v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1441 (11th Cir.1997), that does not mean it is improper for the ALJ to consider a claimant’s daily activities at all, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1529(c)(3)(i), 416.929(c)(3)(i) (specifically listing the claimant’s daily activities as one of the factors to consider in evaluating the claimant’s symptoms). The ALJ, when evaluating a claimant’s subjective symptoms, can also consider such things as: (1) the nature, location, onset, duration, frequency, radiation, and intensity of pain and other symptoms; (2) precipitating and aggravating factors; (3) adverse side-effects of medications, and (4) treatment or measures taken by the claimant for relief of symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(c)(3)(i) — (iv); see also Swindle v. Sullivan, 914 F.2d 222, 226 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s
holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that an aljs determination on side effects was proper where the claimant did not complain about side effects nor did the record disclose any concerns about side effects by the doctors examining the claimant holding that a defendants antitrust liability depends on the overall effects of a defendants conduct in the relevant market holding claimant suffered permanent total disability where functional disability was only twentyfive or thirty percent claimant was fiftynine years of age claimant had little or no education and the injury kept the claimant from performing physical work holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant