20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Treatment received for pain is a relevant factor in evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms.

McCormick v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-22(c)(3)(v)

This conclusion is based upon the absence of objective medical evidence supporting the extent of McCormick’s complaints of pain and the conservative treatment for his pain employed by his treating physicians.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s course of treatment when evaluating symptom testimony.

Ihinger v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-04(c)(3)

A claimant’s course of treatment is a valid consideration for assessing the persuasiveness of a claimant’s testimony.

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

Pierson, Dennis v. Kijakazi, Kilolo · filed 2022-11-14(c)(3)(v)

Plaintiff also criticizes the ALJ for describing his treatment as “conservative,” but an ALJ is certainly entitled to consider the course of a claimant’s treatment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), and injections are generally considered “conservative.”

Section 404.1529 directs consideration of medication, other treatment, and measures used to relieve symptoms when evaluating symptom testimony.

Butler v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-15(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). ... The ALJ reasonably discounted Plaintiff’s testimony about her post-prandial symptoms based on her noncompliance with treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v) allows a lack of medical treatment to support rejection of a claimant’s statements about the severity of symptoms.

Olson v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)(iv)-(v)

Lack of medical treatment is a valid clear and convincing reason to reject a claimant’s statements concerning the severity of their symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)-(v); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (The ALJ may discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints because of unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek treatment). Therefore, this was a clear and convincing reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom statements.

Section 404.1529 requires an alleged impairment to be medically determinable and established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source before the ALJ must consider it.

DICIANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-09

It is true that an ALJ must assess a claimant’s severe impairments in combination with non-severe impairments. But an ALJ does not have to consider an alleged impairment if he does not find such an impairment is medically determinable. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; POMS, DI 25205.005 Evidence of a Medically Determinable Impairment (“A medically determinable physical or mental impairment must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. The impairment must be established by objective medical evidence (signs, laboratory findings, or both) from an acceptable medical source, not on an individual’s statement of symptoms.”

Under § 404.1529(b), symptoms affect basic work activities only when medical signs and findings show a medically determinable impairment is present.

Hansen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-07(b)

Under the social security regulations, for symptoms like groin pain to be considered to affect the ability to do basic work activities, medical signs and findings must show that a medically determinable impairment is present. 20 CFR § 404.1529(b). Plaintiff points to no evidence of contemporaneous complaints to providers or treatment for groin pain. Plaintiff only cites his communications with SSA as evidence. Remand is not required for this issue and the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Under section 404.1529(a), subjective symptoms alone cannot establish a medically determinable impairment.

Scheibelhut v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-20(a)

A medically determinable impairment “must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source” and “must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1521. A claimant’s subjective symptoms will not suffice. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

Section 404.1529(b) permits consideration only of symptoms that reasonably result from a medically determinable impairment.

Winkel v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-01-10(b)

Moreover, while limitations attributed to impairments which are medically determinable but are not severe must be considered at later steps in the evaluation, alleged limitations attributable to impairments which are not medically determinable must not be considered at later steps. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1523; see also, Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 554, n.7 (3d Cir. 2005) (to be considered, an impairment must be medically determinable, but need not be “severe”); Gibbons v. Barnhart, 85 F. App’x 88, 91 (10th Cir. 2003) (“the ALJ must consider only limitations and restrictions attributable to medically determinable impairments.”) (quotation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (explaining that symptoms may only be considered when they reasonably result from a medically determinable impairment).

Section 404.1529(b) requires medical signs or laboratory findings of an impairment capable of producing alleged symptoms before those symptoms are evaluated at step two.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-01(b)

If “an individual alleges symptoms, but the medical signs and laboratory findings do no substantiate any medically determinable impairment capable of producing the individual’s alleged symptoms, we will not evaluate the individual’s symptoms at step two of our two-step evaluation process.”

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step process: identify a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to cause the symptom, then evaluate intensity, persistence, and functional effects against objective and other evidence.

Hollinger v. Saul · filed 2022-03-07(b)–(c)

First, the ALJ must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable impairment that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptom alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). If there is no medically determinable impairment that could reasonably produce the symptom alleged, the symptom cannot be found to affect the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029.

Section 404.1529(d)(1) requires a two-step symptom process beginning with a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Matherly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-09(d)(1)

Assessing a claimant’s symptoms is a two-step process. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ determines whether the individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the individual’s alleged symptoms. S.S.R. 16-3P; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(d)(1).

Section 404.1529(b) provides that symptoms affect basic work activities only when medical signs or laboratory findings show a medically determinable impairment.

Haldeman v. Saul · filed 2022-03-17(b)

A claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, weakness, or nervousness, will not be found to affect a claimant’s ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment is present. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(b).

Section 404.1529 excludes limitations attributed to conditions the ALJ properly finds not medically determinable.

FORD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-20

Simply put, by finding anxiety and depression non-medically determinable, the ALJ had no obligation to analyze the alleged side effects that stemmed from them.

Under Section 404.1529(b), symptoms cannot affect basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings establish a medically determinable impairment.

Delly v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-29(b)

“[U]nder no circumstances may the existence of an impairment be established on the basis of symptoms alone.” Id. Thus, “regardless of how many symptoms an individual alleges, or how genuine the individual’s complaints may appear to be, the existence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment cannot be established in the absence of objective medical abnormalities; i.e., medical signs and laboratory findings.” SSR 96–4p (footnote omitted). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (“Your symptoms . . . will not be found to affect your ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.”). ... The ALJ considered Delly’s impairments, severe and non-severe, in the RFC analysis. There is no error.

Under § 404.1529(b), symptoms alone cannot establish a medically determinable impairment; medical signs or laboratory findings must show that an impairment capable of affecting basic work activities is present.

Bennett v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-15(b)

Thus, “regardless of how many symptoms an individual alleges, or how genuine the individual’s complaints may appear to be, the existence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment cannot be established in the absence of objective medical abnormalities; i.e., medical signs and laboratory findings.” SSR 96–4p (footnote omitted). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b) (“Your symptoms . . . will not be found to affect your ability to do basic work activities unless medical signs or laboratory findings show that a medically determinable impairment(s) is present.”).

Section 404.1529(b) excludes symptoms or limitations attributed to an impairment that has not been established as medically determinable.

Wilder v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-24(b)

Symptoms or limitations that a claimant alleges are caused by a non-medically determinable impairment are excluded from an ALJ’s RFC assessment.

Section 404.1529(b) excludes symptoms or limitations attributed to a non-medically determinable impairment from RFC.

Maymi v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-24(b)

Symptoms or limitations that a claimant alleges are caused by a non-medically determinable impairment are excluded from an ALJ’s RFC assessment.

Section 404.1529(b) requires a medically determinable impairment supported by medical signs or laboratory findings before symptoms can be found to affect basic work activities.

