20 C.F.R. § 404.1529

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ evaluating pain to consider objective medical evidence and all other submitted symptom information.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-28(c)

In assessing the intensity and persistence of a claimant’s pain, the Commissioner will consider objective medical evidence and will “carefully consider any other information [a claimant] may submit about [their] symptoms.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c).

Section 404.1529(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed nonobjective evidence because symptoms may indicate greater impairment severity than objective medical evidence alone shows.

Ard v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-12(c)

In recognition of the fact that an individual’s symptoms can sometimes suggest a greater level of severity of impairment than can be shown by the objective medical evidence alone, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c) and 416.929(c) describe the kinds of evidence, including the factors below, that the ALJ must consider in addition to the objective medical evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s statements: ... These are specific, clear and convincing reasons for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective symptom testimony. As such, the ALJ’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting subjective pain testimony solely because objective medical evidence does not corroborate it, while allowing objective evidence to remain one relevant severity factor when supported by another valid reason.

(SS) Gegan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-08(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)). ... Further, inconsistency with the objective medical evidence was not the only reason identified by the ALJ that would support discrediting the Plaintiff’s testimony, though the additional reasoning offered requires the reader to draw some inferences the ALJ did not overtly make. ... Although this is not an exceptionally persuasive reason to reject Plaintiff’s testimony, it sufficiently buttressed the ALJ’s analysis of the objective medical record.

When objective medical evidence alone does not establish a fully favorable decision, § 404.1529(c)(3) requires analysis of the claimant’s symptoms together with the rest of the relevant evidence and the regulatory factors.

Griffin v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-19(c)(3)

When a disability determination that would be fully favorable to the plaintiff cannot be made solely based on the objective medical evidence, an ALJ must analyze the symptoms of the plaintiff, considering the plaintiff’s statements about pain or other symptoms with the rest of the relevant evidence in the record and factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1529(c)(3) and 404.929(c)(3) and Social Security Ruling 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 (“SSR 16-3p”). ... The Court finds that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Plaintiff’s symptoms and that his determination that Plaintiff’s symptoms are not entirely consistent with the record is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective evidence to be one factor in assessing fibromyalgia symptom reports but forbids rejecting pain complaints solely because objective evidence does not support them.

Edwards v. Saul · filed 2023-06-02(c)(2)

As the Commissioner correctly contends, the ALJ was permitted to, and did, consider the extent to which these allegations were consistent with the objective medical evidence. Susan G. v. Kijakazi, No. 20 C 6110, 2023 WL 2525495, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 20213) (“[W]hen evaluating fibromyalgia or any other condition, the ALJ must not reject complaints about pain solely because of the objective evidence, but the ALJ is entitled to consider the objective evidence as one factor in evaluating a plaintiff’s subjective symptom reports.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2)). ... The ALJ did not commit reversible error in pointing out these discrepancies. ... Moreover, the ALJ did not reject Plaintiff’s statements solely based on the objective evidence but also pointed to inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s own self-reports.

Section 404.1529 does not require medical evidence proving pain severity, but objective medical evidence remains a useful indicator of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Vasquez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-06(c)(2)

Though Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ cannot require medical support to prove the severity of the pain, “[o]bjective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator . . . 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s condition improved with treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejecting subjective complaints solely for lack of objective corroboration while allowing affirmative objective inconsistencies to undercut symptom testimony when combined with other clear reasons.

Pitts v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-28(c)(2)

However, an ALJ cannot reject a claimant’s subjective complaints based solely on objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); ... “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.” ... “When objective medical evidence in the record is inconsistent with the claimant’s subjective testimony, the ALJ may indeed weigh it as undercutting such testimony. We have upheld ALJ decisions that do just that in many cases.” ... Recognizing the unresolved issue of law regarding whether injections with narcotic medication is or is not conservative treatment, the ALJ’s conclusion is nonetheless supported by the record and based on proper standards. The ALJ provides several clear and convincing reasons for partially discrediting Plaintiff’s testimony with respect to pain and its severity.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity but not to serve as the sole ground for rejecting subjective testimony.

(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-14(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.” ... Nevertheless, the largely benign physical examinations cited by the ALJ (in relevant respects such as chest tenderness, abdominal tenderness, strength, and range of motion, as well as Plaintiff’s own reported pain levels to her clinicians) tend to undermine Plaintiff’s contention of debilitating pain as well as her testimony that her pain was intermittent and reduced to a 4/10 by Tylenol and ibuprofen. ... The ALJ therefore reasonably declined to fully adopt Plaintiff’s allegations in the RFC.

At the second step of symptom evaluation, § 404.1529(c)(2)-(3) requires consideration of testimony with objective and other record evidence, and inconsistency with medical evidence and daily activities may support discounting it.

Peck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-30(c)(2)-(3)

Second, if the claimant presents such evidence, the ALJ must evaluate the claimant’s testimony in light of the objective medical evidence and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2)–(3). ... For these reasons, the ALJ properly relied on the objective medical record in rejecting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)-(4) requires consideration of objective medical evidence but forbids using its absence as the sole basis for denial; objective findings may support an adverse symptom finding when considered with treatment and clinical observations.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-13(c)(2)-(4)

To the extent Smith contends an ALJ can never consider the lack of objective evidence as a basis for rejecting a claimant’s subject complaints, she misstates the law. ... 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), it is entirely proper—it is indeed required—that the ALJ consider objective evidence in evaluating those claims. ... Here, 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 Smith’s course of treatment and observations during physical examinations.

Section 404.1529(c) permits objective signs inconsistent with alleged near-total inactivity to inform symptom severity when the adjudicator first reviews the full medical record and does not treat their absence as the sole ground.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-21(c)

To determine the credibility of allegations of disabling pain, an ALJ may consider several factors, including objective medical evidence and any inconsistencies between the allegations and the record. ... While “an individual’s statements about the intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms or about the effect the ... symptoms have on his or her ability to work may not be disregarded solely because they are not substantiated by objective medical evidence,” ... it is also the case that subjective statements by claimants as to pain or other symptoms are not alone conclusive evidence of disability and must be supported by other objective evidence. ... It was only after going through that detailed history that the ALJ noted the lack of common symptoms associated with chronic pain. ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in noting the lack of common symptoms, in addition to his recitation of the other evidence when determining the RFC.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider existing objective medical evidence together with subjective complaints, so long as objective corroboration is not effectively required.

Arrington v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-16(c)(2)

As this Court has recognized, “where objective medical evidence exists, the ALJ may consider it so long as objective evidence is not ‘effectively required.’” John O. v. Kijakazi, Civ. No. AAQ-21-01378, 2022 WL 2305255, at *5 (D. Md. June 27, 2022) (quoting Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95). As a result, “while a claimant cannot be required to prove the extent and severity of their subjective complaints with objective evidence, such evidence—if it exists—may still be considered by the ALJ to evaluate those complaints.” William J. v. Kijakazi, Civ. No. 22-2962-BAH, 2023 WL 6518118, at *5 (D. Md. Oct. 5, 2023).

Under section 404.1529(c)(2), objective evidence is useful in evaluating symptom intensity and persistence but cannot be the sole reason for disregarding subjective testimony.

Ward v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-17(c)(2)

“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on the ability to work.” 20 C.F.R § 404.1529(c)(2). However, even if it was not considered “objective” evidence “an ALJ may not disregard a claimant’s testimony solely because it is not substantiated affirmatively by objective medical evidence.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 679 (9th Cir. 2017).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars discounting symptom testimony merely because objective evidence does not support it, but objective evidence remains a relevant additional factor when the ALJ supplies other valid reasons.

McKinnon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-19(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), 416.929(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”). The ALJ recited many instances in the medical record as not supporting various aspects of Plaintiff’s testimony. This discussion was a relevant factor the ALJ could consider.

Section 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) prohibits rejection of symptom statements solely for lack of objective support and permits consideration of daily activities, treatment, and the other listed factors.

Stewart v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-19(c)(2)–(3)

However, the ALJ “will not reject [Plaintiff's] statements about the intensity and persistence of [their] pain or other symptoms or about the effect [their] symptoms have on [their] ability to work solely because the available objective medical evidence does not substantiate [their] statements.” 20 C.F-R. § 404.1529(c){2). In turn, what the ALJ will do and what the ALJ did in this case was consider Plaintiff's activities of daily living and treatment plan, among other factors according to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i-vii).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered with medical-source information when determining symptom severity and disabling effects, but objective evidence alone cannot justify rejecting symptom testimony.

