20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom inquiry and forbids rejecting severity testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it.

Hudnall v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-25(b)-(c)

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). ... 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.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) does not permit an ALJ who has found objective evidence of conditions reasonably capable of producing alleged symptoms to reject their claimed intensity, persistence, and limiting effects based on objective evidence alone; the ALJ must assess consistency with the other evidence.

Lyons v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-10(c)(4)

Because the ALJ acknowledged the objective medical evidence showed conditions that could reasonably produce the symptoms Plaintiff alleged, Tr. at 813, he was not permitted to reject her allegations as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms based on the objective evidence, and was required to consider whether her statements were generally consistent with the other evidence of record.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit rejection of statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or effects solely because objective medical evidence fails to substantiate them.

Hannah v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-03(c)(2)

The ALJ may not, however, “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir. 1995)); see also Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity but prohibits rejection of subjective pain testimony solely because objective evidence does not corroborate it.

Frazey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-14(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis. Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it and requires an additional reason when the record lacks substantiation.

(SS) Goltz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-27(c)(2)

The fact that a claimant’s testimony is not fully corroborated by the objective medical findings, in and of itself, is not a clear and convincing reason for rejecting it.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). Rather, where a claimant’s symptom testimony is not fully substantiated by the objective medical record, the ALJ must provide an additional reason for discounting the testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits discrediting subjective pain from a medically determinable impairment because objective corroboration is absent.

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-17(c)(2)

And even if he had, the regulations do not allow him to discredit subjective complaints of pain caused by medically determinable impairments due to the absence of corroborating objective evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit lack of corroborating medical findings alone to justify rejecting symptom testimony.

Vanderbilt v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-25(c)(2)

In light of the difficulty of quantifying pain, it is error for an ALJ to discount a claimant’s pain testimony because it lacks support in the record; the absence of corroborating medical findings is an insufficient reason, alone, to reject symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits absence of objective support to inform symptom evaluation but prohibits relying on that absence as the exclusive reason for discounting statements.

Knuckles v. O'Malley · filed 2024-07-29(c)(2)

An ALJ may consider that the absence of objective medical evidence may discount a claimant’s statement of functional limitations but may not rely exclusively on the lack of such evidence in discounting a claimant’s statements.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejection of pain testimony solely because objective evidence fails to corroborate the alleged degree of pain.

Hull v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-05(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Barnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-08-08(c)(2)

The Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”

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

Grimes v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-09-09(c)(2)

An ALJ “will not reject [the claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have” on the claimant’s ability to work “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [those] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting subjective symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Lutz v. Social Security · filed 2024-09-09(c)(2)

Subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... In sum, the ALJ’s analysis of Plaintiff’s testimony did not add persuasiveness to the discussion.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence but forbids discounting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not affirmatively substantiate it.

Massey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-28(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not ... substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

Subsection (c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence in evaluating symptoms, but objective evidence cannot be the sole basis for an adverse symptom finding.

Franzoni v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-21(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a ... negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting symptom testimony solely for lack of objective substantiation, so objective inconsistency cannot sustain rejection when the ALJ’s other stated reasons also lack substantial evidence.

Arredondo v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-22(c)(2)

Accordingly, without an additional sufficient basis for rejecting ... Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the ALJ could not have relied on inconsistencies in ... the medical record alone. Id.

Subsection (c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence in evaluating symptoms, but objective evidence cannot be the sole basis for an adverse symptom finding.

Elkins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-29(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

Subsection (c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects, but it cannot be the sole basis for discrediting symptom testimony and denying benefits.

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

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... The objective medical evidence, however, is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Subsections (c)(1) through (3) permit comparison of symptom testimony with objective medical evidence, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole basis for discounting the testimony.

Neal v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-29(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. The lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony.

Subsection (c)(2) forbids discrediting pain and limitation testimony solely for lack of objective support, while allowing consideration of daily activities and the medical record as a whole.

Anderson v. O'Malley · filed 2023-12-06(c)(2)

An ALJ “may not discredit a claimant’s testimony about her pain and limitations solely because there is no objective medical evidence supporting it.” Villano v. Astrue, 556 F.3d 558, 562 (7th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). An ALJ may consider a claimant’s daily life activities when considering her alleged symptoms. See Craft, 539 F.3d at 680; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Subsection (c)(2) permits lack of corroborating objective evidence as a relevant symptom factor but forbids using it as the sole ground for discrediting testimony.

Harp v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-25(c)(2)

An ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as a “relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s” alleged symptoms. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ may not, however, “discredit the claimant’s testimony as to subjective symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective evidence.” Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 834); see also Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”).

Lack of corroborating objective medical evidence may be one factor in evaluating pain severity, but it cannot be the sole basis for rejecting subjective pain testimony.

Kitter v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-19(c)(2)

While an ALJ may also consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain,” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001), they cannot reject subjective pain testimony solely on that basis.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all record evidence and does not permit evaluating symptom intensity and persistence solely from objective medical evidence.

OTTOBRE · filed 2025-12-19(c)(3)

When evaluating the intensity and persistence of the symptoms, the ALJ must “consider all of the evidence in an individual’s record.” Id. An ALJ must “not evaluate an individual’s symptoms based solely on objective medical evidence unless that objective medical evidence supports a finding that the individual is disabled.” Id. at *4.

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

Angelone · filed 2025-12-19(c)(2)

In addition, ALJs may not reject a claimant’s statements about the intensity and persistence of their pain or other symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [their] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (emphasis added); see also Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Although lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit minimizing Ehlers-Danlos syndrome symptoms for lack of supporting imaging when, as with fibromyalgia, pain may be out of proportion to objective findings.

Casavant · filed 2025-12-23(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ discredited Plaintiff’s subjective complaints about her EDS symptoms because they were not objectively verified by x-rays and other imaging. (See Decision, Doc. No. 6-2 at PageID 45.) Because EDS is similar to fibromyalgia, the undersigned concludes that the ALJ impermissibly relied upon a lack of supporting objective evidence to minimize the severity of the symptoms of EDS.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of the entire record and prohibits disregarding symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

BUNTING · filed 2026-02-26(c)

Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. Id. at *5.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits discounting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, and an ALJ must identify the specific facts used to discount the claimant's testimony.