MORENO v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-11(b)

While determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ can only factor in symptoms objectively arising from the claimant’s medically determinable impairments, id. § 404.1545(a)(2)—asserted impairments found to not be medically determinable “will not be found to affect [a claimant’s] ability to do basic work activities,” id. § 404.1529(b).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider improvement with treatment and daily activities when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Cloutier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-12-11(c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(v)

The ALJ discussed that Plaintiff’s treatment showed improvement of her symptoms. ... This is a valid consideration under the regulation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). ... The ALJ also considered Plaintiff’s daily activities in discounting the severity of her symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (the ALJ is to consider activities of daily living when assessing Plaintiff’s symptoms). ... Therefore, the court finds that the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s impairments in developing the RFC, specifically Plaintiff’s left arm reaching, was consistent with the regulation and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s subjective symptoms by determining whether they are consistent with the medical signs, laboratory findings, and other evidence, then assessing their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects; the claimant’s statements alone cannot establish disability.

Contreras v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-16(a), (c)(1), (c)(3)(i)

In making a final determination, an ALJ must determine the extent to which a claimant’s symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical signs and laboratory findings and other evidence to decide how [those] symptoms affect [the claimant’s] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). A claimant’s subjective symptoms must be considered in a disability evaluation. Id.; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1291 (9th Cir. 1996). However, those statements alone cannot be decisive on a disability claim. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A) (“[a]n individual’s statement as to pain or other symptoms shall not alone be conclusive evidence of disability”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“statements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled”). ... In deciding whether to credit a claimant’s testimony about subjective symptoms or limitations, an ALJ must engage in a two-step analysis. ... Under the first step, the claimant must produce objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce pain or other symptoms. ... At step two, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms” to determine whether and how these symptoms limit a claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 governs an ALJ's evaluation of a claimant's pain and other symptoms, and an ALJ does not err by failing to explicitly follow Duncan when the ALJ follows the regulation's requirements.

Boles v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-06

In the quarter of a century since that case was decided, however, the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly held that “an ALJ who follows the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 does not commit error by failing to explicitly follow Duncan.” ... That is what the ALJ did in this case – she did not cite Duncan, but followed the requirements of § 404.1529.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating disabling symptoms to consider the claimant’s reported daily activities and account for inconsistencies between those statements and the other evidence.

Fox v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-17(c)(3)(i), (c)(4)

The ALJ’s consideration of the Plaintiff’s description of her daily activities during this encounter was entirely appropriate. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... See id. § 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.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating pain and other symptoms to consider their characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication, treatment, functional restrictions, and the claimant's daily activities.

Nicole C. v. Saul · filed 2020-01-06(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). In determining whether the medical signs and laboratory findings show medical impairments that reasonably could be expected to produce the pain alleged, the ALJ must consider the following: 1. The nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of any pain; 2. Precipitating and aggravating factors (e.g., movement, activity, environmental conditions); 3. Type, dosage, effectiveness, and adverse side-effects of any pain medication; 4. Treatment, other than medication, for relief of pain; 5. Functional restrictions; and 6. The claimant’s daily activities.

Section 404.1529(b) permits, but does not require, an ALJ to ask for and consider a medical or psychological expert's opinion about whether a claimant's impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms.

Aversa v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-07(b)

The relevant regulations contain permissive language and provide that “[a]t the administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council level of the administrative review process, the adjudicator(s) may ask for and consider the opinion of a medical or psychological expert concerning whether [the claimant’s] impairment(s) could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] alleged symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b) (emphasis added). ... The relevant authority cited by Plaintiff permits, but does not mandate, solicitation and consideration of medical expert opinion.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of the symptom factors but not their mechanical enumeration when the decision and hearing transcript show full consideration and reasonable explanations for the weight given to the claimant’s reports.

Martinez v. Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)

Avery, 797 F.2d at 28; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (demonstrating that these and other factors apply not only to “pain” but to “symptoms”). The ALJ, however, “need not slavishly discuss all factors relevant to analysis of a claimant's credibility and complaints of pain in order to make a supportable credibility finding.” Amaral v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 797 F. Supp. 2d 154, 162 (D. Mass. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Mercado v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 767 F. Supp. 2d 278, 285 (D.P.R. 2010) (“Generally, a failure to address all of the Avery factors in the rationale of the final decision is cured if the factors are discussed or considered at the administrative hearing.”); Vega v. Astrue, 2012 WL 5989712, at *8 (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2012) (Avery require[s] a hearing officer to inquire into and consider each Avery factor in reaching his determination, but does not . . . require an explicit written analysis of each factor.”). ... In short, although the ALJ did not expressly name each of the Avery factors in evaluating Martinez’s mental impairment, his decision and the hearing transcript show that he considered them. Further, he provided reasonable explanations for partially crediting Martinez’s self-reports given other inconsistent record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (A claimant’s “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish [his or her] capacity for basic work activities to the extent that [his or her] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”). For the above reasons, the ALJ’s mental RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence.

In evaluating subjective symptom complaints under Section 404.1529(c)(3), an ALJ may consider efforts to alleviate symptoms, treatment effectiveness, and other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions.

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

Relevant evidence also includes the claimant’s subjective symptom complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e); Blankenship v. Bowen, 874 F.2d 1116, 1123 (6th Cir. 1989) (“Subjective complaints of pain or other symptoms may support a claim of disability.”). Generally, an ALJ must explain whether she finds the claimant’s subjective complaints consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *15 (Oct. 25, 2017); Felisky v. Bowen, 35 F.3d 1027, 1036 (6th Cir. 1994) (noting that the ALJ must clearly explain her reasons for discounting subjective complaints). In conducting this analysis, the ALJ may consider several factors, including claimant’s efforts to alleviate her symptoms, whether any treatment was effective, and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *15-19; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 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 if his testimony regarding his pain was credible). Although a close question, I find that the ALJ applied the proper standards in assessing Smith’s manipulative limitations and reached a decision supported by substantial evidence, or harmlessly erred in doing so.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider factors that aggravate a claimant’s symptoms when evaluating their effect on work activities.

Satterfield v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-20(c)(3)

Also pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and § 416.929 and SSR 16-3p, the ALJ is to consider factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms. The ALJ ignored Plaintiff’s report to Dr. Ardis that her knee pain was exacerbated by bearing weight and walking.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs adjudicators to consider factors such as daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, medication, and other functional limitations when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms.

HARRIS v. SAUL · filed 2020-01-02(c)(3)

Relevant evidence for this inquity includes Plaintiffs “medical history, medical signs, and laboratory findings” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595, as well as the following factors set out in 20 C.E.R. § 404.1529(c)(3): ... Where the AL] has considered these factors and has heard Plaintiffs testimony and observed her demeanor, the ALJ’s determination is entitled to deference.

Section 404.1529 requires symptom-related functional limitations to be considered when they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective and other evidence, and requires the symptoms' effect on basic work activities to be assessed on that basis.

Foulks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ disbelieved Plaintiff’s description of her symptoms and limitations because they were “not entirely consistent” with the record (Tr. 15). However, the regulations explain, “[A]ny symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions which you . . . report, which can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, will be taken into account.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The next section of the regulation confirms, “Your symptoms . . . will be determined to diminish your capacity for basic work activities to the extent [they] can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the . . . evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The regulation even explains why such deference is given to an individual’s description – “Because symptoms, such as pain, are subjective and difficult to quantify.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to reject alleged sitting, standing, and walking limits after comparing them with examination findings, imaging, treatment response, and other record evidence.

