits consideration of an unexplained failure to seek treatment or follow prescribed treatment.

(SS) Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-05-23(a), (c)

Evaluating the “intensity and persistence” of the symptoms of an impairment will involve considering all available evidence, including “medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how…symptoms affect” the plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... As to the fourth and fifth factors, the Ninth Circuit has held that an ALJ can consider “unexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment or follow a prescribed course of treatment.” Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989)); see also Plummer v. Berryhill, Case No. 2:16-cv-00753-AC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108184 at *16-17, 2017 WL 2972461 at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2017) (agreeing with the ALJ that “failure to pursue recommended treatment discredited…[plaintiff’s] subjective testimony.”). ... The ALJ did not err in the assessment of plaintiff’s physical pain in his knee or ankle.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) makes non-medication treatment a factor in evaluating a claimant’s statements about pain or other symptoms.

Stilson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-20(c)(3)(v)

“Treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief from pain” is a regulatory factor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). ... Because substantial evidence demonstrates that Mr. Stilson’s treatment is limited to medication and a TENS unit, the court must defer to ALJ’s findings that the treatment factor suggests Mr. Stilson’s pain is not disabling.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider treatment history when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, including whether a failure to seek treatment reflects personal preference.

Stevenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

Medical treatment received to relieve pain or other symptoms is a relevant factor in evaluating pain testimony. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(iv)-(v), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)-(v) (2011). ... Plaintiff’s argument is not supported by the record, and the ALJ’s interpretation of the evidence is reasonable.