Nelson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-03(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. 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, 400 F.3d at 680. 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).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to use objective evidence as a useful indicator when evaluating subjective complaints, while prohibiting rejection based solely on the absence of medical support.

Richardson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-11-06(c)(2)

While the ALJ may not discount the Plaintiff’s subjective complaints solely because the medical evidence fails to support them, he may disbelieve subjective reports that are inherently inconsistent with other evidence. Id.; see also Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 853 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Travis v. Astrue, 477 F.3d 1037, 1042 (8th Cir. 2007) (quotation and citation omitted)). Thus, when, as here, the ALJ considers the relevant factors and discredits the Plaintiff’s complaints for good reason, the decision will be upheld. Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 962 (8th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff insists that the ALJ’s reasons for discounting her complaints of pain and mental limitation are not clear, beyond his finding that they were not objectively verifiable. To the contrary, the ALJ properly considered the inconsistency between the Plaintiff’s statements and the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (ALJ may rely on objective evidence as “useful indicator” in evaluating subjective complaints).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects, but it does not allow subjective testimony to be rejected solely for lack of objective corroboration.

(SS) Quiroz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-06(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)).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform symptom severity and disabling effects, but it does not permit symptom testimony to be rejected solely because objective evidence does not support the alleged degree of severity.

Sengsavang v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-07(c)(2)

An ALJ may not discredit a claimant’s symptom testimony solely because the degree of the symptoms alleged is unsupported by objective medical evidence. Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001); Burch v. Barnhart, 400 F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2005). However, objective medical evidence is a relevant consideration 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).

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

McCafferty v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-11(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”).

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)–(4) bar denial based solely on a lack of objective substantiation but permit an ALJ to consider objective evidence together with treatment history, examination observations, therapy notes, and daily activities.

Noble Beyer v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-20(c)(2)–(4)

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), here, the ALJ properly considered the objective evidence along with a number of other factors named in the regulations, § 404.1529(c)(2)–(4), such as Noble Beyer’s course of treatment, observations during physical examinations, therapy notes, and daily activities.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection of symptom testimony solely for lack of objective corroboration but leaves medical evidence relevant to symptom severity and disabling effects.

(SS) Schilling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-22(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)).

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

(SS) Martinez Leal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-28(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)).

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(3) permits objective medical evidence to be considered in symptom evaluation but does not allow lack of objective support to be the sole reason for rejecting testimony.

Spoon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-28(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); 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.

Section 404.1529(c) allows objective findings to be considered with treatment, capabilities, activities, and provider observations, when assessing subjective mental symptoms.

Ballard v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-28(c)

Here, the ALJ followed the two-step process and complied with Fourth Circuit precedent regarding the same.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires consideration of objective evidence but prohibits making it the sole basis of the symptom-severity analysis.

Sarvar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-28(c)(2)

While the ALJ cannot rely on the objective medical evidence alone in his symptom severity analysis, the ALJ is mandated to seek and consider the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2); Gentry, 741 F.3d at 726.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars reliance solely on lack of objective evidence but permits objective evidence to be considered with other reasons.

Martin v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-29(c)(2)

Plaintiff is correct an ALJ may not rely solely on the lack of objective medical evidence to support a claimant’s statements regarding his symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection solely for lack of objective corroboration while leaving medical evidence relevant to severity and disabling effects.

Fuess v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-29(c)(2)

The ALJ properly evaluated Plaintiff’s testimony.

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

(SS) Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-10(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)).

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

(SS) Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-21(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.”

Section 404.1529(c) requires symptom assessment to consider objective evidence together with other evidence such as treatment received.

Roberson v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-05(c)

The ALJ here gave specific reasons supported by the record for finding Plaintiff’s subjective reports not entirely consistent with the overall record, including examination findings.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars rejection solely for lack of objective corroboration while leaving medical evidence relevant to severity.

(SS) Desylva v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-07(c)(2)

However, the Court finds that the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount Plaintiff’s symptom complaints.

Objective medical findings may support discounting symptom testimony when the ALJ also relies on daily activities and a conservative course of treatment rather than using objective findings alone.

Muss-Jacobs v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-10(c)(3)

However, as explained in this Opinion, the ALJ relied not only on the medical evidence, but also on Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and conservative course of treatment in coming to his conclusion.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical evidence to be considered with other reasons, such as improvement through treatment and inconsistent activities, but objective non-substantiation cannot be the sole ground for rejecting symptom testimony.

Shaffer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-22(c)(2)

As explained above, the ALJ provided valid reasons for discrediting Plaintiff’s symptom testimony aside from a lack of substantiation in the medical evidence. In addition to those reasons, the ALJ is allowed to consider inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s symptom testimony and the medical evidence. See Bray, 554 F.3d at 1227.

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to discount alleged weakness after considering objective evidence together with treatment, examination observations, daily activities, medical opinions, and hearing evidence.

Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-29(c)

For these reasons, plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ's evaluation of his subjective complaints of weakness was patently wrong.

An ALJ may find allegations about symptom severity and limiting effects less persuasive than documented improvement, conservative treatment, and positive examination findings.

Pittman v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-18

Here, the decision demonstrates that the ALJ found the evidence of Plaintiff’s continued symptom improvement, history of conservative treatment and positive examination findings more persuasive than Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the severity and limiting effects of her symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) requires consideration of objective medical evidence but prohibits using the absence of objective substantiation as the sole reason to reject symptom statements.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-12-23(c)(2)

Plaintiff suggests that such deference is not warranted here because the ALJ relied solely on objective medical evidence in evaluating her testimony regarding her symptoms. She asserts that this is inconsistent with Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and 416.929(c)(2) (“However, 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.”) (emphasis added). The problem with this argument is that the ALJ did not solely rely on the objective medical evidence in assessing Plaintiff’s subjective testimony. It is axiomatic that, although “[s]ymptoms cannot always be measured objectively through clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques,” ALJs can, and in fact must, consider such objective medical evidence when evaluating subjective testimony regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms. S.S.R. 16-3p at *5; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c) permits evaluating symptoms through multiple factors, including daily activities, objective evidence, and the course of treatment.

COOPER · filed 2026-02-23(c)

After reviewing the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not discount Denna’s allegations solely because they were unsupported by objective findings. Rather, he evaluated her symptoms in light of multiple factors identified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c) and SSR 16-3p, including daily activities, objective medical evidence, and the course of her treatment.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars denial based solely on a lack of objective substantiation but permits the lack of objective evidence to be considered with other factors when evaluating the severity of mental impairments.

Barker · filed 2026-06-16(c)(2)

Thus, an ALJ cannot deny benefits “solely because the available objective evidence does not substantiate” the claimant’s statements. ... But ALJs may consider the lack of objective evidence, “along with a host of other factors,” in determining the severity of the claimant’s mental impairments.

Section 404.1529(c) requires the evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and resulting limitations to rely in part on an assessment of the medical evidence.

Daigneau v.Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-08(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. As discussed below, the Commissioner will be required to supplement the administrative record with the currently outstanding determination that Plaintiff became disabled on August 30, 2018. The ALJ will reassess Plaintiff’s symptom statements once this determination has been associated with the record.

Section 404.1529(c) makes the evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and resulting limitations depend in part on the assessment of the medical evidence.

Graham v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-22(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. Therefore, in light of the case being remanded for the ALJ to readdress the medical source opinions in the file, a new assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements will be necessary.

Objective evidence is a necessary part of section 404.1529(c)(2)’s symptom evaluation and may reduce the weight of testimony, but lack of objective support cannot be the sole reason for rejection.

Bozicevic v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-10(c)(2)

The ALJ’s consideration of objective evidence is a necessary part of her evaluation of a claimant’s symptom testimony. … While an ALJ is permitted to reduce the weight given to a claimant’s testimony if it is unsupported by objective medical evidence, this cannot be the … sole reason the testimony is rejected.

Section 404.1529(c) makes the symptom-credibility determination depend partly on assessment of the medical evidence, so materially flawed medical-evidence findings require the symptom assessment to be redone.