Swistara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-28(c)(3)

Based on the foregoing and the other evidence of record cited, the ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiff could perform the reduced range of light work with the corresponding standing, sitting, and walking limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) permits an ALJ to reject alleged bathroom-frequency limitations when treatment records and part-time work contradict the claimed severity and the decision explains the finding.

DREISTADT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-02-02(c)(1)

The Court detects no error in this evaluation of Plaintiff’s alleged need for frequent bathroom breaks, and further finds the ALJ adequately explained and supported his finding with respect to the severity of Plaintiff’s bladder-control symptoms.

Sections 404.1529(a)–(c) allow an ALJ to evaluate alleged symptoms against the whole record and decline unsupported limitations when substantial clinical evidence, expert consensus, and work history support the RFC.

Morales v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-23(a)–(c)

In this case substantial clinical evidence, a broad medical expert consensus, and Maldonado’s own active employment history all supported the notion that the plaintiff retained the residual functional capacity to perform at least light work.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to assess a claimant’s symptoms within the residual functional capacity analysis rather than in a separate discussion.

Sawyer v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-07(a), (c)(4)

That some of this support for the ALJ’s credibility assessment is woven into his analysis of Sawyer’s residual functional capacity, rather than a discussion limited to credibility, is insignificant. The regulations anticipate overlap. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c)(4); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *3; Bjomson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 645-46 (7th Cir.2012).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to assess the credibility of a claimant’s reported symptoms before determining residual functional capacity.

Yu v. Astrue · filed 2013-08-08

The ALJ was supposed to account for Yu’s statements, after considering their credibility based in part on consistency with the rest of the record, and then assess “residual functional capacity.”

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

VREELAND v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-11-13(c)

As part of an RFC analysis, an ALJ must determine the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC finding is supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ provided a sufficient explanation for the RFC determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptoms, but requires considering the record as a whole, including limitations on those activities.

Hasberry v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-01-08(c)(3)

The ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily activities when making a credibility finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing “daily activities” as a relevant factor to consider in evaluating a claimant’s subjective pain testimony). When examining daily activities, an ALJ must consider the record as a whole. ... The failure of the ALJ to consider these limitations was error.

Section 404.1529 requires daily activities to be considered, along with medical evidence, when evaluating an applicant’s symptoms.

Bradshaw v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-27

Social Security regulations provide that, along with medical evidence, activities of daily living will be taken into account in evaluating an applicant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... Thus, the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s daily activities, along with other evidence of her credibility, was appropriate under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and the ALJ did not err in her subjective symptoms analysis.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: objective evidence of an impairment capable of producing the alleged symptoms, followed by assessment of their intensity and persistence using all available evidence.

Cone v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-22(b), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)

Under these regulations, the determination of whether a person is disabled because of an alleged symptoms is a two-step process. First, there must be objective medical evidence showing the existence of a medical impairment(s) which results from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities and which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(b), 404.1529(b). An ALJ need only afford great weight where subjective complaints are consistent with objective medical evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). As the Fourth Circuit has explained, under the second step, the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s [symptoms], and the extent to which [they] affects her ability to work, must be evaluated. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(c)(1) & 404.1529(c)(1). Under the regulations, this evaluation must take into account not only the claimant’s statements about her [symptoms], but also “all the available evidence,” including the claimant’s medical history, medical signs, and laboratory findings, see id.; any objective medical evidence of [symptoms] . . . and any other evidence relevant to the severity of the impairment, such as evidence of the claimant’s daily activities, specific descriptions of the [symptoms], and any medical treatment taken to alleviate it, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.929(c)(3) & 404.1529(c)(3).

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

Leyva v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-24(c)(3)

Under SSR 16-3p, the ALJ shall determine whether to credit a claimant’s statements about her pain and limitations by referring to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3), which include: the claimant’s daily activities; the factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate the symptoms; the claimant’s treatment, other than medication, for the symptoms; any other measure that the individual uses to relieve pain or other symptoms; and, finally, “any other factors concerning an individual’s functional imitations and restrictions.” SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating subjective symptoms to consider the claimant’s statements together with objective medical and other evidence, including inconsistencies and relevant symptom factors.

Webb v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-27

The court finds that the ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s subjective complaints and symptoms satisfied the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and that her determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider all record evidence, including objective and other relevant evidence, and not reject symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-30(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)

When evaluating the subjective complaints of a claimant, the ALJ asks two questions: (1) whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms, and (2) whether the limitations posed by the intensity and persistence of those symptoms limit the individual’s ability to perform work-related activities. Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3 (Oct. 25, 2017).5 When ALJs find at the first step that an individual has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms suffered, ALJs must consider “all of the evidence in an individual’s record when they evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms,” including ... the objective medical evidence and “any other relevant evidence in the individual’s case record.” Id. at *2, *4; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1) The ALJ should consider whether the individual’s description of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms like pain are consistent with the objective medical evidence, but if they are not, the ALJ cannot disregard the description solely because it is not substantiated by objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p at *5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). The ALJ must also consider other relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Where the treatment an individual sought is not comparable with the degree of his subjective complaints, the ALJ must consider possible reasons for the failure to seek more or different treatment before finding the subjective complaints inconsistent with the evidence in the record. SSR 16-3p at *9.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) permits consideration of the frequency and extent of treatment when evaluating the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms.

Randolph v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-31(c)(3)(iv)

The ALJ also discussed Randolph’s overall routine and conservative treatment, consisting of medication. (AR 27.) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv); SSR 16-3p (“[I]f the frequency or extent of the treatment sought by an individual is not comparable with the degree of the individual’s subjective complaints… we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record”); see also Johnson v. Shalala, 60 F.3d 1428, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding conservative course of treatment suggested a “lower level of both pain and functional limitation.”) Randolph was later recommended for Botox treatment, but had previously stated that Advil, Aleve, Ibuprofen, and coffee relieved her symptoms sometimes. (ECF No. 23 at 8; see also AR 209, 421.) Further, Randolph’s prior evaluations only included medication for treatment, for which Larkin only increased the dosage one time. (AR 397.) Additionally, when the prescribed medication did not work, Randolph drank coffee to alleviate her headaches (AR 49); she did not require additional testing, nor did she participate in a headache study despite her ongoing allegations of daily headaches. (ECF No. 23 at 8.) The ALJ correctly found Randolph’s treatment was routine and conservative.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of a claimant's daily activities when evaluating subjective complaints, although activities alone do not establish the ability to perform full-time work.

Swope v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-10(c)(3)(i)

While the ability to do activities, alone, does not establish that a claimant can perform full-time work, Burress v. Apfel, 141 F.3d. 875, 881 (8th Cir. 1998), such activities are inconsistent with subjective complaints of disabling impairments. Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805, 817 (8th Cir. 2009); see also Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1087 (8th Cir. 2016); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i) and 416.929(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptom testimony and permits consideration of objective medical evidence, but does not allow testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not substantiate it.