Jones · filed 2026-02-27(c)(2)

Yet an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s “statements about the intensity and persistence of [] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [] symptoms have on [their] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the] statements.” Lewis, 858 F.3d at 866 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2)) (emphasis added). In discrediting a claimant’s testimony, an ALJ must be sure to articulate what specific facts discredited the claimant. Id. (citations omitted); Cobb v. Colvin, 4 F. Supp. 3d 786, 790 (E.D.N.C. 2014). ... Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS REMAND on this issue.

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them, requiring consideration of other record evidence when objective evidence alone is not fully favorable.

Burris · filed 2026-03-03(c)(2)

An ALJ may not consider only objective medical evidence in determining disability unless this evidence alone supports a finding of disability. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (“If we cannot make a disability determination or decision that is fully favorable based solely on objective medical evidence, then we carefully consider other evidence in the record in reaching a conclusion about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of an individual’s symptoms.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Subsection 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective evidence but prohibits using lack of objective support as the sole reason to discount symptom testimony.

Andreas · filed 2026-05-13(c)(2)

However, this may not be the ALJ’s sole reason for discounting a claimant’s testimony: “[T]he Commissioner may not discredit the claimant’s testimony as to the severity of symptoms merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence.” Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722; see also 20 CFR §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). ... As this is the sole remaining reason for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony as to their migraines, this is not a clear or convincing reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires evaluation of symptom factors, and subjective complaints may not be discounted almost entirely because objective medical records do not support them.

Sampley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-01-11(c)(3)

In the present action, the ALJ did not comply with the requirements of Polaski. Instead, the ALJ based his credibility determination almost entirely upon the fact that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not supported by his medical records. ... Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints during the relevant time-period, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires symptom-factor analysis and does not permit an ALJ to discount subjective complaints almost entirely because objective medical records do not support them.

Haney v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-02-14(c)(3)

In the present action, the ALJ did not comply with the requirements of Polaski. Instead, the ALJ based her credibility determination almost entirely upon the fact that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not supported by her medical records. ... Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints during the relevant time-period, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529 does not permit an ALJ to base a symptom-consistency determination almost entirely on the absence of supporting objective medical records.

Gossett v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-06-01(c)

The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints].” ... In the present action, the ALJ did not comply with the requirements of Polaski. Instead, the ALJ based his credibility determination almost entirely upon the fact that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not supported by her medical records. ... Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ’s assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints was improper. ... Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints during the relevant time period, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Subsections (c)(2) and (c)(3) do not permit an ALJ to reject pain allegations solely from selected normal findings while ignoring contrary medical evidence and the other symptom factors.

Putney v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-22(c)(2)-(3)

Social Security Ruling 16-3p1 eliminated the word “credibility” from the analysis of subjective complaints, replacing it with “consistency” of a claimant’s allegations with other evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (Oct. 25, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529. The Rule incorporates the familiar factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984) that previously guided an ALJ’s analysis of subjective complaints, including: objective medical evidence, the claimant’s work history, and other evidence relating to (1) the claimant’s daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency and intensity of the symptoms (i.e., pain); (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness and side effects of medication; and (5) any functional restrictions. See Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019). ... Similarly, in the instant case, the ALJ’s credibility determination lacks the support of substantial evidence. The ALJ relied solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to support Putney’s subjective allegations, yet failed to explain how the “lack of chronic motor, sensory, strength, or reflex deficits” were inconsistent with Putney’s allegations in light of the ample evidence and findings that support Putney’s allegations.

Subsections (c)(2) and (c)(3) require consideration of relevant nonobjective evidence and prohibit rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate the alleged degree of impairment.

Marvich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-12(c)(2)-(3)

The ALJ is not required to accept the claimant’s subjective complaints and may discount subjective testimony when the ALJ finds those complaints are inconsistent with objective medical and other evidence. Jones, 336 F.3d at 475-76. The ALJ may not reject an individual’s statements about her symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged but must carefully consider other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *6.

Subsections 404.1529(c)(2)-(4) make objective evidence only one symptom-evaluation factor and require consideration of daily activities, pain, aggravating factors, treatment, medication, and functional limits; subjective pain cannot be rejected solely for lack of objective support.

Robinson · filed 2026-05-27(c)(2)-(4)

Objective medical evidence is merely one factor to be considered, and an ALJ is not free to “disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate the degree of impairment-related symptoms alleged by the individual.” SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5 (Mar. 16, 2016). Other factors the ALJ should examine include “daily activities, allegations of pain, aggravating factors, types of treatment received and medication taken, and ‘functional limitations.’” Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 517 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)-(4)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(4) require consideration of objective evidence and symptom consistency but prohibit denying disability solely because objective evidence does not substantiate the claimant's statements.

Reetz v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-13(c)(2), (c)(4)

Regulations, including 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(2) and (4), require an ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence. While an ALJ cannot deny disability “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [the claimant’s] statements,” 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(2), the ALJ here properly considered the objective evidence along with a number of other factors named in the regulations, 404.1529(c) (2)-(4), such as Reetz’s course of treatment and daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) treats objective evidence as only one part of a symptom evaluation that also considers activities, medication, treatment, relief methods, and aggravating factors.

Derry v. Saul · filed 2023-02-09(c)(3)

That evidence (or lack thereof) is just a piece of the puzzle, see SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529, 416.929(c)(3) (noting that in considering claimant’s subjective symptoms, ALJ assesses the objective medical evidence, daily activities, medication, treatment, or other methods used to alleviate symptoms, and factors that precipitate and aggravate pain).

Section 404.1529 provides that symptoms alone do not establish disability and requires evaluation of objective evidence together with other symptom factors.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-22(a), (c)(2), (c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court finds the ALJ’s rejection of the severity of Plaintiff’s mental health symptom testimony is supported by and consistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)–(3), 416.929(c)(2)–(3); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(a), 416.929(a) (“[S]tatements about your pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that you are disabled”).

Symptoms diminish basic work capacity only to the extent their alleged functional limitations can reasonably be accepted as consistent with objective medical and other evidence.

