20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 identifies seven factors to guide an ALJ's evaluation of a claimant's subjective symptoms, including daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and functional limitations.

Beagle v. SSA · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3)

In 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, the Social Security Administration informs claimants that, in certain credibility determinations, the following factors should guide the analysis of the agency decision makers: (i) Your daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of your pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and does not require an ALJ to discuss every listed factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.

Draper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(a), (c)(3)

The new policy ruling did not and could not change the underlying regulations. The longstanding two-part analysis for evaluating symptoms applies. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). “An ALJ must first determine ‘whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms.’ If such an impairment exists, the ALJ ‘must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms on the individual’s ability to do basic work activities.’ ” Morrison v. Commissioner, 2017 WL 4278378, at *4 (quoting Rogers v. Commissioner, 486 F.3d 234, 247 (6th Cir. 2007) ). Relevant factors to be considered in evaluating symptoms are listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). “It is well established that the ALJ is not required to discuss every factor or conduct a factor-by-factor analysis.” Pratt v. Commissioner, No. 1:12-cv-1084, 2014 WL 1577525, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2014) (collecting cases); see also Carsten v. Commissioner, No. 15-14379, 2017 WL 957455, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 23, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms using factors including daily activities, treatment, medication, and other evidence.

Celestine v. Saul · filed 2020-03-26(c)

Factors to be considered in evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms include: 1) daily activities; 2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; 3) factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; 4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication an individual takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; 5) treatment, other than medication, an individual receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; 6) any measures other than treatment an individual uses or has used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and 7) any other factors concerning an individual’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529 requires symptom allegations to be evaluated under whether their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical and other evidence, rather than demanding that they be entirely consistent.

Oliver v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(a), (c)(4)

The ALJ is not tasked with determining whether Plaintiff’s symptoms are “entirely consistent” with the medical evidence. Rather, the ALJ is instead instructed to determine whether the allegations concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c)(4) (describing how the Social Security Administration considers symptoms). ... In the instant matter, it appears to the Court that the ALJ applied the correct standard, even though the incorrect “entirely consistent” language was used in his decision. At the beginning of his discussion of the RFC, the ALJ properly stated the standard as whether the allegations concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. (AR 19). Despite his later erroneous statement of the standard as “entirely consistent with,” it seems that the ALJ nevertheless endeavored to compare Plaintiff’s allegations against the underlying records for a determination of whether her claims could be reasonably accepted as consistent with the medical evidence. However, the Court finds that the ALJ’s opinion is deficient for other reasons, as explained further below.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the claimant’s statements, objective medical evidence, and factors including daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Amazzalorso v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

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, at *2 (Oct. 25, 2017). ... The ALJ must weigh the claimant’s subjective complaints, the relevant objective medical evidence, and any other evidence of the following factors: ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... In this case, the ALJ followed the correct steps, considering the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to corroborate a claimant’s subjective symptoms with objective medical evidence of a medically determinable impairment reasonably expected to produce those symptoms and to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects under the applicable evidence and symptom factors.

DRZAL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-03-31

A claimant’s subjective symptoms must be corroborated by objective medical evidence; i.e., evidence of a medically determinable impairment that can reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s underlying symptoms. See Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529). ... Here, in accordance with the applicable regulations, and based on the medical evidence, the ALJ determined that Plaintiff’s “medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the . . . alleged symptoms.” A.R. 22. ... Therefore, in discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the record indicates that the ALJ considered them in light of the available medical evidence, and the applicable regulations and factors that govern such a decision. As such, the ALJ’s decision to discount Plaintiff’s own subjective complaints was based on substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) directs the ALJ to consider the claimant’s daily activities, symptom characteristics, treatment, and other functional factors when determining how pain or other symptoms limit the ability to work.

Casey v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-31(c)

In weighing a claimant’s credibility for cases involving ALJ decisions rendered on or after March 28, 2016, including the present case, the ALJ may consider Plaintiff’s: (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.6 SSR 16-3p (eff. Mar. 28, 2016), 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929 (c). The ALJ is instructed to “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s record,” “to determine how symptoms limit ability to perform work-related activities.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *2.

Section 404.1529 requires the decision maker to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity and persistence and their effect on work using objective and other evidence; symptom statements alone do not establish disability.

Dolloff v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-06(a)-(c), (c)(4)

Subjective statements about pain and other symptoms are not sufficient to establish a claimant’s disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); SSR 96–7p; SSR 96–4p. ... “[w]hen the medical signs or laboratory findings show that [the claimant has] a medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [his or her] symptoms,” the decision maker must then “evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms” to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 96–7p. ... We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (emphasis added). ... Further, the ALJ explicitly determined that Plaintiff’s “subjective complaints” alone cannot be “conclusive evidence of disability” and that her “subjective” complaint that she was “fully disabled” was not consistent with the available medical evidence. ... It is then clear that the ALJ’s credibility determinations as to Plaintiff’s subjective allegations were “affirmatively linked” to substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process when evaluating symptoms: first determine whether an underlying medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess their intensity, persistence, and functional effects against the entire record.

Walter v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-20(b), (c)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider evidence from lay sources about a claimant's pain, symptoms, and functional limitations.

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

ALJs must consider evidence from lay sources about the claimant’s pain, symptoms, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of symptom testimony from family and friends but does not require express, witness-by-witness reasons for rejecting each lay statement.

Roy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

The applicable regulations require the ALJ to consider testimony from a claimant’s family and friends. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 404.1545(a)(3). The regulations, however, “do not require the ALJ to provide express reasons for rejecting testimony from each lay witness.”

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of lay-witness evidence about how symptoms affect a claimant, and discounting such evidence requires reasons germane to the witness.

Pitcher v. Saul · filed 2022-01-25(c)(1)

Under the plain language of the regulations, the ALJ must consider lay witness statements: “In evaluating the intensity and persistence” of symptoms, the ALJ “consider[s] all of the available evidence,” including that from “medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [a claimant’s] symptoms affect [him].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1). ... The ALJ failed to provide germane reasons for discrediting the lay witness statement.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of lay evidence about how symptoms affect the claimant, and the ALJ must articulate germane reasons for discounting such evidence even under the post-2017 medical-opinion rules.

Norwood-McCall v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-31(c)(1)

Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ gave no reasons to discount the testimony. ... The ALJ’s error was not harmless.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of available symptom evidence from both medical and nonmedical sources, including competent lay-witness testimony about how symptoms affect the claimant.

Jeanmard v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-18(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”). ... Here, the ALJ erred by failing to address Frances’s lay witness testimony. This error was not harmless.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of competent lay descriptions of symptom effects, and an ALJ may discount such testimony only with witness-germane reasons or by validly incorporating clear and convincing reasons given for similar claimant testimony.

Stewart v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-01(a)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms or how an impairment affects the claimant’s ability to work is competent evidence that the ALJ must take into account.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider all of your statements about your symptoms, such as pain, and any description your medical sources or nonmedical sources may provide about how the symptoms affect your activities of daily living and your ability to work.”). ... The fact that Ms. Stewart and Ms. McSweeney were not acceptable medical sources, however, is irrelevant. An ALJ is required to both consider and discuss competent testimony from lay witnesses. ... On remand, if the ALJ still seeks to reject the testimony of the third-party witnesses, they must either provide reasons that are germane to each witness or refer to the clear and convincing reasons given for the rejection of Plaintiff’s own testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of evidence from medical and nonmedical sources, including competent lay testimony about how symptoms affect a claimant.

Powell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-03(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating disability.

Williamson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-22(c)(1)

Other relevant regulations indicate that ALJs will consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating a claim of disability. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(1), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1529 treats information from nonmedical sources as an important indicator of symptom intensity and persistence that must be carefully considered.

Bologna v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-22

The information provided by nonmedical sources “is an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms” and will be “carefully consider[ed].”

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of nonmedical-source evidence and does not eliminate the obligation to address significant lay testimony.

Schmid v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-23(c)(1)

The Court reads the new regulations as not eliminating an ALJ’s obligation to consider and address nonmedical source evidence, including an obligation to articulate germane reasons for disregarding that same evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires consideration of medical and nonmedical-source evidence about how symptoms affect the claimant.

Weatherbee v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-28(c)(1)

“Lay testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms is competent evidence that the Secretary must take into account.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.929(c)(1) (“In evaluating the intensity and persistence of your symptoms, we consider all of the available evidence from your medical sources and nonmedical sources about how your symptoms affect you.”).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider descriptions from nonmedical sources about how a claimant’s symptoms affect the claimant.