Sheppard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-20(c)

In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiffs credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529(c) makes evaluation of symptom statements depend partly on assessment of medical evidence, so a materially revised medical record requires a new symptom assessment.

Shattuck v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-10(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. Therefore, in light of the case being remanded for the ALJ to readdress the medical source opinion in the file and supplement the record with missing DSHS forms, a new assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements will be necessary.

Sections 404.1529(c)(3) and (4) require consideration of medical-source evidence in evaluating symptom intensity, persistence, and limiting effects, so a flawed medical-opinion analysis necessarily affects the symptom analysis.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-10(c)(3)–(4)

The ALJ’s evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms in turn requires the ALJ to consider medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)-(4) (requiring the ALJ to consider evidence from medical sources when evaluating the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of symptoms); SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *6-7. When the ALJ conducts a flawed evaluation of medical opinion evidence, it necessarily impacts the ALJ’s evaluation of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)-(4); see also, e.g., Anne F., 2020 WL 6882777, at *13; Christopher B. v. Saul, No. 8:19-CV-00905 (BKS), 2020 WL 5587266, at *19 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 18, 2020).

Section 404.1529(c) makes the symptom-credibility determination depend partly on the medical-evidence assessment, requiring reassessment when material medical findings are remanded.

Nusbaum v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(c)

In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, plaintiff’s credibility should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to compare subjective symptoms with objective evidence and discount inconsistencies alongside other permissible reasons, but absent objective support cannot be the sole reason.

Mason v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-15(c)(1)-(3)

Alongside 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)(3) requires medical-source evidence concerning the nature and severity of impairments and related pain to be considered in evaluating symptoms.

Van Buskirk v. Saul · filed 2022-02-15(c)(3)

And the regulations make clear that these opinions must be considered in evaluating symptoms such as pain.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits objective medical findings to be considered when evaluating subjective complaints.

Parker v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-01(c)(2)

However, the ALJ appropriately considered that Plaintiff’s examinations also revealed that she interacted appropriately and cooperatively with treatment providers, was polite and engaging, maintained good eye contact, and was alert, oriented, and in no distress with intact or fair memory, appropriate and bright affect, euthymic mood, normal speech and thought process, intact or fair attention and focus, appropriate or fair judgment and insight, average fund of knowledge, coordinated motor activity, and no thoughts of harming herself or others (Tr. 16-17, 360-62, 387, 390, 611-12, 644, 658, 661-64, 666, 668, 671-72, 674, 682, 684). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2), 416.929(c)(2) (objective medical evidence properly considered in evaluating subjective complaints); Vance v. Berryhill, 860 F.3d 1114, 1120 (8th Cir. 2017) (ALJ properly concluded “that the objective medical evidence did not support [the claimant’s] allegations”).

When objective evidence alone does not support a fully favorable decision, § 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of claimant statements, medical-source evidence, nonmedical-source statements, daily activities, medication, treatment, and other relevant factors.

Carter v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

If the ALJ cannot make a “fully favorable” decision on this inquiry based solely on available objective evidence, the ALJ must consider “other evidence,” which includes: (1) the claimant’s statements to medical or other sources about their symptoms; (2) opinions, statements, and/or diagnoses given by medical sources; (3) relevant statements from non-medical sources, like agency personnel; and (4) factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (i.e., daily activities, aggravating factors, history of medication use and its efficacy, other treatments pursued, or any other factors relevant to a claimant’s functional limitations).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires careful consideration of other symptom evidence when symptoms suggest greater severity than objective evidence alone shows.

Diamond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

Because symptoms sometimes suggest a greater severity of impairment than can be shown by objective medical evidence alone, we will carefully consider any other information you may submit about your symptoms.

Sections 404.1529(c)(2)–(3) distinguish objective medical evidence from other medical-record evidence such as treatment and reported efficacy, so relying only on medical records is not necessarily relying solely on objective evidence.

(SS) Razaqi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-09(c)(2), (3)

An ALJ may not rely solely on objective medical evidence in rejecting pain testimony. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2). Objective medical evidence is not a catchall category that includes all facts ascertained from the medical records. Rather, the regulations draw a distinction between objective medical evidence and “other” evidence. “Objective medical evidence is evidence obtained from the application of medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, such as evidence of reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption.” Id. “Other” evidence includes, for example, a claimant’s treatment regimen and statements regarding the efficacy thereof. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). In short, the fact that an ALJ relies exclusively on information ascertained from medical records does not mean the ALJ relied solely on “objective evidence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(1)–(2) permits inconsistency with objective medical evidence to be considered when evaluating symptom testimony, and treats objective evidence as an indicator of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Reyes v. Saul · filed 2022-06-02(c)(1)–(2)

An ALJ may consider inconsistency between a claimant’s symptom testimony and the objective medical evidence in the record in determining whether to discount the claimant’s symptom testimony. ... Objective medical evidence “is a useful indicator . . . [of] the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms and the effect those symptoms, such as pain, may have on [a claimant’s] ability to work.”

Because § 404.1529(c)’s symptom evaluation relies in part on the assessment of medical evidence, the ALJ must reassess symptom statements when a remand requires reanalysis of medical-source opinions.

Desanto v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-06(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. Therefore, in light of the case being remanded for the ALJ to readdress the medical source opinions in the file, a new assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements will be necessary.

Section 404.1529(a) requires consideration of the claimant’s symptom statements and source descriptions of how those symptoms affect daily activities and the ability to work.

Rzepczynski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-16(a)

However, the regulations require the ALJ to consider all a claimant’s statements about his symptoms, as well as any descriptions medical sources or nonmedical sources provide about how the symptoms affect the claimant’s activities of daily living and the ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, App’x 1, § 12.00F(3)(b) (“Information about your daily functioning can help us understand whether your mental disorder limits one or more of these areas; and, if so, whether it also affects your ability to function in a work setting.”).

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ evaluating symptom intensity and persistence to consider all evidence, including work history, claimant statements, medical-source evidence, and other persons' observations.

Artrip v. SSA · filed 2022-12-01(a), (c)(3)

During the second step, the Administrative Law Judge must “consider all the evidence presented,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), including information about [the claimant’s] prior work record, [his] statements about [his] other symptoms, evidence submitted by [his] medical sources, and observations by . . . other persons[.]” Id. at § 404.1529(c)(3). ... Here, the Administrative Law Judge’s determination is undoubtedly supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ at the second step to consider all evidence, including work history, claimant statements, medical-source evidence, and other persons' observations.

Noe v. SSA · filed 2023-03-06(a), (c)(3)

During the second step, the Administrative Law Judge must “consider all the evidence presented,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), including information about [the claimant’s] prior work record, [her] statements about [her] other symptoms, evidence submitted by [her] medical sources, and observations by . . . other persons[.]” Id. at § 404.1529(c)(3).

Sections 404.1529(c)(2) and (c)(3)(iv)–(v) permit an ALJ to discount alleged disabling mental symptoms using normal mental-status findings and conservative treatment, so long as objective evidence is not the sole basis.

(SS) Gordon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-17(c)(2), (c)(3)(iv)–(v)

The ALJ permissibly rejected plaintiff’s subjective testimony regarding his pain and ... impairments.

An ALJ determining RFC must consider the seven symptom factors together with medical history, medical signs, source statements, work attempts, and lay evidence.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26(c)(3)

In doing so, the ALJ considers evidence such as the claimant’s medical history; medical signs and laboratory findings; medical source statements; daily activities; evidence from attempts to work; lay evidence; recorded observations; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of the claimant’s pain or other symptoms; the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication or other treatment the claimant takes or has taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication, the claimant receives or has received for relief of pain or other symptoms; any measures the claimant uses or has used to relieve pain or symptoms; and any other factors concerning the claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 404.1545(a)(3), 416.929(c)(3)(i)-(vii), 416.945(a)(3).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider a lack of corroborating objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity of fibromyalgia symptoms, but not as the sole basis for discrediting the claimant’s symptom reports.

McBride v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-31(c)(2)

However, this argument is inconsistent with the plain language of the Social Security Act and the aforementioned regulations and guidance, which instruct the ALJs to consider such objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2) (“reduced joint motion, muscle spasm, sensory deficit or motor disruption” to be considered when assessing the severity of a claimant’s fibromyalgia symptoms); SRR 16-3 (same). ... While it is true that the lack of supporting objective medical evidence cannot be the sole basis for discrediting a claimant’s reported fibromyalgia symptoms, it can still be properly considered as one of the factors weighing in the ALJ’s overall assessment as to the severity of those symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) bars an adjudicator from rejecting a claimant’s statements about the intensity, persistence, and work effects of symptoms solely because objective medical evidence does not substantiate them.

Schwab v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-02(c)(2)

The above explanation shows the ALJ placed undue emphasis on the absence of objective signs and symptoms and failed to cite sufficient evidence for rejecting Plaintiff’s subjective allegations in contravention of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, SSRs 12-2p and 16-3p, and the Fourth Circuit’s holding in .

Section 404.1529(a) makes medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and the claimant’s statements about symptom effects relevant to the symptom assessment.

Miley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-22(a)

Relevant evidence includes a claimant’s medical history, medical signs, laboratory findings, and statements about how the symptoms affect the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5. ... The ALJ complied with the regulations by: (1) expressly considering all of Miley’s symptoms in light of the medical evidence, other evidence, and Miley’s statements regarding her symptoms; and (2) clearly explaining that she rejected Miley’s subjective symptom complaints because her statements regarding the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of her symptoms were not consistent with the objective evidence.

Subsection (c)(4) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion less weight when specific facts in the record are inconsistent with the opinion.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-22(c)(4)

An ALJ may accord medical opinion evidence less deference when she identifies facts in the record inconsistent with the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (requiring the ALJ consider inconsistencies in the record); cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2) (“The more consistent a medical opinion . . . is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) . . . will be.”).

Subsections (c)(2) and (c)(3)(v) permit an ALJ to evaluate alleged symptom severity using objective medical evidence and the nature and effect of treatment.

Hurrelbrink v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-09-22(c)(2), (c)(3)(v)

The ALJ also appropriately reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s treatment history and the objective medical evidence, which he found were not entirely consistent with her subjective complaints [Id. at 21]. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(2) (“Objective medical evidence . . . is a useful indicator to assist us in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of your symptoms and the effect those symptoms . . . may have on your ability to work.”), -(3)(v) (directing consideration of the effect of the treatment, other than medication, that a claimant received when considering the severity of alleged symptoms). The Court finds the ALJ ... appropriately considered the inconsistencies between Plaintiff’s subjective allegations and her treatment history and with the objective medical evidence when discounting her subjective complaints. See, e.g., Temples v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 515 F. App’x 460, 462 (6th Cir. 2013) (“The ALJ reasonably discounted [Plaintiff’s] testimony concerning the severity of her pain because her testimony was inconsistent with the medical evidence in the record.”).

Subsection (c)(2) makes objective medical evidence a useful indicator of symptom intensity, persistence, and work effects.

Ramos v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-06-05(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.”

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating symptoms, but an ALJ may not disregard reported symptoms solely because that evidence does not confirm them.

Hightower v. Colvin · filed 2018-01-11(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s better credibility argument is the assertion that the ALJ ran afoul of the well- known principle in Social Security disability litigation that, although ALJs may consider the objective evidence, they may not disregard subjective allegations “solely” because they are not confirmed by objective medical evidence. ... After carefully analyzing the ALJ’s decision, this Court is uncertain whether the ALJ considered these other 96-7p factors. For this reason, the case must be remanded.

Section 404.1529 requires adjudicators to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms; mixed findings may support some alleged limitations without supporting their alleged degree.

Severson v. Saul · filed 2020-03-10(a), (c)

Given those mixed findings, the ALJ reasonably determined that the medical evidence supported some of Severson’s allegations but not to the degree she alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a), (c) (requiring adjudicators to consider the objective medical evidence in evaluating an individual’s symptoms); see also SSR 16-3p (same).

Section 404.1529(c) permits an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence alongside other evidence when evaluating symptoms, but a lack of objective evidence alone cannot discredit a claimant’s statements.

Butler v. Saul · filed 2022-01-14(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. ... The ALJ’s decision in this regard is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c) does not permit an ALJ to reject a claimant’s statements about symptoms solely because objective medical evidence is lacking.

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

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

Lack of supporting objective medical evidence alone cannot justify rejecting a claimant’s statements about symptoms.

Call v. Saul · filed 2020-05-22(c)(2)

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 on remand.

Section 404.1529(c) makes medical evidence part of the evaluation of a claimant’s symptoms and resulting limitations.

Trenidad v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-16(c)

The evaluation of a claimant’s symptom statements and their resulting limitations relies, in part, on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c), 416.929(c); S.S.R. 16-3p. Therefore, in light of the case being remanded for the ALJ to readdress the medical source opinions in the file, a new assessment of Plaintiff’s subjective symptom statements will be necessary.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits consideration of medical source statements when evaluating a claimant’s symptoms.

(SS) Kirk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-13(c)(4)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (statements from medical sources are a valid source when evaluating claimant’s symptoms). ... Rather, she set forth why the objective medical evidence, prior administrative medical findings, independent daily activities showing mental and physical functionality, and periods of medication noncompliance and substance abuse, undermined plaintiff’s testimony of debilitating mental and physical impairments. Because the ALJ used the proper process and provided proper reasons, the undersigned defers to her discretion on this issue.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) makes the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication relevant to evaluating subjective symptoms; an ALJ’s failure to mention a medication does not require reversal when it would not change the findings.

Shockley v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-29(c)(3)(iv)

Although medication type, dosage, effectiveness, and side ... effects are among the evidence used to evaluate subjective complaints of pain, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv), 416.929(c)(3)(iv), Mr. Shockley has not suggested (nor can we surmise, in view of the record as a whole) why the ALJ’s credibility or RFC findings would have been any different had the ALJ also mentioned any of the other medications, which Mr. Shockley said caused no side effects.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider objective medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s reported symptoms.

Orndorff v. Colvin · filed 2016-04-13

The ALJ is instructed to evaluate the objective .medical evidence in evaluating Plaintiffs credibility.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) makes objective medical evidence and medical source information relevant to evaluating the severity and disabling effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Garza v. Saul · filed 2021-01-15(c)(2)

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).

Section 404.1529(c)(2) permits consideration of objective medical evidence when evaluating the severity and effects of a claimant’s symptoms, but a lack of corroboration alone does not justify rejecting reported pain.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-21(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’s lack of follow through with surgery for his ankle condition, the mixed findings on examination, and Plaintiff’s self-reported activities were clear and convincing reasons for rejecting his subjective symptomology.

Objective medical evidence helps assess the intensity and effects of symptoms, but a lack of supporting objective evidence alone cannot justify rejecting a claimant’s statements.

Hastings v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(c)(2)

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

Subsection (c)(2) allows an ALJ to use medical findings as indicators of the intensity, persistence, and work-related effects of a claimant’s symptoms.

Gill v. Saul · filed 2023-10-18(c)(2)

The ALJ was entitled to rely on these doctors’ findings regarding plaintiff’s memory and attention, which under the regulations are “useful indicator[s] to assist [the ALJ] in making reasonable conclusions about the intensity and persistence of [plaintiff’s] symptoms and the effect those symptoms . . . may have on [her] ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of medical evidence when evaluating a claimant’s statements about symptoms and limitations.

Heidal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-27(c)

In addition, a determination of a claimant’s credibility relies in part on the assessment of the medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c). Therefore, Plaintiff’s statements about symptoms and limitations, with respect to mental conditions and physical conditions, should be assessed anew following remand of this matter.

Section 404.1529(c)(2) allows objective medical evidence to inform the assessment of a claimant’s symptoms without making that evidence conclusive.

Avina v. SSA Commissioner · filed 2025-10-10(c)(2)

While objective evidence is not the end-all when considering a claimant’s subjective complaints, it is still a useful indication of the intensity and persistence of alleged symptoms.

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

Ramirez v. Saul · filed 2021-06-10(c)(4)

Plaintiff’s inconsistent reporting of such a serious side effect provides another clear and convincing reason, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting her testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence ….”); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1112 (“In evaluating the claimant’s testimony, ... the ALJ may consider inconsistencies either in the claimant’s testimony or between the testimony and the claimant’s conduct ....”).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ evaluating subjective complaints to consider inconsistencies within the evidence and conflicts between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the record.

