20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; an opinion lacking medical support or inconsistent with the physician’s own records may be discounted.

GRBA-CRAGHEAD v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-28(d)(2)

The opinions and findings of the plaintiff's treating physician are entitled to "controlling weight" if that opinion is "`well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.'" Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2000)). ... First, consistent with the case law and Regulations, upon determining that Dr. Turner's RFC Assessment should not be given controlling weight, the ALJ considered that it lacked objective medical evidentiary support. Indeed, the RFC Assessment itself states that tests were not administered. See SSR 96-2p at *5; 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1527 and 416.927; Veal, 833 F.2d at 699. ... Under such circumstances, the ALJ properly found that Dr. Turner's opinion is not controlling.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 requires evaluation of all medical opinions and gives greater weight to treating-physician opinions because treating physicians can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant's impairment.

Duhaime v. SSA · filed 2009-11-20(b), (d), (d)(2)-(6)

The regulations reguire that all medical opinions be evaluated, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), and that treating physician's opinions be weighed more heavily than consulting or examining physician's opinions because treating physicians are "most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s)." See id. § 404.1527(d); ... Since Dr. Knight was plaintiff's primary care physician whose treatment relationship with plaintiff was substantially longer than either Dr. Evans or Mr. Colby, his opinion should have been considered, if not more heavily weighed, in the continuing disability evaluation. See id. ... Because his opinion was not contradicted by other evidence in the record, the decision not to factor Dr. Knight's opinion into the analysis constitutes legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to give substantial weight to a treating physician’s opinion unless good cause supports rejecting it.

Sullivan v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2009-11-25(d)

Absent the existence of “good cause” to the contrary, however, the ALJ must give substantial weight to the opinion, diagnosis, and medical evidence of a treating physician. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). “‘[G]ood cause’ exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” ... Substantial evidence in the record supports the conclusion the ALJ discounted Dr. Hoon’s opinion for good cause because the ALJ found Dr. Hoon’s opinion was not persuasive and was contradicted by the opinions of other physicians. ... Because her opinion was unsupported by objective medical evidence and the record as a whole, the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Hoon’s opinion regarding Sullivan’s medical conditions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to evaluate treating-source opinions using support, consistency, and treatment-relationship factors, while treating statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner rather than binding medical opinions.

Russell v. Astrue · filed 2009-12-16(d), (e), and (e)(1)

Relevant factors the ALJ may consider are set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). These factors include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Moreover, the ALJ properly discounted their opinions that Ms. Russell could not work, met the listings, and was entitled to social security disability benefits. Those opinions infringed on the issues reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (“Opinions on some issues . . . are not medical opinions . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case[.]”); id. § 404.1527(e)(1) (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”)

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2009-12-30(d)(2)

However, a treating physician’s opinion is accorded controlling weight only if the ALJ finds that the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [in the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Since, as set forth above, Dr. Rasheed’s medical opinion is contradicted by several pieces of evidence in the record and also contains internal inconsistencies, it is not entitled to the level of deference otherwise accorded to a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Branson v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-05(d)(2)

Although Dr. Alex disagreed with some of Dr. Quint's findings, as acknowledged by Dr. Alex, Dr. Quint's findings should be given more weight as Dr. Quint is the treating physician and Dr. Alex is a consulting physician who did not examine Plaintiff. The opinions and findings of the plaintiff's treating physician are entitled to "controlling weight" if that opinion is "`well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.'" Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2000)). "Medical reports of a treating physician are ordinarily entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a consulting physician." Chamberlain v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 1489, 1494 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir.1989)).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527(e) reserves disability and residual-functional-capacity determinations to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not accept a treating physician’s conclusory opinion that the claimant is disabled; a treating physician’s opinion otherwise receives controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and rejection requires good reasons.

Berkowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-09-09(e), (d)(2)

Dispositive administrative findings relating to the determination of a disability and Plaintiffs RFC are issues reserved to the Commissioner. ... The ALJ “is not required to accept a treating physician’s conclusory opinion on the ultimate issue of disability.” ... Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. ... If an ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons” for doing so in his written opinion.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Luster v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-05(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is supported by objective medical evidence and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, but a treating physician's opinion does not automatically control when other credible evidence detracts from it.