Levander v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-30(a)

The new regulations did not remove the requirement that an ALJ consider lay witness statements. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3) (“We will also consider descriptions and observations of your limitations from your impairment(s) . . . by you, your family, neighbors, friends, or other persons.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a) (“We will consider any description your . . . nonmedical sources may provide . . . .”); SSR 96-8p (“The RFC assessment must be based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, such as: . . . lay evidence[.]”). That requirement is the genesis of the germane reasons standard. See Dodrill, 12 F.3d at 919–20 (“Disregard of this evidence violates the Secretary’s regulation that he will consider observations by non-medical sources as to how an impairment affects a claimant’s ability to work.”) (quoting Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 1987)).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider lay witness statements about how those symptoms affect the claimant.

Gamel v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-23(c)(1)

Under the plain language of the regulations, the ALJ must consider lay witness statements: “In evaluating the intensity and persistence” of symptoms, the ALJ “consider[s] all of the available evidence,” including that from “medical sources and nonmedical sources about how [a claimant’s] symptoms affect [him].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1); 416.929(c)(1); see also SSR 16-3p (requiring ALJs to consider other evidence such as other non-medical sources to evaluate symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to consider observations from nonmedical sources, including a claimant’s family, neighbors, and friends, when evaluating disability.

Bell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-04(c)(1)

Despite this, other relevant regulations indicate that ALJ’s must consider evidence from nonmedical sources when evaluating a claim of disability, which includes observations made by a claimant’s family, neighbors, friends, or other persons. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(1), 404.1545(a)(3). The notion an ALJ can disregard relevant lay evidence without reason is inconsistent with the Commissioner’s obligation to consider such evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider evidence from nonmedical sources, including lay witness reports.

Neely v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-19(c)(1)

Other relevant regulations indicate that ALJs will consider evidence from non-medical sources when evaluating a claim of disability. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(1), 416.945(a)(3); ... As such, the record shows that the ALJ properly considered and discounted the lay testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate pain and other symptoms in two steps: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce them, then assess whether their intensity and persistence are consistent with objective and other evidence; lack of substantiating medical evidence alone is insufficient to reject them.

Shiwbodh v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(b), (c), (c)(2)

“The regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating a claimant’s assertions of pain and other limitations. At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which [the claimant's] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Genier, 606 F.3d at 49 (alterations in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “In determining whether [an individual is] disabled, [the ALJ will] consider all [of an individual’s] symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which [his or her] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). While statements of pain are insufficient, an ALJ may not reject statements of intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms affecting an individual’s ability to work because of a lack of substantiating medical evidence. Id. at § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529 recognizes that pain or other symptoms may contribute to a claimant's functional loss when medical signs or laboratory findings establish an impairment reasonably expected to cause those symptoms.

Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(3)

Pain or other symptoms may be important factors contributing to a disability claimant’s functional loss and affects a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities where relevant medical signs or laboratory findings show the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could “reasonably” be expected to cause the associated pain or other symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to evaluate subjective pain complaints using medical and claimant information, specified factors, and stated reasons for credibility findings.

Jacoby v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-23(c)(3)

An ALJ is required to evaluate a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain in determining whether he is disabled, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, considering both the objective medical evidence, id. § 404.1529(b), as well as information provided by the claimant, his treating physician, or others, id. § 404.1529(c). The ALJ must also evaluate the credibility of the claimant’s testimony in light of his (i) daily activities, (ii) the location, frequency, and duration of pain, (iii) precipitating and aggravating factors, (iv) the effects of medication, (v) treatment, (vi) other measure used to reheve the pain, and (vii) other facts concerning functional limitations. Id. § 404.1529(c)(3). Although the ALJ must give specific reasons for findings of credibility, see Steele v. Barnhart, 290 F.3d 936, 942 (7th Cir.2002); Social Security Ruling 96-7p (1996), these findings are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed unless “patently wrong” in light of the record, Powers, 207 F.3d at 435.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires adjudicators to consider seven factors when evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints.

White v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-06(c)(3)

That rubric consists of a regulation that requires administrative adjudicators to conduct a seven-factor analysis when determining credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints. Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (2005). ... Here, plaintiff does not argue that ALJ Howard disregarded or misapplied the prescribed analytical model, nor does the court’s independent review disclose any obvious violation. ALJ Howard cited Regulation 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and Social Security Ruling 96-7p, thus acknowledging his familiarity with those standards and his duty to apply them. ... Therefore, ALJ .Howard was not obliged to articulate specific reasons for his credibility choices. Clearly, ALJ Howard committed no general or structural analytical error.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs the ALJ to weigh a claimant’s statements about symptoms against the other evidence.

Harris v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-21(c)(4)

In evaluating the credibility of a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ considers the conflicts between the claimant’s statements and other evidence, including her medical history, medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements by the medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 404.1529(c)(4), 416.908, 416.929(c); see also Schaudeck v. Comm’r, 181 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir.1999). ... Thus, the ALJ set forth legally sufficient reasons for concluding that Harris’ subjective complaints were not entirely credible.

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source and permits consideration of daily activities, medication side effects, and other functional-limitation factors when evaluating a claimant’s statements about pain.

Burnham v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-31(a), (b), and (c)(3)(i-vii)

A claimant’s statements about his pain will not suffice to establish a disability exists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). Instead, “[t]here must be objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source” that would allow the ALJ to find he is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ will also consider factors such as: the claimant’s daily activities, side effects of the claimant’s medication, and other factors concerning functional limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all claimant statements about pain and their consistency with objective medical evidence.

Gail C v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-13(c)(3)

The ALJ must consider all of a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, including pain, and determine the extent to which the symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence. Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 16-3p, 2017 WL 4790249, at *49462; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(a) permits consideration of objective medical evidence and a claimant’s statements when evaluating alleged pain.

Yost v. Barnhart, Comm · filed 2003-10-24(a)

This argument fails. The ALJ’s credibility finding was based on inconsistent statements by Yost regarding his motivation to work, as well as the lack of objective medical evidence to support his subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s medication type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects when evaluating subjective symptom testimony.

Simmons v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

The “type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication” is an appropriate factor for an ALJ to consider in assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptoms: objective medical evidence must first show an underlying impairment that could produce the alleged symptoms, and absent malingering, clear and convincing reasons are required to discount testimony about symptom severity.

Sauter-Lynn v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-29

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 first stage is a threshold test in which the claimant must present objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). At the second stage of this analysis, absent affirmative evidence of malingering, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of the symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require greater functional limitations based merely on a claimant’s testimony when the alleged degree of limitation lacks supporting evidence.

Walters v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-18(c)(3)

The ALJ was not required to provide greater limitations merely based on Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of symptom testimony because subjective symptoms such as pain and mental-health effects are difficult to quantify objectively.

Erb v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-09(c)(3)

Because symptoms such as pain or those involving mental health are “subjective and difficult to quantify,” the ALJ must consider a claimant’s testimony about the severity of the symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony that conflicts with objective medical evidence, but not merely because objective evidence fails to corroborate the alleged severity of pain.

Tran v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-11(c)(2)

Because the ALJ found no evidence of malingering, she could discount Plaintiff's testimony only by making “specific findings stating clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir. 1996); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *1 (July 2, 1996). ... The ALJ met this standard. She carefully reviewed the medical evidence and found that Plaintiff’s symptom testimony does not entirely comport with medical records, effective therapy, and normal clinical findings. ... “Plaintiff is correct, that absence of corroborating objective medical evidence is not a clear and convincing reason to discount subjective symptom testimony about pain; conflict with objective medical evidence is, however.” Tamera H. v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 6:20-CV-1428-MO, 2024 WL 68354, at *3 (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2024) (citing Smartt, 53 F.4th at 498). Here, the ALJ relied on inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s testimony and the medical evidence – a valid reason to discount her testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an ALJ from rejecting a claimant’s subjective complaints solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity.

Cervantes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-30(c)(2)

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). 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 evidence the ALJ used to support this conclusion is specific, clear and convincing; so, the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. See Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 488–89.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of subjective symptom testimony, beginning with whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms.

Gordon v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-15(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; Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281 (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. Once a claimant produces medical evidence of an underlying impairment, the ALJ may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms “based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of” the symptoms. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted). ... But the ALJ’s assessment was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court finds that the ALJ erred in her credibility determination.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider information a claimant submits about symptoms and limitations when evaluating disability.

Groleau v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-04-17(c)(3)

Social Security regulations require ALJs to consider evidence they receive from claimants about their symptoms and limitations when evaluating a claim of disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(4) ... 404.1529(c)(3) (“[W]e will carefully consider any other information you may submit about your symptoms.”) ... Because Plaintiff’s symptom testimony bore on his ability to work, and the ALJ failed to address it or provide a clear and convincing reason for discounting it, the ALJ erred.

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

Beach v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-06-09

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

Section 404.1529(b) permits a claimant whose medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms to offer a subjective evaluation of their severity without further medical evidence substantiating that severity.

