objective medical evidence of an underlying medical condition, diffuse arthritis, prior to the expiration of Van Winkle’s insured status. The objective medical evidence does not confirm the severity of the alleged pain arising from that condition nor does the evidence show that the condition is so severe as to be expected to produce disabling pain. Further, Van Winkle’s testimony regarding his daily activities and his use of pain medication belies his claims of disabling pain. An ALJ need not fully credit subjective complaints where there is no underlying medical basis. See Fraley v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.2d 437, 440 (6th Cir.1984). Van Winkle testified he was able to perform housework during the insured period. See Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The inconsistencies in the medical and other
holding that evidence relied on by alj was insufficient to undermine pain allegations where medical records were replete with claimants reports of pain and of prescriptions holding that an alj may consider a claimants household activities in evaluating complaints of disabling pain holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain holding that alj should have included complaints of pain in hypothetical question holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record