Chopic v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-07(a), (c)(2)

An ALJ must consider a claimant’s symptom testimony, including statements regarding pain and workplace limitations. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). ... It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). ... The ALJ properly considered the objective medical evidence and contrasted it with Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms. ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err in discounting Plaintiff’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms to consider factors including daily activities and the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication.

Sanford v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-11(c)(3)

Social Security Ruling 16-3p4 provides guidance on the evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms in a disability case. The Ruling notes that “[i]n addition to using all of the evidence to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms” the ALJ should also consider factors set forth in the regulations, including the “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms[.]” 2016 WL 1119029 at *7 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)). ... The court finds that the ALJ acknowledged Plaintiff’s hearing testimony and properly considered the evidence of record—including her medications and medication side effects—and dismisses this allegation of error.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider daily activities, symptom characteristics, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication and treatment, and measures used to relieve symptoms.

Ellis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-05(c)(3)(i)-(vi)

Specifically, in addition to the objective medical evidence, the ALJ must consider the following factors: “1) daily activities; 2) location, duration, frequency and intensity of any symptoms; 3) precipitating and aggravating factors; 4) type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medications taken; 5) other treatment received; and 6) other measures taken to relieve symptoms.” F.S. v. Astrue, No. 1:10-CV-444, 2012 WL 514944, at *19 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vi)). ... Ultimately, the ALJ explicitly acknowledged consideration of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 when making her credibility determination, (Tr. at 15), and it is evident from her thorough discussion that the determination was legally sound.

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

McClellan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-06(a)

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

Section 404.1529(c) directs the adjudicator to consider treatment other than medication, along with other evidence about symptoms, when evaluating their limiting effects.

Hinkston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-06(c)(3)(v)

Besides objective findings and medication, the ALJ properly considered the level and type of treatment that Plaintiff sought and obtained in determining whether he was disabled. (Tr. 15-26). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Indeed, the regulations provide that one of the factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms is treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of his symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). The ALJ observed that Plaintiff received physical therapy. (Tr. 21). Plaintiff had regular access to treatment, which showed he was doing better overall with a normal gait and extremity examination findings. (Tr. 1253-1311). And although he complained of ankle pain, his doctors did not recommend injections or interventional measures. (Tr. 22, 2195). Thus, the ALJ reasonably noted his conservative treatment after July 20, 2016 did not warrant a more restrictive finding. (Tr. 23).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant's daily living activities when evaluating symptoms.

Hassan v. Saul · filed 2020-09-23(c)(3)

An ALJ is permitted to consider daily living activities in his credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (daily activities are a relevant factor which will be considered in evaluating symptoms); see also Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 2009) (“In reaching a credibility determination, an ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, and work record, among other factors”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) identifies a claimant's daily activities as potentially useful evidence for assessing the nature and severity of symptoms.

Brow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-02(c)(3)(i)

Further, Dr. Whitehead’s opinion was inconsistent with the extent of Plaintiff’s daily activities. Plaintiff testified to his ability to help around the house, use a push mower, and work on vehicles. (R. at 59-60.) The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Whitehead’s opinion on this basis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (daily activities may be useful to assess nature and severity of claimant’s symptoms); Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 392 (6th Cir. 2004) (“The administrative law judge justifiably considered [the claimant’s] ability to conduct daily life activities in the face of his claim of disabling pain.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities without equating the ability to perform them with the demands of full-time competitive employment.

Regard v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-30(c)(3)(i)

While an ALJ cannot equate an ability to perform daily activities “with the challenges of daily employment in a competitive environment,” the ALJ “is nonetheless required to consider daily activities” in “determining the extent to which [a claimant’s] symptoms limit” her RFC. Hightshoe v. Kijakazi, No. 22 CV 2359, 2023 WL 3531473, at *2 (7th Cir. May 18, 2023) (internal quotations omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)); see also Prill v. Kijakazi, 23 F.4th 738, 748 (7th Cir. 2022) (“[I]t is entirely permissible to examine all of the evidence, including a claimant’s activities, to assess whether testimony about the effects of . . . impairments was credible or exaggerated.” (citation omitted)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities in assessing symptom-related RFC limitations, but activities should not be equated with competitive work.

Erffmeyer v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-01(c)(3)(i)

Because the ALJ “consider[ed] daily activities” in “determining the extent to which [Nancy’s] symptoms limit” her RFC, as she was required to do, Hightshoe v. Kijakazi, No. 22 CV 2359, 2023 WL 3531473, at *2 (7th Cir. May 18, 2023) (internal quotations omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)), and did not equate Nancy’s daily activities with her ability to work in a competitive environment, the court finds no error—patent or otherwise—in this analysis, see Prill v. Kijakazi, 23 F.4th 738, 748 (7th Cir. 2022) (“[I]t is entirely permissible to examine all of the evidence, including a claimant’s activities, to assess whether testimony about the effects of . . . impairments was credible or exaggerated.” (citation omitted)).

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of how symptoms affect a claimant's daily activities and ability to work.

Greve v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-28

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, an ALJ considers all symptoms, including how the symptoms affect a claimant’s activities of daily living and ability to work.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits daily activities that conflict with alleged severe limitations to support discounting symptom testimony.

(SS) Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)

The Court finds that these activities were reasonably considered by the ALJ to be inconsistent with Plaintiff’s alleged inability to work due to back and hand impairments, and such inconsistency was another clear and convincing reason to find his testimony not credible. See Stubbs-Danielson v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities when they contradict symptom testimony or demonstrate capacity for full-time work.

Masoumian v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-02(c)(3)(i)

An ALJ may properly consider the claimant’s daily activities in evaluating subjective symptom testimony. Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) (claimant’s daily activities relevant to evaluating symptoms); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7 (same). Daily activities may form the basis of an adverse credibility determination when evidence concerning the claimant’s daily activities contradicts his or her testimony, or when the activities meet the threshold for full-time work.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) expressly permits consideration of daily activities when assessing symptom credibility, while cautioning against treating limited tasks as proof of full-time work capacity.

Govia v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-26(c)(3)(i)

Although ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time, competitive, remunerative work, the regulations expressly permit consideration of the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) requires consideration of daily activities when evaluating symptoms.

Pietrucha v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-08(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ was required to take note of these activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(I).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities when assessing symptom credibility, while cautioning against overreading limited tasks as full-time capacity.

Woods v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-11(c)(3)(i)

Although ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time, competitive, remunerative work, the Social Security regulations expressly permit consideration of the claimant’s “daily activities” when assessing credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of daily activities and treatment in evaluating symptom intensity and persistence.

Zapata v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-23(c)(3)

The factors the ALJ considered in assessing Plaintiff’s credibility were appropriate, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (listing factors considered in evaluating intensity and persistence of symptoms to include daily activities and treatment received), and adequately supported the ALJ’s finding that the evidence in the record did not support Plaintiff’s statements about the severity of his symptoms and limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits consideration of daily activities while cautioning against overreading limited tasks as proof of full-time work capacity.

Gaskins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-03(c)(3)(i)

Although ALJs must be careful not to overinterpret a claimant’s ability to perform limited tasks as evidence of the ability to maintain full-time competitive, remunerative work, the regulations expressly permit consideration of the claimant’s ‘daily activities when assessing credibility.”

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits discounting disabling symptoms when substantial daily pursuits conflict with them.

Hamilton v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-12(c)(4)

The ALJ may discount a claimant’s reported disabling symptoms if he can spend a substantial part of the day engaged in pursuits inconsistent with the reported disabling symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the claimant’s course of treatment and daily activities.

Grove v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-12(c)(3)

Throughout the ALJ’s analysis, she considered Plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms and abilities and compared those with the objective medical evidence and medical opinions. ... The ALJ clearly complied with the applicable regulations. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (consideration of course of treatment and daily activities); 20 C.F.R. § 1520c (evaluation of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings).

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

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

ALJs may look to a plaintiff’s daily activities when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as one factor when evaluating subjective allegations of pain.

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-07-01(c)(3)(i)

A claimant’s admission that she participates in daily activities for short durations does not disqualify the claimant from disability, Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir. 1997), but it is appropriate for an ALJ to consider daily activities relevant to a claimant’s subjective pain allegations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i). ... But the ALJ didn’t err in considering Williams’ daily activities as one of several factors that supported her credibility determination. ... The court finds that the ALJ’s consideration of Williams’ daily activities was reasonable and appropriate under the applicable regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities when assessing how symptoms limit work capacity.

Evelyn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-12-30(c)(3)

Based on the subjective evidence, the ALJ found that Perschka’s seizure disorder did not significantly limit her daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Specifically, she was able to clean, shop, sew, cook, socialize, bowl, and walk several miles a day. ... This evidence amply supports the ALJ’s RFC determination.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of daily activities, treatment, medication, and consistency with medical evidence when assessing reported pain.

Teixeira v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-21(c)

Here, the hearing officer considered the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1)-(3) as well as the Avery factors with respect to complaints of intense pain. ... While a claimant’s performance of household chores or the like ought not be equated to an ability to participate effectively in the workforce, evidence of daily activities can be used to support a negative credibility finding.

Section 404.1529 permits consideration of daily activities when evaluating the severity of a claimant’s symptoms, but those activities alone do not establish an ability to work full time.

Loveless v. Colvin · filed 2016-01-13(e)(3)(i)

Rather, the ALJ considered Loveless’s description of his daily activities in assessing whether his testimony about the effects of his impairments was credible or exaggerated. ... Moreover, the ALJ explicitly acknowledged that Loveless’s ability to engage in these daily activities was not conclusive proof that he was able to sustain full-time work but instead was one factor that weighed against his account of disabling limitations.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of daily activities and other relevant factors when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

Rydberg v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-05-13(c)

On remand, if the ALJ discounts Plaintiff’s symptom reports because they were inconsistent with her activities, the ALJ must meaningfully articulate why Plaintiff’s ability to prepare simple meals, perform light housework, fold laundry, do some shopping, handle her finances, and get along with family members, is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s testimony that she sits or lies down often to relieve her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c) allows an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities and objective medical evidence when evaluating reported symptoms.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-31(c)

In determining credibility, an ALJ may consider objective medical evidence and a claimant’s reported daily activities, amongst other things. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); see also SSR 96-7p.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate alleged symptoms against the medical and other evidence; an ALJ cannot discount limited daily activities merely because the limitations cannot be verified or might have other causes.

Stegmeier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-09(a)

Second, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which the claimant's symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)) (alteration removed). ... It is also important to note that the ALJ’s comments that Plaintiff’s daily activities limitations could not be verified is not a correct statement of the applicable legal standard, and his assertion that there might be other reasons for those limitations is, on this record, pure speculation.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of daily activities and medical evidence when evaluating the intensity and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Tiamiyu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-01(c)

Accordingly, the ALJ permissibly concluded that plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms are not entirely consistent with the evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities as one factor when evaluating subjective symptoms.

McCarty v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-09-04(c)(3)(i)

The ALJ may consider the claimant’s daily activities as one factor in evaluating subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Westphal v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-12(c)(2)-(3)

Then, provided there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s statements in context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires the ALJ to assess a claimant’s statements about symptoms against the record as a whole when objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate them.

Sloan v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-09(c)(3)

When the objective medical evidence alone does not substantiate the claimant’s alleged symptoms, the ALJ must assess the credibility of the claimant’s statements considering the details of the case record as a whole. ... Here, the ALJ properly explained why she found that Plaintiffs testimony was not entirely credible because she considered Plaintiffs testimony as part of her RFC analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) directs the ALJ to assess a claimant’s symptom reports against the work record and other evidence, including whether the reports are consistent with the record.

Fee v. Astrue · filed 2013-05-10(c)(3), (c)(4)

A claimant must produce appropriate, probative evidence in support of his statements of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). The ALJ is to consider information about a claimant’s prior work record as part of the evidence relevant to credibility, as well as the consistency of the individual’s statements with information in the record more generally. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... For these reasons, I find the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by the record, and was not based on inappropriate legal standards.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptoms using the relevant factors and evidence in the record and to explain the credibility finding.

Tenhove v. Colvin · filed 2013-02-26(c)

Because the ALJ failed to provide a sufficient analysis of plaintiffs credibility under the standards set forth in SSR 96-7p and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), the matter must be remanded for further proceedings on this basis as well.

An ALJ may not discount pain testimony for lack of treatment when the record shows that the claimant received pain treatment.

Kager v. Astrue · filed 2007-11-26

Thus, Eager’s purported lack of pain treatment was not supported by the record and was therefore an improper basis for discounting Eager’s testimony of pain.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: determine whether a medically determinable impairment could cause them, then evaluate the alleged severity.

Contreras v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-05(b)

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Blessing v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-17(c)(2)-(3)

Second, the ALJ must then evaluate the statements in context of the (1) objective medical evidence and (2) other evidence in the records. See C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider evidence beyond objective medical findings when evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms.

Munir v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-21(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... These reasons provide a clear and convincing basis to find that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony was not supported by the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider additional factors when weighing a claimant’s testimony about symptoms.

Holmes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-17(c)(3)

Rather, the ALJ must consider the additional factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) in assessing Plaintiff’s testimony and deciding its proper weight.

An ALJ must consider the relevant factors when evaluating a claimant’s testimony about the effects of her symptoms.

Estes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-19(c)(3)

The ALJ considered the relevant factors in weighing her testimony about how her impairments affect her.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to consider a claimant's testimony about symptoms when evaluating their severity.

HARTZ · filed 2025-11-21(c)(1)

Here the ALJ considered Claimant's testimony, as he was required to do, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1), and as Claimant acknowledges, (Docket No. 9 at ECF p. 11), but found it "inconsistent" with the medical evidence and Claimant's life activities testimony, which indicated that Claimant "function[ed] at a higher level . . . than [she] alleged," (Docket No. 6-2 at ECF pp. 26–27).