HAWKINS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-08-30(c)(4)

However, it is also undisputed that a plaintiffs “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish [her] capacity for basic work activities [only] to the extent that [her] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

An ALJ cannot discount pain intensity solely for lack of objective support, but may discount allegations to the extent they conflict with objective and other evidence.

BLEWITT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-08-19(c)(2), (c)(4)

The ALJ should not reject a claimant’s statements “about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [her] symptoms have on [her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... However, contrary to Plaintiffs argument in the case at hand, it is also undisputed that a plaintiffs “symptoms, including pain, will be determined to diminish [her] capacity for basic work activities [only] to the extent that [her] alleged functional limitations and restrictions due to symptoms, such as pain, can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to discount subjective symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence fails to support it.

Howarth v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-03(c)(2)

In sum, the only valid reason for discounting plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony is that it is unsupported by the objective medical evidence. But that reason, standing alone, is insufficient. See C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits medical evidence to be considered when determining symptom severity and disabling effects, but does not permit subjective pain testimony to be rejected solely for lack of objective corroboration.

(SS) Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-04(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in ... determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit subjective pain testimony to be rejected solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it, although medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... In summation, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff’s subjective symptomology collectively as “inconsistent with the medical evidence, which does not support the level of alleged impairment.” AR 18. Although Plaintiff’s statements may have been inconsistent with the medical evidence in some respects, her statements regarding her limited use of her right hand were consistent with medical evidence, namely inability to hold items and zero grip strength. The ALJ’s error was harmful given the VE’s testimony that a reduction from frequent to occasional fingering and handling would be work preclusive.

Section 404.1529(c) does not require objective evidence of pain or its intensity, but permits symptom allegations to be discounted to the extent they are inconsistent with available evidence, including objective evidence of the underlying impairment.

Rice v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-29(c)

Second, and if the ALJ finds a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ assesses the plaintiff’s symptoms to determine how the symptoms’ intensity and persistence affect the plaintiff’s ability to work. See id. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c). At the second step, “there need not be objective evidence of the pain itself or its intensity.” Arakas v. Cmm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 95 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Walker v. Bowen, 889 F.2d 47, 49 (4th Cir. 1989)). However, while “a claimant’s allegations about her pain may not be discredited solely because they are not substantiated by objective evidence of the pain itself or its severity, they need not be accepted to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence, including objective evidence of the underlying impairment, and the extent to which that impairment can be reasonably be expected to cause the pain the claimant alleges she suffers.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. ... Where reasonable minds could differ with respect to the record evidence and the ALJ complied with all legal standards, remand is inappropriate.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection of subjective pain testimony solely for lack of objective medical corroboration, while permitting medical evidence to remain one relevant factor in evaluating symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS)Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-12(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); SSR 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... Plaintiff contends the ALJ improperly discounted her symptoms “merely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence,” which violates existing law. Br. at 18 (citing Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 347-48). To the contrary, the ALJ also identified Plaintiff’s daily activities as a reason for rejecting her symptoms. ... These were clear and convincing reasons for rejecting her testimony.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (3) require consideration of the regulatory symptom factors and prohibit discounting subjective complaints solely because objective medical evidence does not fully support them.

Price v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-07-15(c)(2)-(3)

In assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. ... The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints].” Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. ... In the present action, the ALJ did not comply with the requirements of Polaski. Instead, the ALJ based his credibility determination almost entirely upon the fact that Plaintiff’s subjective complaints were not supported by her medical records. (Tr. 17-21). ... Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints during the relevant time-period, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) distinguishes inconsistent symptom statements from statements that merely lack objective corroboration and bars using absent objective support as the sole basis for rejection.

Valdelamar-Ortuno v. Saul · filed 2021-07-16(c)(2)

Third, the ALJ failed to recognize that while inconsistent statements may show a lack of credibility, uncorroborated statements do not necessarily show a lack of credibility, only a lack of support, and cannot serve as the sole basis for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective pain testimony. See Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[L]ack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony[.]”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”). ... Ultimately, the ALJ found that Plaintiff provided objective medical evidence of an underlying impairment which might reasonably produce the pain or other symptoms alleged, and the ALJ did not conclude that Plaintiff was malingering. Other than a lack of supporting objective medical evidence, however, the ALJ’s reasons for apparently rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective pain testimony are not specific or clear, and the ALJ did not specifically, clearly, or convincingly find that Plaintiff’s pain testimony was not credible.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects but does not allow lack of objective corroboration to serve as the sole basis for rejecting symptom claims.

Swartzfager v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-22(c)(2)

The medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). ... As discussed in detail above, the two additional reasons given by the ALJ for discounting Plaintiff’s symptom claims were legally insufficient. Thus, because lack of corroboration by objective evidence cannot stand alone as a basis for a rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom claims, the ALJ’s finding is inadequate. The Court concludes that the ALJ did not provide clear and convincing reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom claims. On remand, the ALJ must reconsider Plaintiff’s symptom claims.

Section 404.1529(c) does not permit an ALJ to disregard subjective complaints about the severity and persistence of pain merely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Kallas v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-29(c)

Nonetheless, the ALJ may not disregard the claimant’s subjective complaints about the severity and persistence of the pain simply because they lack substantiating objective evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) forbids rejecting symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them, but permits objective evidence to inform the assessment of symptom intensity and persistence.

Lucas v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

Though an ALJ may 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 evidence does not substantiate [her] statements,” 29 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), this does not mean an ALJ cannot consider the medical evidence in assessing a claimant’s credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) forbids rejecting a claimant's statements about symptom intensity and persistence solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Eden v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

The ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective opinion regarding the intensity and persistence” of her symptoms “‘solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate . . . her statements.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(2)) (alteration omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence but prohibits a negative symptom finding based solely on the absence of affirmative objective substantiation.

Miller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

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

Under § 404.1529(c)(2), lack of supporting medical evidence cannot by itself justify discounting symptom testimony, although medical evidence remains relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

Reilly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-04(c)(2)

Lack of supporting medical evidence, alone, would not be sufficient reason alone to discount Plaintiff’s testimony. See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“While subjective pain testimony cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence, the medical evidence is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). However, conflict with her own statements and activities was a clear and convincing reason to discount Plaintiff’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject subjective symptoms merely by citing one item of objective medical evidence without articulating consideration of the other relevant symptom evidence.