Van Bourgondien v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-16(c)(4)

The ALJ discredited Plaintiff's testimony, in part, because Plaintiff was not forthcoming about his drug use and his testimony was inconsistent. (T. 21.) Inconsistencies in the record may be considered in assessing an individual's subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4) (“We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your treating or nontreating source or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.”). Overall, in making her determination the ALJ considered objective medical evidence, Plaintiff's testimony regarding his activities of daily living; medical treatment received, including medications; and Plaintiff's testimony regarding what he could still do despite his impairments. (T. 20-21.)

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

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(c)(4)

In considering a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ may consider whether any inconsistencies exist in the evidence and the extent to which any conflicts exist between a claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires the ALJ to consider inconsistencies and conflicts between symptom statements and the claimant’s history, objective findings, and statements from other sources.

Breedlove v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-22(c)(4)

Notably, in considering a claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ considers both inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent ... to which any conflicts exist between the claimant’s statements and the rest of the evidence, including the claimant’s history, signs and laboratory findings, and statements by treating or nontreating sources or other persons about how the symptoms affect the claimant.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) requires symptom statements to be evaluated against objective and other evidence, including inconsistencies and conflicts with history, medical findings, and statements from medical or other sources.

Johnston v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-06(c)(4)

We will consider your statements about the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of your symptoms, and we will evaluate your statements in relation to the objective medical evidence and other evidence, in reaching a conclusion as to whether you are disabled. We will consider whether there are any inconsistencies in the evidence and the extent to which there are any conflicts between your statements and the rest of the evidence, including your history, the signs and laboratory findings, and statements by your medical sources or other persons about how your symptoms affect you.

Section 404.1529 requires evaluation of symptoms against objective and other evidence, including regulatory factors and inconsistencies, but varying reports do not automatically establish inconsistency.

Christopher v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26(a), (c)(3)-(4)

§ 404.1529(a), (c)(3). ALJs also consider any inconsistencies in the evidence or conflicts with other statements and evidence. Id. § 404.1529(c)(4). Varying symptom reports do not, by themselves, necessarily indicate there are inaccuracies as symptoms themselves can vary over time. SSR 16-3p, 82 Fed. Reg. 49,462, 49,466 (Oct. 25, 2017).

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits rejection of symptom testimony that conflicts with medical evidence, including contemporaneous reports to doctors that medication improved the symptoms.

Barkley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-25(c)(4)

An ALJ may reject symptom testimony that is inconsistent with the medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(4), 416.929(c)(4). Inconsistences can arise when a plaintiff’s statements about symptoms are contradicted by a doctor’s report of improvement with medication. ... Plaintiff consistently reported to his doctors that the Stelara and iron infusions—when timely received—helped with his symptoms and fatigue, which directly contradicts his testimony that he did not see improvement from either treatment.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount symptom testimony based on specifically identified conflicts with medical findings, reported daily activities, inconsistent accounts of seizure frequency, and the absence of documented mental deterioration.

Gallagher v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-18(c), (c)(3)

When discrepancies existed, the ALJ resolved them with explicit, logical explanations supported by the record. The ALJ identified articulated five different reasons for discounting Gallagher’s testimony—inconsistent objective findings, documented physical abilities, daily activities, inconsistent reports of seizure frequency, and lack of evidence of mental deterioration. (Doc. 5 at 24.) The ALJ did not substitute personal opinion for that of a medical professional but rather relied on the objective analysis of multiple qualified sources, and cited specific treatment records and observations instead of generalized inferences.

An ALJ may consider failure to follow recommended treatment, daily activities, and functional restrictions when assessing subjective symptom complaints.

Nunemacher v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-26(c)(3)

The Polaski factors include (1) the claimant's daily activities; (2) the duration, frequency and intensity of the pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) functional restrictions. Polaski, 739 F.2d at 1322; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... The ALJ appropriately considered plaintiff’s failure to follow the recommended course of treatment, including during periods when he was able to afford his medication. ... The ALJ’s assessment of plaintiff’s subjective complaints is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(iv) through (vi) permits noncompliance with treatment that might improve symptoms to be considered when evaluating intensity and persistence.

Borton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-25(c)(3)(iv)–(vi)

The regulations provide that “if the individual fails to follow prescribed treatment that might improve symptoms, [the ALJ] may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual's symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record.” SSR 16-3P, 2017 WL 5180304, at *9 (Oct. 2, 2017); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(iv)–(vi), 416.929(c)(3)(iv)–(vi).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of treatment when evaluating symptoms, and treatment noncompliance cannot support discounting a mentally impaired claimant’s complaints without considering whether the mental impairment caused the noncompliance.

Girard v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-25(c)(3)

The social security regulations inform claimants that in evaluating subjective complaints, the Commissioner will consider the following relevant factors: (i) Your daily activities; (ii) The location, duration, frequency, and intensity of your pain or other symptoms; (iii) Precipitating and aggravating factors; (iv) The type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; (v) Treatment, other than medication, you receive or have received for relief of your pain or other symptoms; (vi) Any measures you use or have used to relieve your pain or other symptoms (e.g., lying flat on your back, standing for 15 to 20 minutes every hour, sleeping on a board, etc.); and (vii) Other factors concerning your functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3). ... Moreover, in evaluating Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the ALJ failed to consider Plaintiff’s mental impairments as a reason for her non-compliance. See SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *9 (“We will not find an individual’s symptoms inconsistent with the evidence in the record on this basis without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.”). ... In the instant case, despite the thorough review of the medical records and medical opinions, the ALJ neither explained nor even acknowledged that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with treatment could be a symptom of her mental impairments. Due to this omission, the court cannot find the ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints to be supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court recommends that this matter be remanded for further consideration of Plaintiff’s mental impairments.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(v) permits treatment history to inform symptom evaluation, but an ALJ may not discount symptoms for noncompliance without distinguishing prescribed treatment from recommended options and considering the claimant’s reasons and pursuit of alternative treatment.

Dotson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-17(c)(3)(v)

In general, it is appropriate for the ALJ to consider a claimant’s treatment (other than medication) in evaluating his or her symptoms and pain, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v), and a claimant must follow prescribed treatment in order to obtain benefits absent good reason. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1530. The record, however, indicates that these were only recommended treatment options. ... It was improper for the ALJ to discount plaintiff’s subjective allegations based on his alleged noncompliance with physical therapy and home exercise program recommendations without considering plaintiff’s continued pursuit of treatment for his bilateral hip and shoulder symptoms and the reasons plaintiff opted to forego certain treatment recommendations in favor of others.

Section 404.1529(c)(4) permits an ALJ to treat a claimant's failure to follow recommended treatment that may improve symptoms as undermining allegations of disabling symptoms.

Ferguson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-11(c)(4)

The ALJ also appropriately noted that plaintiff had failed to follow-up with recommended aquatic therapy despite stating that she found a treatment location close to her home, which undermines her claims of disabling symptoms. (Tr. 976, referring to Tr. 899; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(4); Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p (“[I]f the individual fails to follow prescribed treatment that may improve symptoms, we may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record.”)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits treatment noncompliance to weigh against alleged symptom intensity and persistence after possible reasons are considered, and a mental impairment does not excuse noncompliance without evidence expressly linking the two.

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

In addition to this evidence, the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1529(c)(3) are considered. 2017 WL 5180304, *7-8. Those factors include daily activities; location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain or other symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate the symptoms; type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; treatment, other than medication for relief of pain or other symptoms; measures other than treatment a claimant uses to relieve pain or other symptoms, e.g., lying flat on one’s back; and any other factors pertaining to a claimant’s functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id. ... Furthermore, SSR 16-3p explains that an individual’s failure “to follow prescribed treatment that might improve symptoms” may be a basis for finding “the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record.” 2017 WL 5180304, * 9. Such a finding will not be made “without considering possible reasons [the individual] may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.” Id. ... However, for the reasons discussed herein, the Court finds that Borden has not shown that the ALJ ignored evidence when assessing Borden’s subjective allegations nor has she demonstrated that the record contains “evidence expressly linking [her] noncompliance with [her] severe mental impairment.” Burge, 2013 WL 6837192, * 3 (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, the Court finds that reversal and remand is not warranted for further analysis of Borden’s subjective allegations regarding her mental health impairments.

