With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 409 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir.2005); Powers v. Apfel, 207 F.3d 431, 435-36 (7th Cir.2000). Here, the ALJ observed that, although Mr. Getch alleged episodes of gout and had taken medication to treat gout symptoms, there was “no description by a physician of an actual gout flare-up in the record.” A.R. at 14. The ALJ reasonably discounted Mr. Getch’s testimony given the discrepancy between his reports of disabling gout and medical reports documenting Mr. Getch’s normal range of motion, ability to walk and stand without significant limitation, and absence of joint swelling or other gout symptoms. It therefore was not patently wrong for the ALJ to conclude that, although Mr. Getch’s impairments were real, he had exaggerated their impact on his ability to work. See Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 843-44 (<HOLDING>); Sienkiewicz, 409 F.3d at 804 (same). 4.

A: 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
B: holding that the alj did not err in discounting a claimants reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record
C: holding that lack of medical evidence cannot form the sole basis for discounting pain testimony but is a factor that an alj may consider
D: holding it is error for an alj to fail to consider factors relevant to the pain analysis which are supported by the record
B.