Williams-Holland v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-06(c)(2)

No “specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms” were provided, other than citing to one piece of objective medical evidence. SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *10. The regulation requires more. Id. At *7 (noting that the agency will consider daily activities, medications, treatments, and measures the individual uses to treat the pain in evaluating intensity, persistence, and limiting effects); see also Rogers, 486 F.3d at 248-49 (ALJ’s credibility determination inadequate where the ALJ improperly focused purely on objective medical evidence).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) forbids rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate it, while allowing medical evidence to remain a relevant factor in assessing severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-13(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

At the second step of section 404.1529, a claimant may rely exclusively on subjective evidence to establish symptom severity and limiting effects, and requiring objective corroboration is error even if the ALJ also considers other evidence.

Maragh v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-20(c)

As noted above, there does not need to be objective evidence of the claimant’s pain itself or its intensity. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. Rather, the claimant is entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test above. Id. In other words, “disability claimants are entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the severity, persistence, and limiting effects of their symptoms.” Id. at 98. “Thus, [the ALJ] ‘improperly increased [Plaintiff’s] burden of proof’ by effectively requiring her subjective descriptions of her symptoms to be supported by objective medical evidence.” Id. at 96 (quoting Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 866 (4th Cir. 2017)). Moreover, to the extent that the ALJ stated that he considered other evidence, “ALJs apply an incorrect legal standard by requiring objective evidence of symptoms even when they also consider other evidence in the record.” Id. at 97. The Court thus remands on this ground as well.

Section 404.1529(c) does not permit an ALJ to discount subjective complaints solely because objective medical records do not fully support them.

Marshall v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-11-01(c)

The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints].” Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322. ... Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints based upon her medical records. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (holding a claimant’s subjective complaints cannot be discounted “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]”). Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection of subjective testimony solely for lack of full objective corroboration, but permits medical evidence to be considered in determining symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-05(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... Although subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Once an impairment reasonably expected to produce symptoms is established, section 404.1529(c) does not require objective proof of pain or its intensity and permits exclusive reliance on subjective evidence to prove severity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Lucas v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-10(c)(1)-(2)

Rather, the claimant is entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the second part of the test above.

Section 404.1529 permits comparing symptom testimony with objective medical evidence, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole basis for discounting testimony and must be coupled with other permissible reasons.

Gray v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-15(c)(1)-(3)

A lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. ... However, when coupled with other permissible reasons, inconsistencies between a claimant’s allegations and objective medical evidence may be used to discount a claimant’s testimony.

Section 404.1529(c) prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely for lack of objective substantiation, but permits objective evidence to be one of several reasons supporting the symptom assessment.

DOMBROWSKI v. SAUL · filed 2021-11-22(c)

However, section 404.1529(c) merely provides that “we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain . . . solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). In that this was one of several stated reasons that supported the ALJ’s credibility determination, the ALJ did not err.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective symptom testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate it.

Torres v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-01(c)(2)

The Social Security Administration’s regulations confirm the limited probative value of this factor by prohibiting ALJs from rejecting subjective symptom testimony solely because it is unsubstantiated by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) forbids rejecting subjective pain testimony solely for lack of full objective corroboration, while allowing medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Corwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-06(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting symptom testimony solely for lack of objective medical support, so that rationale cannot stand when the ALJ's other reasons are invalid.

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

The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). Because the Court does not uphold the ALJ’s reasoning about Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and noncompliance with treatment recommendations, the Court cannot uphold the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s psychological symptom testimony solely based on lack of support in objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective evidence to be considered with other evidence, but prohibits relying on objective evidence alone to discredit subjective statements.

Hunt v. Saul · filed 2021-12-15(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)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective pain testimony solely for lack of full objective corroboration, while allowing medical evidence to remain relevant to severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Meza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-20(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis and prohibits discounting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Webb v. Saul · filed 2021-12-20

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of the entire record at the second symptom-evaluation step and bars rejection based solely on lack of objective substantiation.

Joudrey v. Saul · filed 2021-12-20

When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, ALJs must use the two-step framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029 (Mar. 16, 2016). First, the ALJ must determine whether objective medical evidence presents a “medically determinable impairment” that could reasonably be expected to produce the claimant’s alleged symptoms. Second, after finding a medically determinable impairment, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. At this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled. SSR 16-3p recognizes that “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Thus, the ALJ must consider the entire case record and may “not disregard an individual’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because the objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective evidence to inform symptom severity, but objective evidence alone cannot support rejection when the ALJ’s other stated reasons are unsupported.

Juarez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-29(c)(2)

As the Court finds the ALJ’s other reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom claims were not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s symptom claims were inconsistent with the objective evidence alone is not a sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff’s claims.

At section 404.1529’s second step, objective evidence is not required to prove disability, and a claimant may rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove symptom severity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Diggs v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-30(c)(2)

The claimant is not required to present objective evidence at this step.

Sections 404.1529(c)(1) and (2) require consideration of all available evidence when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence and prohibit rejection of subjective statements based solely on objective medical evidence.

Matos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-10(c)(1)–(2)

The ALJ must evaluate the intensity and persistence of the claimant’s symptoms and will consider all available evidence in making that determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(1). A rejection of subjective statements may not be based solely on objective medical evidence. Id. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection of subjective pain testimony solely for lack of objective corroboration, while allowing medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Juanita Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-10(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, ... F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting statements about symptom intensity and persistence merely because medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Simone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-11(c)(2)

“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.” Michael H. v. Saul, No. 5:20-CV-417 (MAD), 2021 WL 2358257, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. June 9, 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection of pain testimony solely for lack of objective corroboration but permits objective observations to bear on alleged symptom severity.

(SS) Carbajal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-19(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

Section 404.1529 prohibits discounting subjective complaints solely because objective medical records do not fully support them.

Geren v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-01-21(c)

Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s subjective complaints based upon her medical records. See Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322 (holding a claimant’s subjective complaints cannot be discounted “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints]”). Accordingly, because the ALJ provided an insufficient basis for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, this case must be reversed and remanded.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it, while allowing medical evidence to remain relevant.