The amount of treatment is relevant to symptom intensity and persistence under section 404.1529(c)(3), but conservative or limited treatment is not a proper reason to reject symptoms when the claimant has a good reason for it.

Dulany v. Commisioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-09(c)(3)

The amount of treatment is “an important indicator of the intensity and persistence of [a claimant’s] symptoms.” ... If, however, the claimant has a good reason for not seeking more aggressive treatment, conservative treatment is not a proper basis for rejecting the claimant’s subjective symptoms.

Section 404.1529’s symptom evaluation does not permit inferring mild symptoms from failure to seek or comply with treatment without first considering the claimant’s explanations, including whether mental impairments interfered with treatment.

Bollock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-31(c)

While it is possible for the ALJ to infer the lack of medical treatment for Bollock’s mental impairments is due to the lack of severity of her symptoms, the ALJ is charged with inquiring and addressing the reasons before reaching such a conclusion.

When relying on treatment noncompliance or conservative treatment to discount symptoms, an ALJ must consider the claimant’s explanations and develop the record as necessary.

Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-07(c)(3)

Id. at *7-8; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). The ALJ is not required to discuss every factor in every case—for example, if there is no evidence regarding one of the factors, that factor will not be discussed because it is not relevant to the case. ... The ALJ’s heavy reliance on Plaintiff’s noncompliance and conservative treatment, coupled with the ALJ’s failure to develop the record and consider any of Plaintiff’s reasons for not complying with treatment or seeking treatment consistent with the degree of his complaints, violates applicable Social Security rules and regulations, and constitutes reversible error.

Before using noncompliance with prescribed treatment to find alleged symptom intensity and persistence inconsistent, the ALJ must consider possible reasons the claimant did not comply or seek treatment matching the alleged complaints.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-13(c)(3)(v)

Further, “if the individual fails to follow prescribed treatment that might improve symptoms, [the ALJ] may find the alleged intensity and persistence of an individual’s symptoms are inconsistent with the overall evidence of record.” Id. at *9. However, an ALJ “will not find an individual’s symptoms inconsistent [] on this basis without considering possible reasons he or she may not comply with treatment or seek treatment consistent with the degree of his or her complaints.” Id. An ALJ may even need to “contact the individual regarding the lack of treatment or, at an administrative proceeding, ask why he or she has not complied with or sought treatment in a manner consistent with his or her complaints.” Id.

Treatment and noncompliance may be considered as symptom-severity factors when evaluated in context, including whether a lapse was the claimant’s fault.

Duenes v. Saul · filed 2022-07-25(c)(3)(v)

The ALJ specifically acknowledged, as Plaintiff now points out, [Pl.’s Mem. at 15], that at least on one occasion non-compliance was not Plaintiff’s fault as the prescription was incorrectly written. [R. 25 n.3.] The ALJ’s analysis, rather than faulting Plaintiff for lapses in medication or relying too heavily on the type of treatment she received, properly considered Plaintiff’s treatment as a factor that suggested her symptoms were less severe than she alleged. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(v).

An ALJ may not draw an adverse symptom inference from treatment noncompliance without considering explanations, including whether a mental impairment affects the claimant’s understanding, awareness, memory, or judgment.

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

SSR 16-3p recognizes that an individual’s mental impairments and limitations may prevent an individual from understanding the need for consistent treatment, or may affect the individual’s judgment to the point she is unaware she has a disorder which requires treatment. 2017 WL 5180304 at *10. In those circumstances, the ALJ should not rely on a claimant’s treatment history to draw an adverse inference about the severity of his or her symptoms. The ALJ did not acknowledge, much less address, Plaintiff’s or Ms. Parson’s explanations for medication noncompliance in his evaluation of symptom severity. (Doc. 8-2, PageID 56.) Thus, the ALJ did not comply with SSR 16-3p.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits unexplained treatment noncompliance to weigh against symptom allegations when the record shows the claimant knowingly continued conduct that worsened symptoms and interfered with medication.

Cave v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-08-30(c)(3)

It is well-established that unexplained non-compliance with treatment may be considered in evaluating a claimant’s symptom claims. ... The ALJ observed the record documents ongoing alcohol abuse/dependence, and that providers have indicated that his poor sleep and alcohol use were likely contributing to Plaintiff’s irritability and emotional dysregulation and were interfering with medications when he takes them. ... He admitted to self-medicating with up to 12 beers a day even though his providers told him it makes his symptoms worse. ... The ALJ found Plaintiff is not taking steps to improve his symptoms, suggesting that his symptoms are not as bad as alleged. ... This is a clear and convincing reason supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) permits consideration of failure to follow treatment recommendations as other evidence even when the doctor counseled rather than formally prescribed the measures.

Smith v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-23(c)(3)

Whatever the daylight between the two, both qualify as “other” medical evidence an ALJ may consider when evaluating a Plaintiff’s symptoms, including pain. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3) (“Consideration of other evidence”).

Sections 404.1529(c)(3)–(4) require symptom findings to rest on accurate evidence; an unsupported premise that the claimant was medication-noncompliant taints the whole analysis.

Jensen v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-13(c)(3)–(4)

Here, the court finds the ALJ’s analysis is flawed by the unsupported notion that Plaintiff was non-compliant with medication. In reviewing the record carefully, the court finds no evidence of Plaintiff’s non-compliance with medication. Starting from that improper premise undermines an examination of Plaintiff’s subjective symptoms and taints the review of the medical record.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to consider failure to follow prescribed treatment when evaluating reported symptoms without making the findings required to deny benefits under § 404.1530.

Allred v. O'Malley · filed 2022-03-23

Rather, the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s noncompliance under the first method as part of the symptom evaluation pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and SSR 16-3p (see Tr. 17).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the adjudicator identifies the specific evidence used to evaluate the consistency of the claimant's complaints.

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

If the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1167 (quotations omitted). ... In sum, the ALJ’s discussion of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints and the objective evidence satisfies 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3), 416.929(c)(3), and SSR 16-3, and any possible error in omission of the third-party report from the ALJ’s decision was harmless.

An ALJ need not discuss every symptom factor methodically if the decision acknowledges and examines the pertinent factors before discounting subjective allegations.

Fendley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-04-03(c)(3)

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective allegations of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations.

An ALJ must analyze the symptom factors but need not discuss each one methodically if the decision acknowledges and examines them before discounting complaints.

Childres v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-08-30(c)(3)

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints.

An ALJ need not discuss every symptom factor but cannot reject symptom intensity and persistence solely because they conflict with objective medical records.

Stubblefield v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-19(c)(2)

Importantly, “an ALJ need not explicitly discuss each [Polaski] factor.” Id. (citing Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 558 (8th Cir. 2011)). ... However, an ALJ must not reject a claimant’s subjective statements about the intensity and persistence of pain solely because of inconsistency with the objective medical records. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(2).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires analysis only of symptom factors germane to the alleged symptoms, but the assessment must show that all relevant evidence was considered.

Jones v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-08(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to analyze all seven factors, but only those that are germane to the alleged symptoms. See, e.g., Cross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 373 F. Supp.2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (“The ALJ need not analyze all seven factors identified in the regulation but should provide enough assessment to assure a reviewing court that he or she considered all relevant evidence.”).

An ALJ need not discuss every symptom factor individually when the decision considers the factors pertinent to the record and permits meaningful review.

Wisdom v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-04(c)(3)

That some factors were included within the ALJ’s discussion of the medical records does not mean the ALJ only considered objective medical evidence. See Parker v. Colvin, No. 8:12-cv-1919-T-24, 2013 WL 3209443, at *11 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2013) (“there is no reason to require a law judge to discuss each of the § 404.1529(c)(3) factors in his decision”). Indeed, SSR 16-3p makes clear that the ALJ “will discuss the factors pertinent to the evidence of record,” which the ALJ did here.

An ALJ assessing subjective symptoms must consider the listed evidentiary factors but need not discuss every record detail for every factor.

Alexander-Bond v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-08(c)

When assessing a claimant’s subjective symptom allegations, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the objective medical evidence, the claimant’s daily activities, his level of pain or symptoms, aggravating factors, medication, course of treatment, and functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c); SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *5, 7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017). “An ALJ need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor,” but an ALJ may not ignore an entire line of evidence contrary to her ruling.