Section 404.1529(a) requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, alongside objective medical and other evidence when evaluating their effects.

Dross-Swart v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-30(a)

The ALJ must determine a claimant’s credibility only after considering all of the claimant’s “symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.”

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

Sorber v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. · filed 2019-01-23(c)(1)

Second, if a claimant shows that she suffers from an underlying medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her other symptoms, the ALJ must "evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms" to determine how the symptoms limit the claimant's ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). ... Therefore, because the ALJ did not provide any other clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff's symptom testimony, the ALJ erred by rejecting Plaintiff's symptom testimony based on her conclusion that the objective evidence did not support that testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider evidence beyond objective medical findings when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms, including evidence of daily activities.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-04(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... Having reviewed the ALJ’s opinion, the Court finds that the ALJ improperly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the claimant’s pain, medication, treatment, daily activities, and limitations.

Terry v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-28(c)

Although we afford an ALJ’s credibility finding “considerable deference” and will overturn it only if “patently wrong,” Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir.2006), the ALJ must consider the claimant’s level of pain, medication, treatment, daily activities, and limitations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and must justify the credibility finding with specific reasons supported by the record, Villano, 556 F.3d at 562.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider relevant factors, including daily activities, symptom frequency and duration, and treatment, when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Shauger v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-22(c)

The ALJ must ... consider a number of factors imposed by regulation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); S.S.R. 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, and must support credibility findings with evidence in the record, Villano, 556 F.3d at 562.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as daily activities, pain, medication, treatment, and limitations when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, and to give specific reasons for the finding.

Allen v. Colvin · filed 2013-04-29(c)

In determining credibility, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, [his] level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and justify the finding with specific reasons.” ... After carefully reviewing the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and permits consideration of medical evidence, daily activities, medication, and treatment.

Baxla v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-09(c)

Second, if a claimant shows that he suffers from an underlying medical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce his pain or other symptoms, the ALJ must “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms” to determine how the symptoms, including pain, limit the claimant’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). In making this evaluation, the ALJ may consider the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, precipitating and aggravating factors, medication taken, and treatments for relief of pain or other symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Bradley v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-20(c)(3)

Nor did the ALJ consider the other six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) before deeming Bradley’s testimony not credible.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as daily activities, pain, medication, and treatment when evaluating reported symptoms, and to give specific reasons for the finding.

Simon-Leveque v. Colvin · filed 2017-01-17(c)

In determining credibility, “an ALJ must consider several factors, including the claimant’s daily activities, her level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and limitations, and justify the finding with specific reasons.” ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p. ... Under these circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s credibility determination was patently wrong. The ALJ supported his decision with specific findings, supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider evidence beyond objective medical findings when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-07-24(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... Having reviewed the ALJ’s opinion, the Court finds that the ALJ improperly evaluated Plaintiff’s credibility and discounted her subjective testimony about her symptoms without providing specific and clear reasoning or pointing to substantial evidence contradicting Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider medical and nonmedical evidence when evaluating how a claimant’s symptoms limit functioning, including daily activities and treatment.

Euscher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-13(c)

I find that ALJ Van Vleck was entitled to reject plaintiff’s testimony concerning her functional abilities, and that the ALJ supported her determination with substantial evidence as required by the applicable Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 indicates that, in order to evaluate the functional limitations caused by “the intensity and persistence” of a claimant’s symptoms, “such as pain”, an ALJ must “consider all of the available evidence from [a claimant’s] medical sources and nonmedical sources”. 20 C.F.R. § 1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of the full record when evaluating symptoms and permits an ALJ to discount symptom allegations based on inconsistent medical evidence, daily activities, and conservative treatment.

Nielsen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-14(c)

When evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ must consider the entire record, including the claimant’s activities of daily living (“ADLs”); the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; medications taken and their effectiveness; treatment other than medication; measures other than treatment used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and “other factors concerning the individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 96-7p; SSR 16-3p. ... Inconsistency with the medical record and activities of daily living and Plaintiff’s conservative course of treatment were permissible grounds upon which to discount Plaintiff’s subjective symptom allegations.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms using all available evidence, including medical history, medical findings, and statements about their effects.

Robinson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-17(a)

In the second step, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms by considering “all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings and statements about how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect him.”

Section 404.1529 governs the evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms, including the assessment of testimony about their intensity.

Sero v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-29

In assessing a claimant’s testimony about subjective pain or the intensity of symptoms, the ALJ engages in a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929. ... The ALJ erred by failing to account for economic factors as possible reasons for Plaintiff not seeking out treatment when she made her adverse credibility finding.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Carlos v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-13(c)(2)-(3)

Second, the ALJ must then evaluate the statements in context of the (1) objective medical evidence and (2) other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)-(3). ... All such evidence was appropriately considered by the ALJ.

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom statements against medical and other record evidence and give specific reasons for discounting them.

Sisemore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-15(c)

The ALJ failed to discuss which aspects of Plaintiff’s testimony were found not credible and instead outlined the medical record without relating it to Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. This was error.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider all relevant evidence when evaluating symptoms, including whether the claimant’s statements are consistent with other evidence.

Morrell v. Berryhill · filed 2021-01-27

In making this finding, the ALJ must consider all the relevant evidence, such as all symptoms and the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; see also SSRs 96-4p and 96-7p. ... Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s conclusion on this point. The record demonstrates that plaintiff’s activities, such as going to the gym and traveling to Utah and Texas, undermined plaintiff’s claims that she had difficulty leaving home or caring for herself.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to weigh a claimant's credibility using inconsistencies, daily activities, work history, and evidence about the nature and effects of symptoms.

Light v. Social Security Administration · filed 1997-09-17(c)

In weighing a claimant's credibility, the ALJ may consider his reputation for truthfulness, inconsistencies either in his testimony or between his testimony and his conduct, his daily activities, his work record, and testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature, severity, and effect of the symptoms of which he complains. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1284; Moncada v. Chater, 60 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 749-50 (9th Cir.1995)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to assess symptom testimony using treatment history, daily activities, and inconsistencies with the medical record.

JONKER v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-29

Plaintiffs conservative treatment, the inconsistencies between his daily activities and alleged limitations, and the contradiction between his testimony and his medical records showing no symptoms, are all valid reasons for the ALJ to reject his credibility. Since the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons for supporting his conclusion, remand is not warranted on this issue.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(iv) requires consideration of daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, and medication when evaluating symptom testimony.

Hamedallah ex rel. E.B. v. Astrue · filed 2012-06-25(c)(3)(i)-(iv)

Having reviewed the Administrative Transcript in its entirety, the Court finds that the ALJ correctly applied the standard, enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(iv), in assessing their credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all available evidence about a claimant’s symptoms and weighing the claimant’s statements against objective evidence.

Wallis v. Colvin · filed 2016-06-10(c)(1), (4)

In evaluating Wallis’s credibility, the hearing officer was required (1) to consider “all of the available evidence,” including [Wallis’s] own statements, the observations and opinions of [Wallis’s] treating physicians, and the observations and opinions of other medical professionals who examined [Wallis] or reviewed [her] records; and (2) to weigh [Wallis’s] statements against the objective evidence, including medical records. ... Given the substantial evidence on the record, the hearing officer properly evaluated the weight of Wallis’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(b) requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the claimant’s alleged symptoms.