(SS) Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective evidence to be considered with other evidence but prohibits using lack of objective corroboration as the sole ground for discounting symptom statements.

Garland v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(c)

Although Plaintiff correctly notes that an ALJ may not discount a claimant’s symptom statements solely because they are not substantiated by objective evidence, the ALJ did not do so here. “[T]he lack of objective support from physical examinations and test results is still relevant even if an ALJ may not base a decision solely on the lack of objective corroboration of complaints of pain.” Pierce v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 1046, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c), and Prochaska v. Barnhart, 454 F.3d 731, 738 (7th Cir. 2006)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) forbids rejecting subjective testimony solely for lack of full objective corroboration, while allowing medical evidence to remain relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Hogan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-02(c)(2)

Although subjective testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant's pain and its disabling effects.”

Even when an impairment is objectively confirmed, section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit discounting subjective pain solely because objective evidence does not establish pain intensity.

Hinchee v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-03(c)(2)

However, even in cases where an impairment is confirmed by objective medical findings, an ALJ may not discount subjective evidence of pain solely on a lack of objective evidence of pain intensity.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective evidence to inform symptom severity, but objective evidence alone is insufficient when the ALJ’s other stated reasons for rejection lack substantial support.

Donahue v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-03(c)(2)

As this reason alone is not a sufficient reason to reject Plaintiff’s claims, the ALJ erred in finding Plaintiff’s symptom claims were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence.

Sections 404.1529(b)-(c) require a two-step symptom analysis, and objective evidence is not required at the second step to establish disabling intensity and persistence.

Vannoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-07(b)-(c)

Second, the ALJ must assess the intensity and persistence of the alleged symptoms to determine how they affect the claimant’s ability to work and whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c); 416.929(c); SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *4. The Fourth Circuit has consistently recognized that “[a]t this step, objective evidence is not required to find the claimant disabled.”

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all available evidence and bars rejection of symptom intensity, persistence, or work effects solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-11(a), (c)(2)

The regulations state that the Commissioner will “consider all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how [his or her] symptoms affect [him or her].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). However, the Commissioner “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his or her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his or her] symptoms have on [his or her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his or her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not require objective support for symptom intensity at the second step and forbids disregarding claimant statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Robinson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-16(c)(2)

Claimants are entitled to rely exclusively on subjective evidence to prove the degree to which their symptoms affect their ability to work at the second step of the analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits medical evidence as a symptom-severity factor but forbids rejecting subjective pain solely for lack of objective corroboration.

(SS) Swartout v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-24(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to reject subjective complaints solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.

Brito v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-01(c)(2)

An ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on a lack of objective medical evidence to fully corroborate the alleged severity of pain.”

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective medical evidence to be considered as one part of a holistic evaluation of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms.

VAUGHN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-01(c)

Here, in compliance with Arakas, Hines, and Craig, the ALJ considered the objective medical evidence as one part of his evaluation of the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s alleged physical and mental symptoms. ... Thus, the ALJ made clear that, in the final analysis, he considered the entire record, and not just the objective medical evidence, in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider a lack of objective medical support for the alleged degree of symptom severity, but not to reject subjective complaints solely on that ground.

Tmusic v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-02(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective complaints solely for lack of objective medical evidence, the ALJ may consider the absence of objective medical evidence supporting the degree of severity alleged.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective evidence as one symptom-severity factor but forbids relying on it alone after other reasons for rejection fail.

(SS) Mao v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-04(c)(2)

Thus, because lack of corroboration by objective evidence cannot stand alone as a basis for a rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom claims, the ALJ’s finding is inadequate.

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective evidence to be considered with other evidence but not as the sole reason to discredit subjective statements.

Leichtweis v. Saul · filed 2022-03-07(c)

In any case, the ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective statements.

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective evidence to be considered with other evidence but not as the sole reason to discredit subjective statements.

Lockett v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-07(c)

In any case, the ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to discredit a claimant’s subjective statements.

When objective medical evidence and subjective complaints conflict, § 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of all factors concerning symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, and the ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective support.

Powell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-14(c)(3)

Objective medical evidence may not capture the full extent of a claimant’s symptoms, so where the objective medical evidence and subjective complaints are at odds, the ALJ should consider all factors concerning the “intensity, persistence and limiting effects” of the claimant’s symptoms. SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (showing a complete list of factors). The ALJ may not discredit a claimant solely because his or her subjective complaints are not supported by objective medical evidence, Craig, 76 F.3d at 595-96, but neither is the ALJ required to accept the claimant’s statements at face value; rather, the ALJ must “evaluate whether the statements are consistent with objective medical evidence and the other evidence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered with medical-source information about symptoms, but does not permit rejection of symptom testimony solely for lack of objective support.

Powell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-14(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) treats medical evidence as relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects but does not allow subjective pain testimony to be rejected solely for lack of full objective corroboration.

(SS) Barkhosir v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-14(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits discrediting migraine testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Adriana F. Munoz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(c)(2)

Migraines are perhaps a case-in-point example of the logic behind the rule that a claimant’s testimony cannot be discredited “on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence . . .” See Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits lack of objective corroboration to be considered as one factor but does not allow subjective testimony to be rejected solely on that basis.

Collins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-22(c)(2)

Additionally, even if the Commissioner had not waived this reason, an ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain.” ... The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-step symptom analysis and prohibits rejecting testimony solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate severity.

McHenry v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-24(b)-(c)

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.

Section 404.1529 permits objective evidence to be considered but prohibits using it as the sole basis for discounting symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects.

Mathot v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-25

Both 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p explain that while objective evidence will not be the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms, including pain, such evidence will nevertheless be considered in making reasonable conclusions about the claimant’s functioning.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence but prohibits a negative symptom finding based solely on lack of affirmative substantiation.

Patterson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-25(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

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

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-28(c)(2)

Once a claimant has shown that she has a medically determinable impairment or impairments that could reasonably be expected to produce her pain or other symptoms, her statements about the intensity, persistence, and effect of her pain or other symptoms cannot be rejected “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” them. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); see also Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits relying solely on absent medical support to discount symptom testimony.