Section 404.1529(c) does not require an ALJ to expressly discuss every listed factor when the assessment of subjective complaints is otherwise supported by substantial evidence.

EDGHILL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-06-15(c)

Plaintiff’s argument is not well taken. As a preliminary matter, “[t]he fact that the ALJ did not discuss all of the § 404.1529 factors does not warrant remand, given that his credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.” Lewis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. CV 15-1587, 2016 WL 4718215, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2016) (noting that the ALJ discussed the claimant’s daily activities, duration of alleged pain, and type of medication). Moreover, as previously discussed, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to acknowledge and examine the applicable symptom-evaluation factors before discounting subjective complaints, but does not require a mechanical discussion of each factor.

Hawkins v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-06-16(c)(3)

The Court notes that in assessing the credibility of a claimant, the ALJ is required to examine and to apply the five factors from Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320 (8th Cir. 1984) or from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529 and 20 C.F.R. § 416.929. ... The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints. ... In the present action, the Court finds the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subject complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) calls for consideration of relevant symptom factors, but an ALJ need not discuss a factor when the record contains no evidence regarding it.

Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-19(c)(3)

In addition to all of the evidence, the ALJ should consider multiple factors such as “the claimant’s daily activities; the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of symptoms; factors that precipitate and aggravate symptoms; [and] the type, dosage, effectiveness and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate symptoms…” Id. at *7-8; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). However, not every factor will be discussed in every case. If there is no evidence regarding one of the factors, that factor will not be addressed in the assessment. Soc. Sec. R. 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, at *8. ... In sum, substantial evidence supports the assessment of Plaintiff’s statements about the limiting effects of her symptoms. Her statements were reasonably accommodated in her residual functional capacity to the extent that they were consistent with the objective medical evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff’s asserted error is without merit.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ links the assessment of a claimant’s symptom statements to specific evidence in the record.

Martin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-23(c)(3)

The factors the ALJ should consider in determining whether a claimant’s pain is in fact disabling include: the claimant’s attempts to find relief and willingness to try any treatment prescribed; a claimant’s regular contact with a doctor; the possibility that psychological disorders combine with physical problems; the claimant’s daily activities; and the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of the claimant's medication. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1167 (10th Cir. 2012); see also SSR 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304 at *7-8 (Oct. 25, 2017) (listing similar factors); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). ... As long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence relied upon to evaluate the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.” ... Here, based on the Court’s review of the ALJ’s determinations, the Court finds the ALJ did precisely what was required by identifying a number of inconsistencies in the record. ... Although Plaintiff appears to want the ALJ to perform “a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence,” this is not what is required.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of symptom-evaluation factors, and an ALJ need discuss only those pertinent to the record.

Simonet v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ failed to indicate in what ways Plaintiff’s symptoms are not entirely consistent and that the ALJ failed to address all of the § 404.1529 factors. But § 404.1529 contains a non-exhaustive list of factors, and the ALJ is only required to discuss the factors “pertinent to the evidence of record.”

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider daily activities and all record evidence when evaluating symptom intensity and persistence, but not to address every factor explicitly.

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

Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertions, an ALJ is charged with considering both a claimant’s daily activities and “all of the evidence” in the record when assessing the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of a claimant’s symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529; Foote, 67 F.3d at 1561–62. The fact that the ALJ may not have addressed each factor explicitly in his decision is irrelevant, see Chatham, 764 F. App’x at 868, as even the Plaintiff concedes in his memorandum (Doc. 33 at 23).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) adds treatment other than medication and measures used to relieve symptoms to the symptom-evaluation factors, but this court did not require separate analysis of those factors under controlling Eighth Circuit precedent.

Bromsy v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-10-04(c)(3)

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

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of objective evidence, work history, daily activities, symptom characteristics, medication, and functional restrictions, but the ALJ need not discuss how every factor relates to the claimant’s allegations.

Payne v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-07(c)

“When evaluating a claimant's subjective complaints of pain, the ALJ must consider 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 pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the claimant's functional restrictions.” Id. (citing Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). However, “the ALJ's decision need not include a discussion of how every Polaski factor relates to the claimant's credibility.” Casey v. Astrue, 502 F.3d 687, 695 (8th Cir. 2007) (citing Tucker v. Barnhart, 363 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2004)).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of symptom-evaluation factors but does not require an ALJ to mechanically discuss every factor when the decision otherwise supports the symptom assessment.

Keller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-08(c)(3)

The ALJ explicitly discussed some of these factors in his opinion in making the determination as to the extent of Plaintiff’s impairments, namely Plaintiff’s daily activities, such as her ability to cook, clean, use a bus, and at times maintain personal hygiene, finding these activities contradicted Plaintiff’s claim of extreme limitations. (Tr. 21.) Insofar as the ALJ failed to discuss some of these factors, this was not reversible error. The evaluation of a claimant’s subjective symptoms “is a task particularly within the province of the ALJ who has had an opportunity to observe whether the person seems to be disabled.” Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 480 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation omitted). “The ALJ is not required to mechanically follow every guiding regulatory factor in articulating reason for denying claims or weighing credibility.” Clary v. Barnhart, 214 Fed. App’x 479, 482 (Sth Cir. 2007).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ identifies the specific evidence used to evaluate whether subjective complaints are consistent with the record.

Smith v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-18(c)(3)

However, so long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the consistency of the claimant’s subjective complaints with other evidence, the ALJ “need not make a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires analysis of the symptom factors but not a methodical discussion of each one, and subjective complaints cannot be discounted solely because objective evidence does not fully support them.

Malliard v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

The factors must be analyzed and considered in light of the claimant’s subjective complaints of pain. See id. The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints. ... The ALJ, however, cannot discount Plaintiff’s subjective complaints “solely because the objective medical evidence does not fully support them [the subjective complaints].”

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of objective evidence, work history, activities, symptom characteristics, medication, and functional restrictions, but does not require separate discussion of each factor.

Guetzloff v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-05(c)

When an ALJ evaluates subjective complaints, the ALJ “must consider 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 pain; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of medication; and (5) the claimant’s functional restrictions.” Schwandt v. Berryhill, 926 F.3d 1004, 1012 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir. 1984), and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). However, the ALJ is not required to discuss each of these factors. Id. (citation omitted).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require every symptom factor to be discussed in every case when the record contains no evidence concerning a factor.

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-05(c)(3)

Importantly, “not every factor will be discussed in every case. If there is no evidence regarding one of the factors, that factor will not be discussed.” Davis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:19-CV-117, 2020 WL 3026235, at *6 (S.D. Ohio June 5, 2020) (citing Soc. Sec. R. 16-3p, 2017 WL 5180304, *8), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Davis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:19-CV-117, 2020 WL 6273393 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2020).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of daily activities, pain characteristics, aggravating factors, medication, and functional restrictions, but does not require an ALJ to discuss each factor expressly.

Burdick v. Saul · filed 2021-11-08(c)(3)

Critically, an ALJ is “not required to discuss each Polaski factor.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of symptom evidence and the listed factors when objective evidence alone is not fully favorable, but the decision need not discuss and cite every possible factor.

Pistole v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-11-10(c)(3)

The decisions need not contain discussion and citations as to every possible factor in order to be sufficiently specific.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant symptom evidence but does not require express discussion of every listed factor if the assessment is sufficiently articulated.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-12(c)(3)

An ALJ is not required to expressly address all the factors listed in SSR 16-3p but should sufficiently articulate his assessment of the evidence to assure the court that he considered all relevant evidence.

Section 404.1529 does not require explicit enumeration of every symptom factor when the decision addresses treatment, assistive measures, testimony, activities, and objective evidence sufficiently to explain the evaluation.

Emery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-22(c)(2)-(3)

As the Commissioner points out, however, the absence of an explicit enumeration of those factors does not mean that the ALJ did not properly consider Plaintiff’s subjective statements. ... Therefore, the decision will be affirmed.

Section 404.1529(c)(3)(i) through (vii) requires consideration of activities, symptom characteristics, triggers, medication effects, treatment, relief measures, and other functional restrictions, but not an item-by-item discussion of every factor.