Newhall v. Bisignano · filed 2025-07-14(b)

As long as the impairment “could reasonably be expected to produce [the] symptoms,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b), the claimant may offer a subjective evaluation as to the severity of the impairment.

Section 404.1529 calls for a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s testimony about pain and other symptoms.

Gomoll v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-02

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. ... Because the ALJ’s reasons were clear, convincing, and supported by substantial evidence, the Court finds the ALJ did not err in discounting Plaintiff’s symptom allegations.

An ALJ may consider objective medical evidence, daily activities, and inconsistencies when evaluating allegations of disabling symptoms.

Doreson v. Saul · filed 2022-09-13(c)

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

An ALJ evaluating symptoms may consider inconsistencies and conflicts between a claimant’s statements and history, signs, laboratory findings, and source statements.

Hussey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-30(c)(4)

Indeed, in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ considers both inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which any conflicts exist between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, including the claimant’s history, signs and laboratory findings, and statements by treating or nontreating sources or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

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

Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(c)(4)

In determining credibility, an ALJ may consider conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires subjective symptom statements to be credited to the extent they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical and other evidence.

Diedrich v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-09(c)(4)

The Social Security Act requires the Commissioner to credit subjective statements regarding severity of symptoms to the extent that they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The Court is unable to determine whether the ALJ reasonably evaluated these subjective statements as consistent or inconsistent with the medical evidence in the record because the record is incomplete and the medical expert’s testimony regarding the medical evidence is incomplete. ... On remand, Plaintiff’s and Mr. Niebaum’s statements must be evaluated and the Commissioner must determine whether these statements can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether a claimant's statements conflict with the rest of the evidence when evaluating subjective symptoms.

Mack v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)(4)

Here, the ALJ reasonably found that plaintiff's subjective complaints were inconsistent with the medical evidence. (Tr. 15) See 20 C.F.R. § 404,.1529(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider whether there are conflicts between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ assessing the intensity and persistence of symptoms to consider objective medical evidence and inconsistencies between the claimant’s allegations and the record.

Anders v. Saul · filed 2021-06-11(c)

In determining the credibility of allegations regarding the intensity and persistence of symptoms, an ALJ considers several factors, including objective medical evidence and any inconsistencies between the allegations and the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). A claimant’s assertions of pain, taken alone, are not conclusive of disability. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A). The ALJ permissibly discounted Anders’s testimony as inconsistent with the objective evidence. The ALJ accepted the truth of Anders’s testimony about elevating his legs but explained that such a severe limitation was not borne out by the medical evidence. As the ALJ emphasized, there is no record evidence from Anders’s treatment providers recommending that he elevate his legs at all, let alone at the frequency and duration that Anders reported. See Zoch v. Saul, 981 F.3d 597, 601 (7th Cir. 2020) (explaining that the ALJ “permissibly discounted [claimant’s] testimony of incapacitating pain because it conflicted with the objective medical evidence and most of the record”). So we cannot say the ALJ was patently wrong in deciding not to fully credit Anders’s testimony about his leg elevation limitation.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between a claimant’s symptom statements and the rest of the record.

Putz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-29(c)(4)

The ALJ thus reasonably concluded that the medical evidence was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s claims of debilitating impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence . . . .). The ALJ’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between a claimant’s symptom statements and the rest of the record.

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-02(c)(4)

The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her impairments were not entirely consistent with the medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); SSR 16-3p. Further, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did consider both her testimony and the evidence in the record concerning her purported visual deficits, cognitive deficits, pseudobulbar affect, and migraines (Tr. 356-63). For example, the ALJ explained why the medical evidence in the record did not show Plaintiff had a severe visual impairment that would significantly affect her occupational functioning (Tr. 356-57). The ALJ also explained why the medical evidence regarding Plaintiff’s migraines, vertigo, balance problems, occasional dizziness, memory problems, and the late effects of the stroke was not consistent with Plaintiff’s statements (Tr. 357, 360-61). The undersigned concludes that above mentioned findings and the ALJ’s physical RFC determinations are supported by substantial evidence and fully comport with applicable law. In sum, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief regarding her challenges to Finding No. 5.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits discounting subjective statements when detailed medical evidence, daily activities, and treatment history substantially support finding them inconsistent with the record.

COLUCCI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-22(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to evaluate symptom intensity and persistence against examination findings and daily activities when explicit, adequate reasons are given.

Freeman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-13(c)(3)

The ALJ articulated explicit and adequate reasons for finding Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence. ... Considering the record as a whole, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination as to Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits evaluating pain testimony against clinical findings, treatment-provider observations, reported improvement, medical opinions, and the broader record.

Elmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-15(c)(3)

However, as outlined above, the ALJ considered such evidence in his decision, along with the broader medical record, opinion evidence, and Plaintiff’s testimony before he reached a less restrictive but substantially supported conclusion. (T. 15-20.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s disagreement with the factual determination that the ALJ drew from this record evidence is not a basis for remand.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits comparing symptom statements with treatment records, diagnostic evidence, and the nature and scope of reported activities.

Tonn v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-04(c)(3)

The ALJ explained that Tonn’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms are inconsistent because the evidence of record, including treatment records, diagnostic evidence, and the nature and scope of Tonn’s reported activities, does not support them. R. 29–34. ... Tonn has not shown that the ALJ’s reasoning was patently wrong or that his decision lacks evidentiary support. Therefore, the ALJ’s credibility determination will stand.

Section 404.1529 permits discounting ongoing pain statements when post-surgical improvement, normal examinations, restored range of motion, and other record evidence substantially support the ALJ's finding.

MOR v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-07

The record reflects substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s determination. ... Plaintiff’s appeal is denied on this ground.

Section 404.1529(a) requires evaluating symptom statements for consistency with objective medical and other record evidence.

Dejesus v. Saul · filed 2022-03-16(a)

In short, as the report concludes, the ALJ properly considered the plaintiff’s subjective complaints to the extent that they could “reasonably be accepted as consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence” in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) requires consideration of reported symptom-related restrictions that are reasonably consistent with the evidence and demands adequate reasons before treating testimony as inconsistent.

Gelow v. Saul · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3), (c)(4)

“Because symptoms, such as pain, are subjective and difficult to quantify, any symptom-related functional limitations and restrictions that medical sources or nonmedical sources report, which can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence, will be taken into account . . . in reaching a conclusion as to whether [a claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3); see Howard v. Heckler, 782 F.2d 1484, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (“ . . . pain is a highly idiosyncratic phenomenon, varying according to the pain threshold and stamina of the individual victim”). ... In sum, all five reasons given by the ALJ for discounting K.G.’s rheumatoid arthritis symptom testimony fail to meet the “specific, clear, and convincing” standard. Brown-Hunter, 806 F.3d at 493.

Under Section 404.1529(c)(3), an ALJ may assess reports of prolonged post-seizure weakness and fatigue against medical personnel’s contemporaneous observations after seizure episodes.

Dilts v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-06-23(c)(3)

The ALJ relied upon the fact Plaintiff’s testimony “that she has extreme weakness and fatigue after episodes … is inconsistent with the observations of medical personnel.” (R. 25) (emphasis added). The ALJ cited an incident where Plaintiff went to the emergency room after a seizure and “emergency room personnel observed no post-ictal state.” Id. (citation omitted). He cited another incident where Plaintiff “experienced an episode in the lobby” of her primary care provider, but on examination she “was described as alert and oriented and in no acute distress, with no focal deficits.” Id.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistencies among symptom reports, activities, prior statements, and other record evidence, including driving that conflicts with alleged vision limitations.

Rodriguez v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-08(c)

When evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms, an ALJ may properly consider any inconsistencies among the claimant’s symptom reports, the reported activities, the claimant’s prior statements, and/or other evidence of record. ... Here, it was reasonable for the ALJ to find that Plaintiff’s admitted driving activity belied the severe vision-related limitations that she alleges. ... SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); see also Fair, 885 F.2d at 603.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of inconsistencies and conflicts between claimant statements and history, findings, and medical or other source statements.

Julian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-19(c)(4)

Notably, in evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ considers both inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which any conflicts exist between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, including the claimant’s history, signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The ALJ therefore properly considered the inconsistencies in the record and the fact that Dr. Weiss’s treatment notes conflicted with the other evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of the regulatory factors when evaluating subjective symptoms and permits discounting complaints inconsistent with the record.