Turner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-29(c)(2)

That reason alone, however, is insufficient to discount symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective evidence but prohibits a negative finding based solely on lack of objective substantiation.

Adkins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-30(c)(2)

However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of medical evidence but bars its use as the sole basis for discounting symptom testimony.

Garza v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)

Although lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence and medical-source symptom information to be considered, but does not allow symptom testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree.

Leitz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-11(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence and medical-source symptom information to be considered, but does not allow symptom testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree.

Ounesivixay v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-03(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom allegations merely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Lynch Letson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-23(c)(2)

Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) states that a claimant’s allegations cannot be rejected “because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires evaluation of symptom intensity and persistence using all evidence and prohibits rejection solely for lack of objective substantiation.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-24(c)(1)–(3)

The Commissioner “will not reject” a claimant’s statements “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate” the statements. Id. § 404.1529(c)(2). Instead, the ALJ considers several “[o]ther factors concerning [the claimant’s] functional limitations and restrictions due to pain and other symptoms.” Id. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) recognizes that subjective symptoms may be more severe than objective evidence alone shows and lists factors for evaluating them.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-24(c)(3)

Of note, the regulations acknowledge that sometimes a claimant’s symptoms are more severe “than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone.” § 404.1529(c)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence and medical-source symptom information to be considered, but does not allow symptom testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree.

Wall v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-01(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence and medical-source symptom information to be considered, but does not allow symptom testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree.

Moe v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-03(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits discrediting pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it.

(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-10(c)(2)

The ALJ cannot discredit Plaintiff’s pain testimony solely because it is found not to be supported by the objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider evidence beyond objective findings when assessing symptom statements, and normal findings unrelated to the alleged conditions do not supply a clear and convincing reason to reject those statements.

Hansen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-21(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... Here, the ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. Notably, the ALJ relied on many normal findings that it was able to glean from the records to reject Plaintiff’s testimony. But many of these normal findings were in categories largely unrelated to Plaintiff’s allegations and thus were not inconsistent with her testimony regarding her fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease and her other conditions.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of all available evidence and forbids rejecting symptom intensity, persistence, and limitations solely for lack of objective substantiation, though allegations inconsistent with the available evidence need not be accepted.

Harvey v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-11(c)

The ALJ must consider all of the available evidence, including medical history, objective medical evidence, and statements by Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Thus, the ALJ must not disregard Plaintiff's complaints of “intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms solely because objective evidence does not substantiate” them, see Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95 (emphasis added) (quoting SSR 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *5), but Plaintiff’s allegations “need not be accepted. to the extent they are inconsistent with the available evidence, including objective evidence of the underlying impairment, and the extent to which that impairment can... reasonably be expected to cause” the alleged symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits lack of corroborating objective evidence to be considered, but it cannot be the sole reason for rejecting subjective symptom testimony.

Ditorrice v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-18(c)(2)

An ALJ may consider the lack of corroborating objective medical evidence as one factor in “determining the severity of the claimant’s pain.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ may not, however, reject subjective testimony solely because it was not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence. Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2), (noting that the Commissioner “will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements”). Because the Court has concluded the ALJ erred by rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony for the preceding reason, the lack of objective medical evidence is the only remaining reason for doing so. That reason alone cannot support discrediting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. See id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Thus, the ALJ erred in rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective evidence relevant to symptom severity but prohibits using it as the sole basis for rejecting symptom testimony.

Jackson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-27(c)(2)

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of the claimant’s pain and symptoms, but it cannot be the sole consideration in rejecting symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); see also Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not fully corroborate it, while permitting objective evidence to remain relevant to severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Duron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-03(c)(2)

Although subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” the objective medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). The ALJ also noted Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and her limited treatment among the pertinent reasoning. ... Plaintiff identifies no harmful error in the ALJ’s treatment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptomology.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of all available evidence when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence and forbids rejection solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate the statements.

Rodriguez v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-09(a), (c)(2)

The regulations state that in evaluating the intensity and persistence of a plaintiff’s alleged symptoms, including pain, the Commissioner will “consider all of the available evidence, including [the claimant’s] medical history, the medical signs and laboratory findings, and statements about how [his or her] symptoms affect [him or her].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). However, the Commissioner “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his or her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his or her] symptoms have on [his or her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his or her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered with medical-source information when assessing symptom severity and disabling effects, but it cannot be the sole basis for denial.

Robles v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-10(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Bunnell v. Sullivan, 947 F.2d 341, 346-47 (9th Cir. 1991); Fair v. Bowen, 885 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1989); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

At Section 404.1529(c)’s second step, the ALJ must consider all evidence, and even when objective evidence is permissible, may not reject symptom intensity and persistence solely because objective medical evidence is absent.

Douglas-Devonish v. Saul · filed 2022-08-11(c)

In either scenario, at the second step, an ALJ may not reject a claimant’s subjective statements about the intensity and persistence of her pain solely because there is no objective medical evidence to support them. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95; see also Hines, 453 F.3d at 561; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) (emphasis supplied). Put another way, at step two, a claimant may rely exclusively on “subjective evidence to prove the degree to which [her] symptoms affect [her] ability to work.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting subjective complaints solely because objective evidence does not fully corroborate the alleged severity, while allowing rejection for specific, clear, and convincing reasons supported by the broader record.

Gass v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-12(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 ALJ may, however, “reject the claimant’s testimony about the severity of [the] symptoms” provided that the ALJ also explains his decision “by providing specific, clear, and convincing reasons for doing so.” ... Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, the Court finds the ALJ did not err by discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes medical evidence relevant but prohibits rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because it is not fully corroborated by objective findings.

(SS) Michelle Garrett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-24(c)(2)

Subjective pain testimony “cannot be rejected on the sole ground that it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” but the medical evidence “is still a relevant factor in determining the severity of claimant’s pain and its disabling effects.” Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); S.S.R. 16-3p (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)).

An ALJ may not rely solely on objective medical evidence to discount symptom testimony.