Young v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(b)

First, the ALJ must determine whether or not there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b); Diedrich, 874 F.3d at 641. ... In this case, the ALJ found that Young’s medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. A.R. 17. He did not make a finding that Young is malingering. Therefore, he was required to give “clear and convincing” reasons to discount Young’s testimony. ... The ALJ therefore did not offer clear and convincing reasons to discount Young’s testimony as to the severity of her symptoms. This constitutes error and requires remand.

An ALJ evaluates symptom statements against objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record, including inconsistencies and treatment history.

Brambila v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-23(c)(2)-(3)

Second, the ALJ must then evaluate the statements in context of the (1) objective medical evidence and (2) other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)-(3). ... All such evidence was appropriately considered by the ALJ.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom testimony against objective medical and other evidence when determining how symptoms affect the claimant’s ability to work.

Gentry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-05(c)(4)

Nevertheless, the ALJ evaluates the testimony in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence in determining the extent to which the pain or symptoms affect her capacity to perform basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). ... Here, the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony about his physical symptoms.

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to assess symptom testimony against objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Buck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-10(a)

When assessing a claimant’s symptom testimony, the ALJ can only accept such symptom testimony if it is consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... The Court finds that the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider submitted information, including treatment notes, when evaluating symptom testimony.

Kanahele v. Saul · filed 2021-08-12(c)(3)

see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (providing that an ALJ may consider any information submitted in evaluating symptom testimony). Here, the ALJ considered the only relevant information submitted−the 2015 treatment notes−and properly found that the notes did not support Kanahele’s symptom testimony. Nothing more was required, and the ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom testimony to be evaluated alongside objective medical evidence and other evidence to determine its effect on a claimant’s ability to work.

Richardson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-27(c)(4)

Nevertheless, the ALJ evaluates the testimony in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence in determining the extent to which the pain or symptoms affect her capacity to perform basic work activities.

An ALJ may consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but cannot reject symptom testimony solely because that evidence does not fully corroborate it.

Bakun v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-10(c)(2)

As a whole, the evidence cited by the ALJ does not simply fail to support Plaintiff’s symptom testimony; it contradicts the testimony. The evidence provides strong, clear, and convincing reasons to partially reject Plaintiff’s testimony to the extent he represented a complete lack of functional capacity to work.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably cause the claimant’s symptoms and to give adequate reasons for discounting symptom testimony.

Burke v. Saul · filed 2021-12-27(b)

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms, like pain, requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). First, the ALJ must determine whether or not there is a medically determinable impairment that reasonably could be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82. ... In sum, none of the explanations given by the ALJ for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony are specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the ALJ erred and remand is warranted.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom testimony in light of objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-01(c)(2)–(3)

If so, the ALJ must then evaluate the claimant’s testimony in the context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)–(3).

An ALJ may not reject a claimant’s symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.

Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-07(c)(2)

An ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.” Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... The Court finds that the ALJ amply cited to the Record, which served as a reasonable basis for his finding that Plaintiffs had a greater degree of functioning than was alleged. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Seaman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-02(c)(2)-(3)

Then, provided there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s statements in context of (1) the objective medical evidence and (2) other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider symptom testimony, objective medical evidence, and other record evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-07(c)

When an ALJ evaluates a claimant’s symptoms, he considers symptom testimony, objective medical evidence, and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). ... Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, the Court finds the ALJ did not err by discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to weigh inconsistencies between a claimant’s symptom testimony and the claimant’s conduct, daily activities, work record, and other testimony.

Nava v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-12

In assessing a claimant’s characterization of their symptoms, the “ALJ may weigh inconsistencies between the claimant’s testimony and his or her conduct, daily activities, work record” and “testimony from physicians and third parties concerning the nature, severity and effect of the symptoms of which he complains.”

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms and does not permit an ALJ to reject testimony about their severity solely for lack of objective medical corroboration.

Joiner v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-19

The determination of whether or not to accept a claimant’s testimony regarding subjective symptoms requires a two-step analysis. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 (citations omitted). ... The court therefore finds that ALJ’s failure to proffer clear and convincing reasons to reject Plaintiff’s testimony on the severity of his impairments was legal error.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to first determine whether objective medical evidence shows an impairment that could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms.

Carrier v. Saul · filed 2022-09-30

First, the ALJ must determine whether the claimant has presented objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 678 (quoting Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1014-15; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (Mar. 27, 2017)). ... The Court finds the ALJ adequately evaluated Petitioner’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-19(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence.” See Vertigan, 260 F.3d at 1049 (“The fact that a claimant’s testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and of itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Horowitz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-01(c)(2)-(3)

Then, provided there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s statements in context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3). ... The ALJ properly assessed Plaintiff’s pain and the Court finds no error.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to consider evidence beyond objective medical findings when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Garcia v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-07(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... Here, by selectively relying on the treatment providers notes, and qualifying the limitations set forth in the record with irrelevant findings, the ALJ failed to provide specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) allows an ALJ to consider inconsistencies between symptom testimony and other evidence, including daily activities, when assessing claimed limitations.

Cerrato v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-29(c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ will consider the claimant’s testimony regarding his or her symptoms, including any inconsistencies between the testimony and the other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)-(4), 416.929(c)(3)-(4). ... Here, it was entirely proper for the ALJ to consider Plaintiff’s ability to independently perform personal needs tasks, care for his dog, use public transportation, shop, drive, clean the house, cook meals, and do laundry.

Objective medical evidence may be weighed when evaluating a claimant’s statements about the intensity and effects of symptoms.

Maneri v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-05(c)(2)

The ALJ met this standard. She carefully reviewed Plaintiff's lengthy medical history and found that her symptom testimony does not entirely comport with the numerous medical records reflecting normal to mild clinical findings and effective pain management treatment.

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to consider a claimant’s symptoms and allows the ALJ to weigh those statements against the medical and other evidence.

CHUNG v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-03-28(a)

Indeed, the ALI’s detailed explanation of how he weighed Plaintiff’s testimony against the other medical evidence in this case is fully consistent with the requirements of 20 C.R.R. § 404.1529.

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

FOLKNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-23(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider several factors during this analysis, and “evaluate [the individual’s] statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence” in the record, including to determine “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of a claimant’s symptom statements alongside medical and other evidence and permits the ALJ to discount statements inconsistent with that evidence.

WATERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-04-30(a)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ acted within his discretion in weighing Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects” of her interstitial cystitis symptoms, including her urinary frequency, against other evidence in the record and ultimately declining to find Plaintiff disabled.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other record evidence.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-12(c)(2)-(3)

Then, provided no evidence of malingering exists, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s statements in the context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3). ... Here, in evaluating Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ appropriately followed the prescribed two-step analysis.

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

Adams v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-06-24(c)

Second, the ALJ evaluates the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the ability to perform work-related activities. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *3; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for evaluating symptom testimony in light of the relevant factors and other record evidence.