Walker v. Saul · filed 2022-09-26(c)

“play[ing] doctor” when evaluating her credibility. Mandrell v. Kijakazi, 25 F.4th 514, 518 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting Rohan v. Chater, 98 F.3d 966, 970 (7th Cir. 1996)). Nonetheless, the ALJ was entitled to look to objective medical evidence as one factor in evaluating Walker’s credibility, as long as he considered others. See Sawyer v. Colvin, 512 F. App’x 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2013). Even though the ALJ did not emphasize these factors in his conclusion, the ALJ considered the inconsistencies between Walker’s own statements, the positive effects of her medication, and the opinions of multiple physicians that Walker was able to perform light exertional work in his analysis. R. 30-31. Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ was permitted to consider all of these factors when evaluating Walker’s credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). After looking to these sources of evidence, the ALJ reasonably found inconsistent Walker’s allegations of constant, chronic pain. See Zoch, 981 F.3d at 601 (ALJ reasonably discounted claimant’s assertion of disabling pain after considering claimant’s inconsistent statements, objective medical evidence, and physicians’ opinions). Finding no patent error in the ALJ’s analysis, the Court therefore defers to the ALJ’s credibility findings.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) permit an ALJ to discount subjective complaints when the decision evaluates the prescribed factors and substantial evidence shows inconsistency with treatment records and daily activities.

Vilches v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-10-19(c)(3), (4)

The ALJ’s consideration of the subjective complaints and statements along with Plaintiff’s unremarkable objective medical treatment records and her own reported daily activities provided a reasonable basis for the ALJ to discredit the lay witness and personal accounts. The ALJ’s determination was not clearly wrong.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to reject subjective fatigue limitations as inconsistent with objective medical evidence when the ALJ actually assesses the complaints and substantial evidence supports the inconsistency finding.

Schauer v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-31

But the ALJ did assess the plaintiff's complaints and determined that the plaintiff's descriptions of his limitations and his complaints of his pain were not consistent with objective medical evidence. ... For these reasons, the ALJ's determination that the plaintiff's chronic fatigue syndrome is not a medically determinable impairment is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) permits rejection of symptom testimony when the ALJ gives clear and convincing reasons and the claimant’s reports to treating providers do not reflect the alleged debilitating severity.

Nichols v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-01(c)

Here, the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for finding that ... Plaintiff’s reports to her treating providers have generally not reflected her ... allegations of debilitating mental symptoms.

Sections 404.1529(b)–(c) allow an ALJ to reject alleged memory limitations when the claimant’s testimony is inconsistent with treatment records and objective examinations during the relevant period.

Dellavalle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-28(b)–(c)

Ultimately, the ALJ credited these treatment notes and found that Dellavalle’s testimony was not wholly consistent with the medical records.

Sections 404.1529(a) and (c)(3) require consideration of all symptoms and source descriptions but do not permit symptom statements alone to establish disability; an ALJ must give explicit and adequate reasons for discounting them.

Olabisi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-21(a), (c)(3)

To the extent that Olabisi asks us to reweigh the evidence pre- ... sented to the administrative law judge, we decline to do so.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) permit objective medical evidence, daily activities, and inconsistencies to support an RFC finding when the record as a whole substantially supports the ALJ’s assessment.

Morris v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-25(c)(3), (4)

Given the objective medical evidence, Plaintiff’s daily activities, and Plaintiff’s inconsistencies, the court finds that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) allow an ALJ to discount alleged total disability using normal clinical findings and evidence that medication and therapy improved symptoms, when objective evidence is not the sole reason.

Barrios v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-01(c)(2)–(3)

In sum, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s testimony was ... inconsistent with the objective and other evidence of record.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (4) allow an ALJ to discount symptom severity based on medical findings, treatment history, continued work, and the claimant’s reason for stopping work, so long as objective evidence is not the sole basis.

Miller v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of SSA · filed 2023-02-03(c)(2), (4)

The ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s Symptom Testimony.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to address reported symptoms and complies when the decision evaluates their consistency with other record evidence such as daily activities, objective findings, treatment efficacy, and treatment-seeking history.

Paloutzian v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-18

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, the ALJ must address a claimant’s reported symptoms. ... Although Plaintiff disputes the ALJ’s conclusion, she cannot reasonably dispute that the ALJ considered the consistency of Plaintiff’s reported symptoms with the other evidence and, therefore, fully complied with the relevant regulations.

Section 404.1529(a) is satisfied when an ALJ finds the impairments could reasonably produce the alleged symptoms, compares the reported intensity, persistence, and limiting effects with objective and other record evidence, and accounts for supported limits in the RFC.

Anderson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-27(a)

The ALJ’s renewed decision expressly considered Plaintiff’s subjective assessment of her condition and found that other record evidence contradicted that subjective assessment for purposes of determining Plaintiff’s RFC. ... The ALJ then listed the impairments that Plaintiff subjectively stated, found that these physical or mental impairments could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, but determined that the medical evidence did not support Plaintiff’s reports regarding intensity, persistence, or limiting effects. ... From this analysis, this court can meaningfully review the ALJ’s RFC finding and determine that it was appropriate.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence.

Winter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(c)(4)

The ALJ must also consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence . . . “ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to find symptom testimony only partially consistent after considering treatment history, examinations, and daily activities.

Marrero v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(c)(4)

In sum, the ALJ properly concluded that Plaintiff’s testimony could not “reasonably be accepted as [fully] consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of conflicts between claimant statements and the full evidence, including history, signs, findings, and source statements.

Caramanna v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-15(c)(4)

We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your impairments affect you.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) allows an ALJ to find that symptoms limit a claimant’s capacity to work only insofar as the claimant’s statements are reasonably consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

(SS) Peerzay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-26(c)(4)

Only to the extent that a claimant’s statements about symptoms “can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” can the ALJ determine that they limit her capacity to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). The ALJ’s findings were supported by specific, clear and convincing evidence.

Section 404.1529 permits a claimant’s statements about the frequency, intensity, and duration of symptoms to affect residual functional capacity only to the extent they are consistent with other record evidence.

Crisp v. Bisignano (CONSENT) · filed 2025-06-25

“A claimant’s statements about the frequency, intensity, and duration of her symptoms will only impact her RFC to the extent they are consistent with other evidence of record.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929).

A claimant’s subjective complaints are relevant under Section 404.1529(c)(4), but an ALJ need not accept them without evaluating their consistency with the record.

GRIMES v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-02-28(c)(4)

The Court further notes that what evidence there may have been as to the effects of Plaintiff’s fatigue and disassociation were based primarily on Plaintiff’s own subjective complaints. While such claims were certainly relevant, the ALJ was not under an obligation to simply accept what she said without question. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011).

An ALJ may consider objective evidence together with other evidence when evaluating symptoms, but may not rely solely on the absence of objective evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective statements.

Patton v. Saul · filed 2022-03-10(c)

In other cases, the ALJ may consider that objective evidence, or lack thereof, in conjunction with other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). In any case, the ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective statements. Id.

Section 404.1529(c) limits functional capacity only to the extent alleged symptoms are consistent with the record, but it prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Tolan v. Saul · filed 2022-03-28(c)

Second, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the symptoms which can be reasonably attributed to a medically determinable impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). Symptoms will be determined to reduce a claimant’s functional capacity only to the extent that the alleged limitations and restrictions can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical evidence and other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4). However, an ALJ will not reject statements about the intensity, persistence, or limiting effects of a symptom solely because it is not substantiated by objective evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

A claimant’s subjective complaints are relevant under Section 404.1529(c)(4), but an ALJ need not accept them without evaluating whether the record supports their alleged intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

SKIRBLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-08-22(c)(4)

It is important to remember that, while a claimant’s testimony regarding her subjective complaints is certainly relevant, an ALJ is not under an obligation to simply accept what the claimant said without question. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4); Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 363 (3d Cir. 2011).

Objective medical evidence is a useful indicator under Section 404.1529(c)(2), but an ALJ may not reject symptom allegations solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Leblanc v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-29(c)(2)

But the regulations acknowledge that objective medical evidence, such as diagnostic imaging and physical examinations, “is a useful indicator to assist [the ALJ] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [the claimant’s] symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on [the claimant’s] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). And the ALJ did not discredit Plaintiff’s reports of the intensity and persistence of her pain solely due to the objective medical evidence. Rather, the ALJ considered that evidence along with the other evidence discussed above—such as Plaintiff’s reports to Dr. Odonkor that her pain was improving with treatment, the fact that she did not need a cane, and the fact that she represented herself as willing and able to work in seeking unemployment benefits.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, though subjective complaints may not be discounted solely because objective support is absent.

Post v. O'Malley · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2)

The ALJ also considered the objective medical evidence supporting Post’s subjective complaints. Tr. 1177–82; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (stating objective medical evidence is useful in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms); Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931–32 (8th Cir. 2010) (stating an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective complaints “solely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence” but may consider “the absence of objective medical evidence to support the complaints”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) evaluates whether statements about symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects are consistent with objective and other record evidence rather than assessing the claimant’s character.

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

However, the analysis remains largely the same, so the Court’s use of the term credibility refers to the ALJ’s evaluation of whether a claimant’s “statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence of record.” See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3); Lawrence v. Saul, 970 F.3d 989, 995 n.6 (8th Cir. 2020) (noting that SSR 16-3p “largely changes terminology rather than the substantive analysis to be applied” when evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider pain and other symptoms to the extent they can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective and other record evidence.

Rater v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-02(a)

In making an RFC determination, the ALJ considers evidence of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a).

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

Levendouski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(c)(4)

Moreover, the ALJ must also consider “whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence . . . “ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(a) requires an ALJ to consider whether a claimant’s statements about symptoms are inconsistent with the record evidence.

Chapman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(a)

But § 404.1529(a) also requires an ALJ to determine whether plaintiff’s statements are inconsistent with the record evidence.

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

Edwards v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-05-17(c)(4)

While evaluating the evidence, the ALJ must consider whether inconsistencies exist within the evidence or between the claimant’s statements and the evidence, including his history, medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other sources about how his symptoms affect him. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) & 416.929(c)(4). ... The court finds that the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits an ALJ to disregard symptom allegations that cannot reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

McGill v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-15(c)(3)

As a result, Mr. McGill’s allegations of incontinence cannot be “reasonably accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence,” and the ALJ need not take those allegations into account. 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ did not err by failing to consider Mr. McGill’s allegations of incontinence in evaluating his RFP.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) calls for consideration of inconsistencies between a claimant’s statements about symptoms and the available evidence.

Rees v. Saul · filed 2022-03-08(c)(4)

However, the ALJ should consider inconsistencies in the evidence to determine whether a claimant's subjective claims regarding her symptoms can reasonably be accepted. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). ... The ALJ did not require Plaintiff to prove her subjective complaints by the objective medical evidence and did not rely solely on the objective evidence to discredit Plaintiff’s subjective complaints. The ALJ considered Plaintiff’s limitations and accounted for them in the RFC. Since the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s complaints, along with the available evidence and provided sufficient explanation for her decision, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err when evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

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

Gray v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-23(c)(4)

The ALJ correctly determined that multiple inconsistencies existed between Gray’s testimony and other evidence. Further, the ALJ used Gray’s symptoms that were consistent with the other record evidence to diminish his capacity through functional limitations and restrictions.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) allows an ALJ to evaluate a claimant’s statements about symptoms against medical and other evidence, including inconsistencies.

Parker v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-16(c)(4)

So far, the ALJ’s reasoning is on solid ground. She was entitled to consider Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, the clinical findings, and the consistency—or lack thereof—of Plaintiff’s symptoms when formulating the RFC.

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

Cain v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-05-17(c)(4)

While evaluating the evidence, the ALJ must consider whether inconsistencies exist within the evidence or between the claimant’s statements and the evidence, including his history, medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements by medical sources or other sources about how his symptoms affect him. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) & 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to evaluate statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms in light of the medical and other evidence, including inconsistencies.

Thomas v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-03(c)(4)

Under this rubric, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) provides the ALJ a framework in evaluating a claimant’s own statements concerning his symptoms: ... the Court finds that the ALJ’s credibility analysis was appropriate because she clearly articulated how and why she evaluated Plaintiff’s symptoms the way she did, affirmatively linking her conclusions to evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) allows an ALJ to weigh a claimant’s symptom statements against other evidence in the record.

Oglesby v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-21(c)(4)

Although a claimant is “entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test,” Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 563–65 (4th Cir. 2006), an ALJ is not required to accept a claimant’s subjective complaints that are inconsistent with the other evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) directs the adjudicator to consider whether a claimant’s symptom statements conflict with other evidence in the record.

Carr · filed 2025-11-10(c)(4)

The court finds that the ALJ adequately explained why Natalie’s testimony was not fully consistent with the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider conflicts between a claimant’s symptom statements and medical source statements when evaluating the claimant’s symptoms.

Byrne v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-30(c)(4)

However, the lack of a medical opinion showing plaintiff has limitations more restrictive than the RFC is a factor the ALJ should consider when determining plaintiff’s credibility. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (stating an ALJ must consider whether there are conflicts between a claimant’s statements and statements by treating or non-treating sources). Here, the ALJ properly noted that no medical opinion indicated that plaintiff cannot perform work consistent with the restricted range of light work set forth in the RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to use objective medical evidence as a useful indicator when evaluating the intensity and persistence of symptoms, but does not permit rejecting symptom statements solely because the objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Dickerson v. Saul · filed 2020-03-31(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of her symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” those statements, the regulations recognize that objective medical evidence is “a useful indicator to assist [the Commissioner] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on [the claimant’s] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 (c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(b) requires the ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the claimant’s symptoms as the first step in evaluating subjective symptom testimony.

Saechao v. Saul · filed 2020-11-02(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 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); Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1281-82.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ evaluating subjective psychological symptoms to consider objective medical evidence as one of multiple factors in the entire record, without requiring the claimant's statements to be validated by objective medical support.

CRAWFORD v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-03-27(c)

Rather, in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529 and 416.929, SSR 16-3p, and relevant case law, the AL] considered the medical evidence, including the assessments by Plaintiff's treating providers upon examination, as one of many factors when evaluating her subjective complaints, and the ALJ also specifically noted and relied on the opinion of state agency psychologist Dr. Noles, Plaintiffs own teports of her ability to follow written instructions and manage finances, Plaintiffs own reports that her panic symptoms were controlled with medications, Plaintiffs activities including spending time with family, helping watch her young niece and nephew, driving, and shopping for herself and her boyfriend, and her ongoing part-time work as a home health aide for the elderly. The ALJ teviewed the evidence, explained her decision, and clearly explained the reasons for her determination. That determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Plaintiff has not identified any errors that requite remand.

Section 404.1529 requires ALJs to consider a claimant’s treatment record and any explanations or other information that may explain a failure to follow treatment or seek treatment when evaluating subjective complaints.

Horner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-24(c)(1)–(3)

A claimant’s treatment record is a relevant consideration ALJs should consider in evaluating subjective complaints. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)–(3), 416.929(c)(1)–(3). Indeed, “[u]nexplained, or inadequately explained, failure to seek treatment,” absent a good reason, can suffice as a clear and convincing rationale to discount testimony. ... However, ALJs are also required to consider “any explanations that the individual may provide, or other information in the case record, that may explain” the failure to follow a treatment plan.

When treatment gaps are used to discount symptoms under section 404.1529(c), the ALJ must adequately address evidence that the claimant could not afford treatment.

Venable v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-10-20(c)(1)

In particular, the ALJ should have made clear whether she determined that Venable was in fact unable to afford her medical visits and treatment before giving so much weight to the gaps in treatment in the decision to discredit Venable’s testimony and deny her benefits.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits considering lack of treatment and inconsistencies with treatment history, but a claimant cannot be penalized for treatment she could not afford.

Tranter v. Saul · filed 2021-10-28(c)(3)(v)

Although a claimant cannot be penalized for failing to seek treatment he or she cannot afford, an ALJ is permitted to consider inconsistencies in the record that undermine a claimant’s allegations. Id. ... An ALJ can consider a lack of medical treatment as a factor in disability determinations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iii)–(vii); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1530.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of activities, pain duration and frequency, medication, treatment, and the entire record when evaluating subjective complaints.

Fredericks v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-16(c)(3)

In making this assessment, the ALJ should consider factors relevant to plaintiff’s symptoms, “such as [his] daily activities, duration and frequency of pain, medication, and treatment.” Jazina v. Berryhill, No. 3:16CV01470(JAM), 2017 WL 6453400, at *7 (D. Conn. Dec. 13, 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). The ALJ must consider all evidence in the case record. See SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8 (S.S.A. Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of conservative treatment, but such treatment does not support discounting symptoms without discussion of available, more aggressive treatment options.

(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-21(c)

In evaluating a claimant’s statements, the ALJ may consider “the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). The treatment a claimant received, especially when conservative, is a legitimate consideration in a credibility finding. Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Evidence of ‘conservative treatment’ is sufficient to discount a claimant’s testimony regarding severity of an impairment”). Importantly, however, “the fact that treatment may be routine or conservative is not a basis for finding subjective symptom testimony unreliable absent discussion of the additional, more aggressive treatment options the ALJ believes are available.” Block v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 1567814 at *5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2018), quoting Moon v. Colvin, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1220 (D. Or. 2015)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not permit discounting symptoms for infrequent treatment without reconciling evidence that the claimant lacked insurance or could not afford treatment and, when necessary, inquiring further.

Myers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-03(c)(3)

The ALJ failed to engage in the inquiry required to uphold his finding. ... Despite this acknowledgment, he did not reconcile his finding of inconsistency based on his failure to receive “the type of medical treatment one would expect for a totally disabled individual,” “relatively infrequent trips to the doctor,” and “no actual treatment for the allegedly disabling symptoms” with Plaintiff’s allegations of inability to afford treatment. ... In the absence of further inquiry as to Plaintiffs efforts to obtain treatment, the ALJ’s discounting of his allegations as to the frequency, intensity, and limiting effects of his symptoms does not rest upon application of the proper legal standards.