(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-30(c)(2)

The Court therefore finds the ALJ erred by solely relying on the objective medical evidence in his expressed reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”); Vertigan, 260 F.3d at 1049; Burch, 400 F.3d at 680-81; Robbins, 466 F.3d at 883–84.

Lack of objective medical support cannot be the sole basis for rejecting statements about symptom severity and limitations.

Kirzner v. Saul · filed 2022-08-31(c)(2)

However, the lack of objective medical evidence supporting a claimant’s allegations cannot be the sole basis for rejecting the claimant’s statements about the severity of her symptoms and limitations. Id.; see also Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 679; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“[W]e will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

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

Barton v. Saul · filed 2022-08-29(c)(2)

Although an ALJ may consider whether the alleged symptoms are consistent with the medical evidence as one factor in his evaluation, the ALJ may not disregard a claimant’s testimony “solely because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” See Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006).

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

Techen v. Saul · filed 2022-08-29(c)(2)

What the SSA may not do is “reject [the applicant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain and other symptoms or about the effect [her] symptoms have on [her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Ivey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-06(c)(2)

An ALJ “will not reject [the claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have” on the claimant’s ability to work “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [those] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Objective medical evidence is a useful indicator of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects, but cannot alone justify discounting complaints.

Lee v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-12(c)(2)

Although the “absence of objective medical evidence to support [a clamaint’s] complaints” of pain is one “factor to be considered,” “the ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective complaints solely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence.” Halverson, 600 F.3d at 931-32; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); see also, e.g., Grindley, 9 F.4th at 630.

At the second symptom step an ALJ must consider medical and nonmedical evidence and cannot reject symptom intensity or persistence solely for lack of objective substantiation.

Hill v. Saul · filed 2022-09-13(c)(2)

At the second step, “the ALJ must consider all of the available evidence, including objective medical evidence, from both medical and nonmedical sources.” ... The ALJ “may not reject a claimant’s subjective opinion regarding the intensity and persistence” of her symptoms “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate . . . her statements.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.929(c)(2)) (alteration omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

When objective evidence may not capture the full extent of symptoms, an ALJ must consider all factors bearing on their intensity, persistence, and limiting effects and cannot reject complaints solely for lack of objective support.

Duncan v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-09(c)(3)

Objective medical evidence may not capture the full extent of a claimant’s symptoms, so where the objective medical evidence and subjective complaints are at odds, the ALJ should consider all factors concerning the “intensity, persistence and limiting effects” of the claimant’s symptoms. S.S.R. 16-3p, 2016 WL 1119029, at *7; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3) (showing a complete list of factors). The ALJ may not discredit a claimant solely because his or her subjective complaints are not supported by objective medical evidence, Craig, 76 F.3d at 595—96, but neither is the ALJ required to accept the claimant’s statements at face value; rather, the ALJ must “evaluate whether the statements are consistent with objective medical evidence and the other evidence.”

A lack of objective medical evidence may factor into symptom evaluation but cannot be the sole basis for discounting pain testimony.

(SS) Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-14(c)(2)

Although a lack of medical evidence “cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony, it is a factor that the ALJ can consider in his credibility analysis.” Burch, 400 F.3d at 681; Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing § 404.1529(c)(2)). Not only did the ALJ properly consider the medical evidence, but it was not the sole basis for discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony.

An ALJ does not reject pain allegations solely for lack of objective corroboration when the decision also relies on daily activities and medical-opinion evidence.

Mathews v. Saul · filed 2022-09-14(c)(2)

Nor did the ALJ disregard any pain allegation “simply because it is not fully corroborated by objective medical evidence,” as Plaintiff alleges. [Dkt. 13, p. 9.] Rather, the ALJ considered the whole host of evidence, including the non-objective evidence of Plaintiff’s activities of daily living as well and the opinions of the state agency doctors who reviewed plaintiff’s records.4 (R. 29-30.)

Objective medical evidence is relevant to symptom severity, but an ALJ may not deny benefits by discounting symptom testimony solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms.

Webster v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-15(c)(2)

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Id.

Section 404.1529 permits objective evidence to inform symptom assessment but forbids using absent objective corroboration as the sole reason for rejecting testimony.

Rogers v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-19(c)(1)-(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. A lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. ... But when coupled with other permissible reasons, inconsistencies between a claimant’s allegations and objective medical evidence may be used to discount a claimant’s testimony.

An ALJ may consider absence of objective support but cannot discount subjective pain complaints solely because objective evidence does not support them.

Lee v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-20(c)(2)

Although the “absence of objective medical evidence to support [a clamaint’s] complaints” of pain is one “factor to be considered,” “the ALJ may not discount a claimant’s subjective complaints solely because they are unsupported by objective medical evidence.” Halverson, 600 F.3d at 931-32; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2); see also, e.g., Grindley, 9 F.4th at 630.

An ALJ cannot reject statements about symptom intensity, persistence, or work effects solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Moss v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(c)(2)

However, the Commissioner “will not reject [a claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [his or her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [his or her] symptoms have on [his or her] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [his or her] statements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

An ALJ does not discount symptom statements solely because medical evidence fails to substantiate them when the ALJ reviews the record as a whole and finds the claimant less limited than alleged.

Owen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-23(c)(1)-(3)

But the ALJ did not discount Plaintiff’s statements solely because the medical evidence did not substantiate them: the ALJ reviewed the record as a whole and determined that Plaintiff is not as limited as she alleges. The ALJ adequately considered Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, and the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ may not reject symptom statements solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Whitt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-28(c)(2)

An ALJ “will not reject [the claimant’s] statements about the intensity and persistence of [her] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [those] symptoms have” on the claimant’s ability to work “solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [those] statements.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Objective medical evidence cannot stand alone as the reason to reject symptom reports; absent another clear and convincing reason, the reported limitations must be included in the RFC.

Lindsley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-27(c)(2)

Objective evidence cannot stand alone as a reason to reject symptom reports, and the ALJ’s only other reason for rejective Plaintiff’s symptom complaints is legally insufficient. Here, the ALJ relies solely on Plaintiff’s generally normal examination findings and test results as the basis to reject Plaintiff’s symptom reports. This is reversible error. While medical evidence is a relevant factor in determining the severity of a claimant’s pain and its disabling effects, ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 856. Further, in the absence of a clear and convincing reason to discount symptom reports, the limitations in a claimant’s symptom reports must be made part of the RFC. See Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he ALJ failed to provide clear and convincing reasons for finding Lingenfelter’s alleged pain and symptoms not credible, and therefore was required to include these limitations in his assessment of Lingenfelter’s RFC.”). Because the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s symptom claims may not solely be based on the lack of supporting objective medical evidence, the ALJ is instructed to reevaluate Plaintiff’s symptom testimony. See Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; Bunnell, 947 F.2d at 346-47; Fair, 885 F.2d at 601. Upon remand the ALJ shall conduct a new sequential analysis, reevaluating Plaintiff’s symptom claims and their impact on each step of the sequential analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to contribute to the symptom analysis but does not permit rejection of symptom allegations solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

Kewening v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(c)(2)

And the ALJ did not, as Kewenig contends, reject her allegations solely because the objective medical evidence did not substantiate them. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1529(c)(2). Objective medical evidence was but one brick in the wall, as it is supposed to be.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to compare symptom testimony with objective medical evidence but not to reject it solely because objective evidence does not substantiate it.

Lacy v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-29(c)(2)

It is proper for the ALJ to consider the objective medical evidence in making a credibility determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not make a negative credibility finding “solely because” the claimant’s symptom testimony “is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 466 F.3d 880, 883 (9th Cir. 2006). ... Such discrepancies between Plaintiff’s alleged symptoms and the medical record are clear convincing reasons for finding Plaintiff not fully credible as to the extent of her limitations.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony based on a lack of supporting objective evidence when that reason is combined with another supported reason such as the absence of treatment records at the alleged onset date.

Nivison v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-30(c)(2)

The Court finds that the ALJ relied on the ... discount his symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity but forbids rejecting symptom statements solely because objective evidence does not substantiate them.

(SS) Luis Antonio Frausto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-03(c)(2)

While the ALJ’s use of the objective medical evidence is insufficient standing alone, the ALJ provided clear and convincing determinations when considered in conjunction with the ALJ’s other reasoning concerning compliance with treatment and improvement with treatment, as discussed hereafter. ... Thus, the Court concludes the ALJ has provided multiple clear and convincing reasons in support of discounting Plaintiff’s testimony, and finds no legal error.

Under § 404.1529(c)(1) through (3), a lack of objective support cannot alone justify discounting symptom testimony, and other evidence relied on must bear on the symptoms at issue.

Mathis v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-07(c)(1)-(3)

But these activities have no bearing on plaintiff’s monthly epileptic seizures. Thus, other than lack of consistency with the medical record, which cannot be the sole reason, the ALJ failed to provide a specific, clear and convincing reason to discount plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

An ALJ may not discount subjective allegations solely because objective medical records do not fully support them, and a reference to unspecified ‘other evidence’ does not supply an adequate additional basis.

Biddle v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-10-18

Indeed, although the ALJ referenced “other evidence,” he did not provide what that “other evidence” was, apart from Plaintiff’s medical records. Based upon this review, the Court finds the ALJ improperly discounted Plaintiff’s subjective allegations based upon his medical records.

Section 404.1529 provides that symptoms alone cannot establish disability and that lack of objective corroboration cannot by itself justify discounting symptom allegations, though it remains a relevant factor.

(SS)(PS) McGee-Holden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-07(a), (c)(2)

A claimant’s stat e m ents of subjective symptoms alone are insufficient grounds to establish disability. 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(a). ... A lack of corroborating, objective medical evidence alone is insufficient grounds for an ALJ to discount a claimant’s subjective symptoms; however, it is a factor the ALJ may consider.

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

Julian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-08(c)(2)

Moreover, to the extent that the ALJ discounted Plaintiff’s testimony solely by finding that the medical evidence did not support her alleged limitations, this was error. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (“[W]e we will not reject your statements about the intensity and persistence of your pain or other symptoms or about the effect your symptoms have on your ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate your statements.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity but prohibits denying benefits solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms.

Donahue v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-10(c)(2)

Objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2); 416.929(c)(2). However, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) permit consideration of objective evidence but prohibit relying on it alone; any error is harmless when work history and daily activities independently and substantially support the symptom assessment.

Patton v. O'Malley · filed 2022-11-30(c)(2)–(3)

However, an ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s ... symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms ... alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... Even ... if this were error, any error is harmless because the ALJ considered other factors ... beyond the objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection of symptom testimony solely for lack of objective corroboration, though contradiction by medical evidence or additional supported reasons may justify discounting it.

(SS) Schilling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-05(c)(2)

In light of the foregoing authorities, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that a mere lack of corroborating objective medical evidence, alone, would not support an adverse credibility determination. However, the Court finds the ALJ has provided sufficient additional reasons to discount Plaintiff’s testimony, as discussed herein.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a required symptom-evaluation factor but prohibits using lack of objective corroboration as the sole reason to reject symptom statements.

Hirtenstein v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-07(c)(2)

The Court finds the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s testimony. The ALJ properly found that Plaintiff’s allegations of disabling symptoms were not supported by the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence of this type is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on your ability to work.”). This could not be the ALJ’s sole reason for rejecting Plaintiff’s statements about symptoms, but it was a factor that she was required to consider.

Section 404.1529(c) permits consideration of consistency with objective medical evidence but does not allow lack of objective support to be the sole reason for discounting symptom testimony.

Lattymer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-04(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)

In evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptom testimony, an ALJ may consider whether it is consistent with objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(1)-(3), 416.929(c)(1)-(3); SSR 16-3p, available at 2017 WL 5180304, at *7-8. The lack of objective medical evidence may not form the sole basis for discounting a claimant’s testimony. ... As discussed above, the ALJ improperly rejected plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) prohibits denying benefits solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of symptoms, though objective evidence remains a relevant severity factor.

Allen v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-12(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony and deny benefits solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is not supported by objective medical evidence. ... However, the objective medical evidence is a relevant factor, along with the medical source’s information about the claimant’s pain or other symptoms, in determining the severity of a claimant’s symptoms and their disabling effects. Rollins, 261 F.3d at 857; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).