Flanary v. SSA · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)(i)–(vii)

If the claimant establishes one of those requirements, the SSA regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors in evaluating the claimant’s subjective statements about the intensity and persistence of pain or other symptoms: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, duration, frequency, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication taken to alleviate pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment other than medications received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures used to relieve pain or other symptoms, such as lying down; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i)–(vii). While the ALJ should consider the factors, she is not required to address each one in her opinion.

Section 404.1529 permits an ALJ to discount subjective testimony based on inconsistencies with the medical record, improvement in the condition, and daily activities, without explicitly discussing each symptom factor.

Thompson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-02

An ALJ properly discredits a claimant’s testimony when there are inconsistencies with the medical record, evidence of improvement in their conditions, and descriptions of their daily activities. Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989, 994 (8th Cir. 2014); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. ... An ALJ “need not explicitly discuss each factor.” Id. (citing Buckner v. Astrue, 646 F.3d 549, 558 (8th Cir. 2011).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussion of every potentially relevant factor when the decision considers all evidence and gives specific reasons; an error concerning noncompliance may be harmless when other valid reasons support the symptom finding.

Carlson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-14(c)(3)

The ALJ’s decision need not contain a discussion of all of the potentially relevant factors listed above, so long as it is clear from the decision that the ALJ considered all of the evidence and that he or she provided specific reasons for his or her determination as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of the claimant’s symptoms. ... Even if the failure to question plaintiff about the reasons for his noncompliance before relying on such noncompliance was error, I find that the ALJ still provided other valid reasons supporting his overall finding regarding plaintiff’s subjective reports.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require discussing every potentially relevant factor when the ALJ considers all evidence and gives specific reasons for the symptom finding.

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

The ALJ’s decision need not contain a discussion of all of the potentially relevant factors listed above, so long as it is clear from the decision that the ALJ considered all of the evidence and that he or she provided specific reasons for his or her determination as to the intensity, persistence, and limiting effect of the claimant’s symptoms.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider daily activities and inconsistencies between claimant statements and other evidence, but does not require a more detailed explanation when the decision already addresses them at length.

LAGNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-12-28(c)

In this case, the ALJ considered at length Plaintiff’s activities of daily living and the consistency of the same in relation to the other evidence in making the RFC determination of sedentary work with exceptions. … A more detailed explanation was not required.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the listed symptom factors, but an ALJ need not cite or discuss every factor when the decision addresses the pertinent evidence.

Karmel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-07(c)(3)

At the same time, the ALJ is not required to cite or discuss every factor used to evaluate the consistency of a plaintiff’s description of symptoms with the record evidence. ... In sum, the ALJ evaluated plaintiff’s subjective symptoms consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3). Error 5 is overruled.

Section 404.1529 requires a two-part symptom analysis and permits consideration of activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and the entire record without requiring express discussion of every factor.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-12(a), (c)

A claimant’s statements as to pain or other symptoms will not alone establish that he is disabled. Walters, 127 F.3d at 531 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a)). ... An ALJ is not required to expressly address all the factors listed in SSR 16-3p but should sufficiently articulate his assessment of the evidence to assure the court that he considered all relevant evidence. Cross v. Commissioner, 373 F. Supp.2d 724, 733 (N.D. Ohio 2005).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to acknowledge and examine the symptom-evaluation factors before discounting complaints, but does not require a methodical discussion of each factor.

Eads v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-01-14(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529 requires an ALJ to consider symptom and treatment factors but does not require citation or written explanation of each factor, and permits rejection when identified evidence contradicts the claimant’s statements.

Patterson v. Saul · filed 2022-01-18(c)

In other words, the word “consider” has been construed by the Commissioner and courts to not require citation or written explanation. ... Thus, an ALJ does not need to cite each factor considered in the analysis.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires acknowledgment and examination of pertinent symptom factors but not a methodical discussion of each factor.

Ree v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-01-21(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective complaints. ... In the present action, the ALJ fully complied with Polaski in his evaluation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to acknowledge and examine the symptom factors before discounting allegations, but not to discuss each factor methodically.

Foster v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-02-01(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529 requires consideration of subjective evidence and relevant symptom factors without a formal factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ identifies the specific evidence relied upon.

Oneal v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-10(c)(3)

Regulations also explicitly state that “subjective” evidence “will be taken into account.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(3). Several factors the ALJ should consider regarding subjective reports are listed in those regulations. Id. However, the Tenth Circuit “does not require a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence . . . [s]o long as the ALJ sets forth the specific evidence he relies on in evaluating the claimant’s credibility.” Poppa v. Astrue, 569 F.3d 1167, 1171 (10th Cir. 2009).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to acknowledge and examine the symptom factors before discounting allegations, but does not require a methodical discussion of each factor.

Stanley v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2022-02-15(c)(3)

The ALJ is not required to methodically discuss each factor as long as the ALJ acknowledges and examines these factors prior to discounting the claimant’s subjective allegations.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider the symptom factors but does not require discussion of a factor when the record contains no evidence about it.

Shafer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-16(c)(3)

“But not every factor will be discussed in every case. If there is no evidence regarding one of the factors, that factor will not be discussed.”

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors but not express reference to every factor when substantial evidence permits the court to discern the rationale.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-22(c)(3)

The ALJ must provide specific reasons for the determination. ... However, the failure to specifically reference a particular relevant factor does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment as long as there is substantial evidence supporting the determination.

Section 404.1529(c) requires consideration of the symptom factors but neither discussion of each factor nor an express Polaski citation when the regulatory analysis is performed.

Fitzgerald v. Saul · filed 2022-02-28(c)

While an ALJ must consider these factors, she need not discuss how each factor supports her determination. Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 695 (8th Cir. 2007). Nor is an ALJ required to expressly cite Polaski if she conducts an analysis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529. Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2007).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to discuss each symptom-evaluation factor methodically if the decision acknowledges and examines the relevant considerations.

Nisic v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-01(c)(3)

However, the ALJ is not required to specifically discuss each factor and how it relates to Plaintiff’s credibility. See Partee, 638 F.3d at 965 (stating that “[t]he ALJ is not required to discuss methodically each Polaski consideration, so long as he acknowledged and examined those considerations before discounting a [plaintiff’s] subjective complaints”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Samons v. Astrue, 497 F.3d 813, 820 (8th Cir. 2007) (stating that “we have not required the ALJ’s decision to include a discussion of how every Polaski factor relates to the [plaintiff's] credibility.”).

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of the Polaski factors before subjective complaints are discounted but not discussion of each factor.

Peeler v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-04(c)(3)

Here, the ALJ considered the Polaski factors. The ALJ is “not required to discuss each Polaski factor as long as ‘[she] acknowledges and considers the factors before discounting a claimant's subjective complaints.’”

Section 404.1529 does not require discussion of every symptom factor when the ALJ gives good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Graf v. Saul · filed 2022-03-04

Rather, if the ALJ discredits a claimant’s credibility and gives a good reason for doing so, the court will defer to her judgment even if every factor set forth in Polaski v. Heckler is not explicitly discussed.

Section 404.1529 permits considering objective evidence, treatment efficacy, work, daily activities, and inconsistent statements without discussing every record detail.

Grotts v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-07(c)(2)-(4)

An ALJ need not discuss every detail in the record as it relates to every factor. ... The ALJ’s reasons supporting its conclusions for these factors are the types of “specific reasons” we have found sufficient to discount subjective reports of symptoms.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of activities, symptom characteristics, medication, treatment, relief measures, and other functional restrictions but not discussion of every possible factor.

Mirhabibi v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-09(c)(3)

Moreover, the ALJ must consider the following factors in assessing a claimant’s credibility: (1) daily activities; (2) the location, frequency, and intensity of the pain or other symptoms; (3) precipitating and aggravating factors; (4) the type, dosage, effectiveness, and side effects of any medication you take or have taken to alleviate your pain or other symptoms; (5) treatment, other than medication, received or have received for relief of pain or other symptoms; (6) any measures that are used or were used to relieve pain or other symptoms; and (7) other factors concerning functional limitations and restrictions due to pain or other symptoms. Id. at *3 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)). The decision need not contain discussion and citations for every possible factor in order to be sufficiently specific.

Section 404.1529(c)(3) requires consideration of seven symptom factors and specific reasons, but not express discussion of every factor when the rationale is otherwise discernible.

Borzellere v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-16(c)(3)

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