Section 404.1529(c) requires examination of the entire case record, including claimant statements, medical and nonmedical evidence, treatment, and reasons for failing to follow treatment.

ROBINSON v. SAUL · filed 2022-01-27(c)

In considering the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual's symptoms, the ALJ will examine the entire case record, including the objective medical evidence; an individual's statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms; statements and other information provided by medical sources and other persons; and any other relevant evidence in the individual's case record, including type of and lack of treatment, as well as the failure to failure to follow prescribed treatment that might improve symptoms. SSR 16-3p; 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Before discounting symptoms for conservative treatment under section 404.1529(c)(3), an ALJ must consider possible reasons for limited care and whether any further effective treatment was actually available.

Upton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-03(c)(3)

Before discounting symptom testimony due to the plaintiff’s conservative treatment, however, the ALJ must first consider “possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.” ... In considering the failure to seek more aggressive treatment, “an ALJ should account for whether there is further effective treatment that would benefit the individual.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) allows consideration of medication and other treatment when the ALJ acknowledges inability to afford care and evaluates the treatment actually received.

Brewster v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-08(c)(3)

However, the ALJ did note that Plaintiff was without insurance. R. at 21. Further, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff still sought treatment for during the time period at issue—however his recommended treatment was conservative. ... Other evidence, such as objective medical evidence, must also be considered in conjunction with a plaintiff’s daily activities.

Before discounting symptoms for limited treatment under section 404.1529(c)(3), an ALJ must address the claimant’s articulated reasons and whether they constitute good cause, including inability to afford care.

Lyons v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-18(c)(3)

Yet, the ALJ must discuss whether the claimant’s articulated reasons for not seeking treatment constitute good cause for not doing so.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of treatment efforts and possible reasons for limited treatment before symptoms are found inconsistent on that basis.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-15(c)(3)

However, the adjudicator “will not find an individual’s symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the record on this basis without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.”

When an ALJ relies on the frequency of treatment to discount symptom severity under Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v), the ALJ must consider possible reasons the claimant did not seek treatment matching the claimed degree of symptoms.

Ingram v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-22(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ could rely on the frequency of Ingram’s visits in evaluating the severity of his alleged symptoms. See SSR 16-3p, 2016 SSR LEXIS 4, at *23 (“[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.”). But the ALJ could not do so “without considering possible reasons he … may not … seek treatment consistent with the degree of his … complaint.” Id. There is no indication in the ALJ’s decision that he considered possible reasons for Ingram’s failure to seek other or more frequent treatment.

An ALJ applying Section 404.1529 must consider objective evidence, activities, symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limits, but need not discuss every detail and may consider infrequent treatment after considering possible explanations.

Moreno v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-20(c)

When assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, his level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, 7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). “An ALJ need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor,” but an ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence contrary to her ruling. ... An ALJ may consider infrequent treatment in support of an adverse credibility finding where the claimant does not have a good reason for the infrequency of treatment. ... Put another way, an ALJ is not required to ask a claimant about the failure to seek treatment, but the ALJ is required to consider possible reasons for the failure to seek treatment. ... In sum, the Court concludes that the ALJ was not patently wrong in his consideration of Benito’s course of treatment and daily activities in his evaluation of Benito’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits treatment to inform symptom severity, but an ALJ must consider explanations before drawing an adverse inference from treatment gaps.

Ellersick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-29(c)(3)(v)

The relevant regulations require that when an ALJ assesses the credibility of a claimant's statements, he is entitled to consider treatment the claimant received to relieve symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(v), 416.929(c)(3)(v). The ALJ cannot, however, “draw any inferences about an individual's symptoms and their functional effects from a failure to seek or pursue regular medical treatment without first considering any explanations that the individual may provide, or other information in the case record, that may explain infrequent or irregular medical visits or failure to seek medical treatment.”

An ALJ may discount symptom testimony based on routine treatment, full-time work, school attendance, medical opinions, and inconsistent daily activities, while also considering whether poverty or homelessness explains limited treatment.

Rhoades v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26(c)

The ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s symptom testimony due to inconsistencies in the record. The ALJ noted that the medical evidence during the requested close period was not consistent with her allegations. Specifically, the ALJ noted that there were only routine and periodic counseling, with no psychiatric hospitalizations or ER psych visits. Plaintiff took no mental health medications during this time. The ALJ also noted that Plaintiff is currently able to work full-time and attend college despite no improvements in her condition. The ALJ also noted that the available medical opinions uniformly did not support a finding of disability and relied on the unremarkable objective medical evidence, Plaintiff’s course of treatment and pattern of reports to providers, and her high-functioning activities of daily living that were contrary to her claims that she was unable to work during this time. These are specific, clear, and convincing reason for discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. Plaintiff argues the ALJ failed to consider that her homelessness and poverty caused her to not seek treatment. However, the ALJ did consider Plaintiff’s living situation.

When an ALJ relies on the frequency or extent of treatment to discount symptoms under § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), the ALJ must consider possible reasons the claimant did not seek or comply with treatment commensurate with the complaints.

Chavez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3)(v)

Notably, if the ALJ chooses to consider the “frequency or extent of the treatment sought” by the claimant, the ALJ may not rely on this information to “find an individual’s symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the record . . . without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.” SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *9; see also Miranda v. Barnhart, 205 F. App’x 638, 642 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that the ALJ’s “bald statement” about the claimant failing to pursue treatment was “not sufficient to justify discounting [the claimant’s] credibility” without an analysis of “legitimate reason[s]” for why the claimant did not seek treatment); Langley v. Kijakazi, No. 21-cv-0178 DHU/SMV, 2022 WL 2681436, at *5 (D.N.M July 12, 2022) (finding that an ALJ “was required to consider and make explicit findings on why [the] [p]laintiff sought a level of treatment (that the ALJ found to be) inconsistent with disability”).

A claimant’s limited or noncompliant treatment does not undermine symptom testimony under § 404.1529(c)(3) when the symptoms and medication side effects themselves adequately explain the treatment history.

Hoyt v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-12(c)(3)

Here, where Plaintiff has alleged persistent anxiety attacks, panic attacks, avoidance of people, persistent feelings of hatred towards people, distrust, hypervigilance, and feelings of detachment, there was ample explanation for Plaintiff’s frequent avoidance of and failure to follow through with treatment. Id. at *7. Further, Plaintiff’s failure to take prescribed medication is consistent with Plaintiff’s allegations that her medications produced unwanted side-effects. Tr. 483. On this record, Plaintiff’s course of treatment adds no weight to the ALJ’s rejection of her testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3).

A lack of mental-health treatment is not a clear and convincing reason to discount mental-health symptom statements when the nature of the claimant’s mental impairments may explain the failure to seek treatment.

Wranich v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-16(c)(4)

The nature of plaintiff’s mental impairments may, at least in part, explain why plaintiff did not pursue mental health treatment. Plaintiff’s lack of treatment for his mental health impairments was not a clear and convincing reason for discounting plaintiff’s symptom statements are they related to his mental impairments.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) require consideration of a claimant’s explanations for limited treatment before using the treatment record to discount symptoms.

Gassner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-01(c)(1)–(3)

The ALJ erred in failing to consider these reasons for plaintiff’s minimal and conservative treatment of her physical pain.

When treatment is used to discount symptoms under § 404.1529, the ALJ must consider evidence explaining why treatment was not pursued.

Collis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-16(c)(3), (4)

When ... an ALJ relies on a lack of treatment to discount medical evidence and/or the ... claimant’s symptom reports, the ALJ cannot ignore probative evidence in the ... record indicating an alternative explanation for why the claimant did not pursue ... additional treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) identifies objective medical evidence as a useful indicator for assessing the intensity and persistence of symptoms and their impact on ability to work.

(SS) Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(c)(2)

Second, the ALJ considered that the objective medical evidence did not support plaintiff’s allegations. AR 20-25. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms” and their impact on your ability to work). Here, the ALJ noted that plaintiff’s physical and mental status examinations were generally normal. AR 20-25. As discussed above, the medical record is discussed in detail in the ALJ’s opinion, and an independent review reveals that despite its voluminous nature the record is scant in supportive evidence for the severity of impairment plaintiff testifies to. The ALJ gave sufficient rationale for rejecting plaintiff’s subjective testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the listed factors, including attempts to find relief, treatment, medication, and medication side effects.