Rodriguez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-22(c)(3)

Thus, the ALJ adequately explained (and reasonably concluded) that Rodriguez’s symptoms did not satisfy the disability factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s symptom statements in light of objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record.

Morrow v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-03(c)(2)-(3)

Then, provided no evidence of malingering exists, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s statements in the context of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3). ... Here, in evaluating Plaintiff’s testimony, the ALJ appropriately followed the prescribed two-step analysis.

Section 404.1529 governs evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms; absent evidence of malingering, an ALJ must give specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting symptom testimony.

Shaw-Stearns v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-30

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

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ, absent affirmative evidence of malingering, to give specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting a claimant’s symptom testimony.

Myers v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-28

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

Section 404.1529(a) governs evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms; an ALJ may discount symptom testimony based on evidence of malingering or specific, clear, and convincing reasons.

Melander v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-17(a)

Where a disability claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, absent evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide “specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of the claimant’s symptoms.” Treichler v. Comm’r, 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 493-94; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). ... Thus, the ALJ provided specific, clear, and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his symptoms and the extent of his limitations.

In evaluating symptoms, an ALJ may consider whether a claimant’s testimony is consistent with medical evidence, work history, and daily activities.

Blanchard v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-25(c)(2), (c)(4)

The ALJ articulated “specific, clear and convincing reasons” to discount Blanchard’s testimony about the impact his symptoms had on his ability to sustain work activities.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of symptoms using medical evidence, treatment history, daily activities, and other relevant evidence.

Solorzano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-10-10(c)

These inconsistencies between plaintiff’s testimony and the evidence of record provide a permissible basis for the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entitled to full credit.

Section 404.1529(a) governs the evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms; when an impairment could reasonably cause the alleged symptoms and there is no evidence of malingering, the ALJ must give specific, clear and convincing reasons to reject testimony about their severity.

Ivan V. V. v. Frank Bisignano · filed 2025-11-24(a)

When a disability claimant produces objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, absent evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide “specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of the claimant’s symptoms.” Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1102 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotations omitted); Moisa v. Barnhart, 367 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) lists factors for evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, including daily activities, medication, and treatment.

Armstrong v. Bisignano · filed 2026-04-02(c)(3)

When evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, the following factors should be considered: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id. at *7–8; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... The Court does not find the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony related to her physical impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an adjudicator to consider a claimant’s improvement with treatment when evaluating the severity and limiting effects of reported symptoms.

Storves v. Saul · filed 2020-03-11(c)(3)

Third, the ALJ found Plaintiff’s reported symptoms inconsistent with Plaintiff’s treatment history. ... Lastly, the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s reported symptoms because they were inconsistent with reported improvements after Plaintiff attended counseling. The ALJ noted that after receiving a few sessions of counseling beginning October 2015, Plaintiff decided to start attending college classes and after voluntarily being admitted to Lourdes Medical Center in 2016, Plaintiff was discharged the next day after mood improved and stabilized, with sleep and prescribed medication. On this record, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s impairments when treated were not as limiting as Plaintiff claimed. This finding is supported by substantial evidence and was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints.

Section 404.1529(c) calls for an ALJ to consider daily activities alongside medical evidence when evaluating the severity of pain.

Carl Gebauer, Jr. v. Saul · filed 2020-01-17(c)(1), (3)

The ALJ considered the evidence of Davina’s daily activities in balance with the rest of her record, including evidence that her doctors noted “no apparent physical distress,” even on the days when she complained of pain, and a lack of evidence that she had “significant sensation loss, significantly reduced joint motion, muscle spasms, muscle atrophy, motor weakness,” or other symptoms “associated with the pain that would prevent her from performing sedentary work.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1), (3).

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

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

The effectiveness of medication or treatment is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[E]vidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's alleged symptoms in light of the claimant's treatment, including conservative treatment.

Rosario v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13(c)(3)(v)

This argument, however, ignores agency regulations, which specifically permit an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's alleged symptoms in light of his or her treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant's symptoms to consider objective evidence and other factors, including medicinal and non-medicinal treatment.

Borck v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv), and (c)(3)(v)

This closely tracks the regulations, which require an ALJ to consider both objective evidence and other factors such as medicinal and non-medicinal treatment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), (3)(iv)&(5), 416.929(c)(2), (3)(iv)&(v).

Section 404.1529 permits objective evidence and treatment course to inform symptom assessment, including discounting testimony contradicted by medical opinions or relieved with limited treatment.

Clark v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-19(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ may consider objective medical evidence when assessing a claimant’s testimony and may discount a claimant’s statements if medical opinion evidence contradicts the claimant’s subjective testimony. 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(2); Carmickle v. Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1155, 1161 (9th Cir. 2008). ... A claimant’s course of treatment is a valid consideration for the ALJ when assessing the claimant’s testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... In sum, the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence and free of harmful error.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) through (4) permit an ALJ to compare subjective complaints with medical evidence showing improvement, response to treatment, and conservative care, while accounting for credited limitations in the RFC.

Milton v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-11-22(c)(1)-(4)

The ALJ acknowledged Milton’s subjective complaints but noted that the medical evidence demonstrated improvement of Milton’s symptoms and response to treatment, which often was conservative rather than invasive. (Tr. 33). Even while discounting some of Milton’s subjective complaints, the ALJ included additional postural and environmental limitations in her light work RFC. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Milton’s subjective testimony.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) permit an ALJ to discount symptom testimony based on objective medical evidence and routine conservative treatment when the reasons are specific, clear, convincing, and supported by substantial evidence.

Neal v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-16(c)(2), (3)

Thus, the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s ... testimony regarding the severity of his symptoms were specific, clear, and ... convincing and supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to evaluate the record, including medical opinions, when assessing claimed limitations.

Cooper v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-17

However, the regulations permit the ALJ to evaluate the evidence of record, including medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities.”).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to evaluate a claimant's symptoms by considering their consistency with objective medical evidence, daily activities, and the nature and effectiveness of treatment.

Yacoobali v. Saul Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(iv)(v)

The ALJ’s primary consideration is the consistency of Plaintiff’s statements with the objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... The ALJ was entitled to consider whether Plaintiff’s activities were inconsistent with the physical or mental symptoms alleged. ... Therefore, in reaching its RFC finding, the ALJ could assess these inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s account and the totality of the record. ... Lastly, the ALJ cited Plaintiff’s improvement with treatment to show that Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony was not supported by the record. (AR 20-22); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)(v) (an ALJ considers the nature and effectiveness of treatment a claimant receives).

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

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

As to a claimant’s subjective symptoms, the regulations require an ALJ to consider several factors, including: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken; (5) treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7 (“In addition to using all of the evidence to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms, we will also use the factors set forth in 20 CFR 404.1529(c)(3).”). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ’s assessment of Waddell’s subjective symptoms is supported by substantial evidence. Contrary to Waddell’s argument, the ALJ did not rely solely on the objective medical evidence; such evidence was but one factor in the ALJ’s analysis. And, it was entirely appropriate.