Janes v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-19(c)(3)

An ALJ is required to evaluate the claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of alleged symptoms. Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3 (2017), 2017 WL 5180304, outlines the process the ALJ is required to employ in evaluating such statements to fulfil the ALJ’s obligations set out in the Commissioner’s applicable regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3) and 416.929(c)(3). ... In making the determination, the ALJ did not discuss the factors appearing in the record such as her attempts to find relief, including her many visits to a variety of specialists, injections, use of pain medication, and side effects of medication. The failure to adequately analyze the factors set out in the Commissioner’s regulations may have affected the RFC and the outcome of the ALJ’s decision. ... The court finds that the ALJ failed to consider the appropriate factors in assessing Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms. The ALJ’s decision is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for the ALJ to supply the analysis required by SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ, once a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms, to evaluate their intensity and persistence in determining how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work.

Lee v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-20(c)(1)

If the record shows that the claimant has a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce her symptoms, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the symptoms in determining how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms and then evaluate their intensity, persistence, work-related effects, and relevant evidence before discounting the claimant’s statements.

Owens v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-01(a), (b), (c)(3), (c)(4)

If the first part of the pain standard is satisfied, the ALJ then evaluates the intensity and persistence of Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and their effect on her ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); Wilson, 284 F.3d at 1225−26. In evaluating the extent to which Plaintiff’s symptoms, such as pain, affect her capacity to perform basic work activities, the ALJ will consider (1) objective medical evidence, (2) the nature of Plaintiff’s symptoms, (3) the Plaintiff’s daily activities, (4) precipitating and aggravating factors, (5) the effectiveness of medication, (6) treatment sought for relief of symptoms, (7) any measures the Plaintiff takes to relieve symptoms, and (8) any conflicts between Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), (4), 416.929(c)(3), (4); SSR 16-3p. In order to discredit Plaintiff’s statements, the ALJ must clearly “articulate explicit and adequate reasons.” See Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) directs an ALJ evaluating symptoms to consider the entire record and, when needed, factors including the claimant’s daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, treatment, and functional limitations.

Hoynoski v. Saul · filed 2020-08-05(c)(3)

At step two, the ALJ must determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant's ability to do basic work activities. ... Where more information is needed to assess a claimant's credibility, the ALJ must make every reasonable effort to obtain available fifarmeion that would shed light on this issue. ... A claimant's statements and reports from medical sources and other persons with regard to the seven factors, noted above, along with any other relevant information in the record, provide the ALJ with an overview of the subjective complaints, and are elements to the determination of credibility.

Section 404.1529 requires a claimant’s statements about symptom frequency, intensity, and duration to affect the residual functional capacity assessment only to the extent they are consistent with other evidence of record.

Thompkins v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-09

A plaintiff’s statements about the frequency, intensity, and duration of her symptoms will only impact her RFC to the extent they are consistent with other evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929 (describing the Commissioner’s process for evaluating subjective complaints). ... In sum, the clinical findings presented in the opinion evidence, the medical evidence, and in Plaintiff’s treatment history specifically support the ALJ’s RFC assessment.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the ALJ to assess the intensity and persistence of a claimant's symptoms and how they limit the claimant's capacity for work, considering the relevant evidence and symptom-related factors.

Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-10(c)

Where a claimant satisfies the pain standard, the Regulations dictate that the ALJ then assess the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms to determine how they limit the claimant’s capacity for work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); see also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017) (applicable as of Mar. 28, 2016). The considerations relevant to this assessment include the objective medical evidence; evidence of factors that precipitate or aggravate the claimant’s symptoms; medications and treatments available to alleviate those symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of such medications and treatments; how the symptoms affect the claimant’s daily activities; and the claimant’s past work history. Id.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider observations by Social Security employees, a claimant’s daily activities, treatment received, and objective medical evidence when evaluating subjective complaints.

(SS) Kaminski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-14(c)

These are all proper factors for an ALJ to consider in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) (factors include observations of Social Security employees are considered, a claimant’s daily activities, treatment received, and objective medical evidence); see also Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 639 (9th Cir. 2007) (an ALJ may consider his “personal observations… in the overall evaluation of the credibility of the individual’s statements”); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1989).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms, but does not require the ALJ to expressly recite every symptom when the record shows that all symptoms were considered.

Schweers v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-14

There is no need for the ALJ to explicitly recite every particular so long as it is evident, as it mostly is here, that he considered all symptoms in following the two-step process prescribed by the regulations. ... see generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 (setting forth the two-step symptom evaluation process).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate alleged symptoms and, after finding an impairment that could produce them, assess their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects while considering the listed factors; the ALJ need not discuss every factor individually.

Dolin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-16(a), (c)(3)

In considering symptoms, an ALJ follows a two-step process, prescribed by regulation. An ALJ must first determine whether there is an underlying medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms; second, if such an impairment exists, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms on the claimant’s ability to do basic work activities. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a). In making this determination and considering whether a claimant has disabling pain, an ALJ must consider: (1) daily activities; (2) location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication; (5) treatment, other than medication, to relieve pain; and (6) any other measures used to relieve pain. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304. Although the ALJ must “consider” the listed factors, there is no requirement that she discuss every factor. White v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F.3d 272, 287 (6th Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s symptoms and then evaluate their intensity and persistence to determine how they limit work capacity.

IACOUZZI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-18(c)(1)

Instead, the ALJ must consider whether there is a “medically determinable impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce [the claimant’s] symptoms, such as pain.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). If so, the ALJ “must then evaluate the intensity and persistence of [the] symptoms” to determine how these symptoms limit the claimant’s capacity for work. Id.

Section 404.1529(a) provides that a claimant’s symptom statements alone cannot establish disability, while § 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence but not as the sole basis for discounting those statements.

(SS) Azevedo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(a), (c)(2)

A claimant’s statements of subjective symptoms alone is insufficient grounds to establish disability. 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(a). ... Although a lack of medical evidence “cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider . . . .” Carmickle, 533 F.3d at 1161 (finding that inconsistency with objective medical evidence is a “sufficient basis” for rejecting subjective symptom testimony); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005); Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529 requires the Commissioner to consider all of a claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and assess whether they are reasonably consistent with the objective and other evidence.

Goff v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-21(a)

In addition to the objective evidence of record, the Commissioner must consider all of the claimant’s symptoms, including pain, and the extent to which these symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective evidence and other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then assess whether the symptoms are consistent with objective and other evidence.

Scatola v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-26(a), (b)

“The ALJ must follow a two-step process to evaluate a claimant’s assertions of pain and other symptoms.” ... “At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” ... “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider ‘the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” ... “The issue is . . . whether [P]laintiff’s statements about the intensity, persistence, or functionally limiting effects of [his] pain are consistent with the objective medical and other evidence.” ... The ALJ erred in discounting Plaintiff’s testimony as to his limitations. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ committed reversible error where she discounted Plaintiff’s hearing testimony as to the limiting effects of his physical and mental impairments in order to support her RFC determination, and finds that remand is also warranted on this basis.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom evaluation: the ALJ must first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then assess whether the symptoms are consistent with objective and other evidence while considering the claimant's statements and inconsistencies; objective evidence alone cannot be the sole reason to reject those statements.

Morales v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-08(a), (b), (c)(2), and (c)(4)

To evaluate a claimant’s assertion of a limitation, the ALJ must engage in a two-step process: At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b). That requirement stems from the fact that subjective assertions of pain alone cannot ground a finding of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “the extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence” of record. Id. The ALJ must consider “[s]tatements [the claimant] or others make about [his] impairment(s), [his] restrictions, [his] daily activities, [his] efforts to work, or any other relevant statements [he] make[s] to medical sources during the course of examination or treatment, or to [the agency] during interviews, on applications, in letters, and in testimony in [its] administrative proceedings.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b)(3); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); S.S.R. 96-7p. Genier, 606 F.3d at 49 (alterations and emphasis in original). The SSA has issued regulations relating to reports of pain or other symptoms affecting the ability to work by a claimant for disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). These regulations provide, inter alia, that the SSA “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [her] symptoms have on [her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(2). The regulations also provide that the SSA “will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires the ALJ to use a two-step process to evaluate symptoms, first considering objective medical evidence and then considering whether the claimant's alleged limitations are consistent with objective and other evidence.

Reaves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-15

The evaluation of symptoms involves a two-step process. First, the ALJ must determine, based upon the objective medical evidence, whether the medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged . . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), (b); 416.929(a), (b). If so, at the second step, the ALJ must consider “‘the extent to which [the claimant’s] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the [objective medical evidence] and other evidence to decide how [the claimant’s] symptoms affect [her] ability to work.’”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ first to determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then to evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using the record and specified factors.

Ford-Williams v. Saul · filed 2020-09-22(b), (c)(1), (c)(3)

In considering the claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ must follow a two-step process in which it must first be determined whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairments—i.e., an impairment that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques—that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. 404 § 1529; SSR 16-3p. Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s pain or other symptoms has been shown, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of the claimant’s symptoms to determine the extent to which they limit the claimant’s functional limitations. Id. In the instant case, the ALJ found that the plaintiff’s medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptoms. (Tr. 18.) However, the ALJ found the plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. (Id.) The evaluation of a claimant’s subjective complaints “is not an examination of an individual’s character.” SSR 16-3p. Instead, the ALJ should consider all evidence in the record and address the applicable factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). These factors include daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain; the medication used to alleviate pain; any other treatment for pain; any other measures taken by the claimant to relieve pain; and failure to comply with treatment. (Id.)

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) requires an ALJ evaluating a claimant’s symptoms to consider the claimant’s statements, daily activities, symptom characteristics, aggravating factors, treatment, relief measures, and other functional-limitation factors.

Bartosh, Jacqueline v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)–(3)

Nonetheless, an ALJ can’t “disbelieve [an applicant’s] testimony solely because it seems in excess of the ‘objective’ medical testimony.” Id. The ALJ must still consider statements made by the applicant; daily activities; location, duration, and frequency of the symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; medications; other treatments; other measures taken for relief; and other factors concerning functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)–(3).

Section 404.1529 requires objective medical evidence to corroborate subjective complaints and directs an ALJ to evaluate symptom intensity and persistence using objective and other relevant evidence.

MC KEE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-10-06(a), (c), (c)(3)

Instead, objective medical evidence must corroborate a claimant’s subjective complaints. Prokopick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 272 F. App’x 196, 199 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). Specifically, an ALJ must follow a two-step process in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (March 16, 2016). First, the ALJ “must consider whether there is an underlying medically determinable physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms, such as pain.” Id. “Second, once an underlying physical or mental impairment(s) that could reasonably be expected to produce an individual’s symptoms is established, [the ALJ] evaluate[s] the intensity and persistence of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit an individual’s ability to perform work-related activities[.]” Id.; see also Hartranft v. Apfel, 181 F.3d 358, 362 (3d Cir. 1999) (“[Evaluation of the intensity and persistence of the pain or symptom and the extent to which it affects the ability to work] obviously requires the ALJ to determine the extent to which a claimant is accurately stating the degree of pain or the extent to which he or she is disabled by it.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). In this evaluation, an ALJ considers objective medical evidence as well as other evidence relevant to a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (listing the following factors to consider: daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; precipitating and aggravating factors; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, currently received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures currently used or have used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of a claimant’s daily activities and other evidence when evaluating alleged pain or other symptoms.

Bushey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-07(c)(3)

Pain or other symptoms may be important factors contributing to a disability claimant’s functional loss and affects a claimant’s ability to perform basic work activities where relevant medical signs or laboratory findings show the existence of a medically determinable impairment that could “reasonably” be expected to cause the associated pain or other symptoms including those associated with mental impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Such other evidence includes a claimant’s activities of daily living. ... Here, despite finding Plaintiff suffers from several mental impairments, and incorporating a low stress restriction in the RFC determination, the ALJ also found Plaintiff’s self-reported activities are not entirely consistent with her allegation of total disability, including that despite treatment notes showing Plaintiff with significant stress with regard to her family relationships and caring for her elderly, ailing father, Plaintiff has expressed a desire to obtain employment, is able to care for her father, and also provides care to a friend on a daily basis, all which constitute significant daily activities that are not consistent with her claim she is unable to work. ... Thus, even assuming the sincerity of Plaintiff’s perceived restrictions on her ability to work outside the home, the ALJ did not err in assessing the consistency between Plaintiff’s alleged disability and her self-reported activities of daily living.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to determine whether an impairment could produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using objective and other evidence; the ALJ may not reject symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

v. Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc. · filed 2020-11-03(c)(3)

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

When evaluating a claimant's symptoms, § 404.1529 permits consideration of consistency with objective medical evidence, treatment history, medication, pain treatment, and measures used to relieve pain, but objective medical evidence cannot be the sole basis for rejecting symptom statements.

Haynes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)-(vi)

The ALJ properly considered how consistent Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements were with this objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about his symptoms, but it was a factor that the ALJ was required to consider. ... The ALJ also discounted Plaintiff’s subjective statements in noting that his treatment has been generally successful in controlling his symptoms. (AR 22-23). An ALJ may properly consider Plaintiff’s treatment history in analyzing Plaintiff’s asserted symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(iv),(v),(vi) (factors relevant to a claimant’s symptoms, such as pain, which the Commissioner will consider include medication taken to alleviate symptoms; treatment received for pain; and measures used to relieve pain).

Section 404.1529(c)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s symptoms and their effect on the ability to work when an impairment could reasonably be expected to cause the alleged symptom severity, even if objective medical evidence does not confirm that severity.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)(1)

If the objective medical evidence does not confirm the alleged severity of a claimant’s symptom, but an impairment can be reasonably expected to cause that alleged severity, an ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms and their effect on ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to use a two-step process: first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then assess whether the symptoms are consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.

Roytman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(a), (b)

“At the first step, the ALJ must decide whether the claimant suffers from a medically determinable impairment that could reasonably be expected to produce the symptoms alleged.” Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(b)). “If the claimant does suffer from such an impairment, at the second step, the ALJ ... must consider ‘the extent to which the claimant’s symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence’ of record.” Id. (alteration omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)).

Section 404.1529 is the regulatory basis for the three-step framework used to evaluate a claimant’s allegations of symptoms.

Margraf v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-09-30

Therefore, the three-step framework set out in Luna, based on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, 416.929 (2017) is still the proper standard to be used as explained in the regulations in effect on November 8, 2018, when this case was decided.

Section 404.1529 requires an adjudicator first to determine whether medically determinable impairments could reasonably be expected to cause the claimed symptoms and then to evaluate the symptoms’ intensity, persistence, and limiting effects against the medical and other evidence.

Godbey v. SSA · filed 2020-10-13(b), (c)

Instead, the regulations provide a two-step process for evaluating claimants’ subjective complaints of symptoms, and ALJ Bowling performed that analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017). The ALJ first determined that Godbey had medically determinable impairments that could reasonably be expected to cause the symptoms alleged. [Tr. 22-23]; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(b), 416.929(b). Along with her physical impairments, Bowling noted that she was impaired by panic attacks and depression. [Tr. 22] He concluded, however, that Godbey’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of these symptoms were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. [Tr. 23]; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires consideration of inconsistencies in the evidence and conflicts between a claimant's statements and the rest of the evidence when evaluating symptoms.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-08(c)(4)

This is a legitimate basis for rejecting symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“[The agency] will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between [a claimant’s] statements and the rest of the evidence . . .”); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2008) (reaffirming that ALJs may consider a claimant’s prior inconsistent statements when evaluating symptom testimony).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant’s statements about pain and related functional limitations to consider conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence.

Vass v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-15(c)(4)

When a Law Judge assesses the credibility of a claimant’s statements about pain and related functional limitations, the Law Judge is supposed to consider whether there are any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4) and 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ assessing symptom severity to consider relevant evidence, including daily activities, treatment frequency, and inconsistencies between the claimant’s statements and the record.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-19(a), (c)(3), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(v), (c)(4)

Here, the ALJ found that Plaintiff’s statements concerning the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her objectively established medically conditions were not entirely consistent with the medical evidence and other evidence in the record. Therefore, it was appropriate for the ALJ to consider other information and factors that may be relevant to the degree of pain and other symptoms alleged. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). For example, the ALJ appropriately considered the level of Plaintiff's daily activities in determining the extent to which her purported pain is of disabling severity (Tr. 22-24). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993); Blacha v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 927 F.2d 228, 231 (6th Cir. 1990). The ALJ also considered the frequency she sought treatment for the allegedly disabling conditions in assessing her subjective complaints (Tr. 22-24). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v). Additionally, the ALJ considered whether there were any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between Plaintiff’s statements and the rest of the evidence (Tr. 22-24). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to first determine whether a medically determinable impairment could reasonably be expected to produce the alleged symptoms, then evaluate their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects using objective and other evidence, including daily activities and other listed factors.

Weiss v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-19(a), (c)(1), (c)(3)(i)-(vii)

In general, the ALJ must employ a two-step analysis to evaluate the claimant's reported symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. First, the ALJ must determine whether, based on the objective medical evidence, a plaintiff’s medical impairments “could reasonably be expected to produce the pain or other symptoms alleged.” Id. § 404.1529(a). Second, if the medical evidence establishes the existence of such impairments, the ALJ must evaluate the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of those symptoms to determine the extent to which the symptoms limit the claimant’s ability to do work. See id. ... At this second step, the ALJ must consider: (1) plaintiff’s daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of plaintiff’s pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (5) other treatment plaintiff’s receives or has received to relieve his pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures that plaintiff takes or has taken to relieve his pain or other symptoms; and (7) any other factors concerning plaintiff’s functional limitations and restrictions due to his pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).