Heino v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-27(d)(2)

"In deciding whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ considers medical opinions along with 'the rest of the relevant evidence' in the record." Wagner, 499 F.3d at 848 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). The ALJ must resolve conflicts among the various opinions. Id. The ALJ may reject these conclusions "if they are inconsistent with the record as a whole." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted). ... Although a treating physician's opinion is generally entitled to substantial weight, that opinion does not "automatically control" in the face of other credible evidence on the record that detracts from that opinion. ... The ALJ here noted the conflicting opinions regarding Heino's ability to perform work activities and chose not to give controlling weight to those of her treating physicians. Substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports that decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the specified treatment and opinion factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Winning v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-09-28(d)(2)

The SSA regulations promise claimants that “[rjegardless of the source,” ALJs will “evaluate every medical opinion [they] receive.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... This conclusory comment, without any elaboration or detail, does not satisfy the procedural requirements for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion set forth in § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh it using specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Brinkley v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-19(d)

Under § 404.1527, if the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must consider the following factors to determine the weight to be afforded the physician’s opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence with which the physician supports his opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area in which he is rendering an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Social Security Ruling 96-2p provides that an ALJ must give specific reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s medical opinion. SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion only when objective medical evidence supports it and does not require controlling weight for the ultimate disability determination reserved to the Commissioner.

Denton v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-25(d)(2), (e)(1)

Denton is incorrect. First, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight only if supported by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). And the ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to the ultimate conclusion of disability—a finding specifically reserved for the Commissioner. Id. § 404.1527(e)(1); Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1177 (7th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, to give good reasons for the weight assigned, and to consider specified factors if the opinion is not given controlling weight; the regulation also reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner and gives them no special significance.

Brock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-03-08(d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(3)

The controlling regulations instruct the administrative law judge to give the treating physician's opinion substantial weight if: (1) it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) it is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The regulations also provide that the administrative law judge will give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. Id.; see also Shelman v. Heckler, 821 F.2d 316, 321 (6th Cir. 1987). Further, if the opinion of a treating physician is not given controlling weight, the administrative law judge must consider specific factors in determining what weight the treating physician’s opinion should be given. Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544-46 (6th Cir. 2004). ... As an initial matter, he correctly disregarded Dr. Moore’s statement that Brock was “100% disabled,” as the regulations reserve this determination for the Social Security Secretary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). Subsection (e)(3) further states that no “special significance” will be given to opinions of disability, even those made by the treating physician. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(e)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight when it concerns the nature and severity of an impairment, is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Meadors v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-23(d)(2)

An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician when that opinion: (1) concerns the nature and severity of an impairment; (2) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (3) is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); see Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1993).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Salmini v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-03-25(d)(2)

According to the rule, “[t]he opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Rosa, 168 F.3d at 78-79; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). “[T]he opinion of the treating physician is not afforded controlling weight,” however, where “the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes a treating physician’s opinion controlling only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with all other substantial evidence in the record.

Terri Dukes v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-26(d)(2)

The ALJ also properly rejected the opinion of Dukes’s personal physician by noting that his opinion was unsupported by medical evidence and in conflict with evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (explaining that a treating physician’s opinion is controlling only when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and consistent with all other substantial evidence in the record. ).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how persuasive a medical opinion is, including the examination and treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Gurrola v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-16(d)

An ALJ assesses the persuasiveness of a medical opinion by considering a variety of factors, including the following: whether the physician in question personally examined the claimant; the length of time the claimant has been a patient of the physician and the types of examinations the doctor has performed; the evidence cited by the physician in support of his or her conclusions; the consistency of those conclusions with other evidence in the record; and the expertise of the physician in a particular area if s/he is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the regulation requires considering the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization in determining the appropriate weight.

Lawson v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-02(d)(2)-(6)

When the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician assessment, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.”

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the claimant’s record.

Halverson v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-02(d)(2)

A treating physician's opinion is given controlling weight if it 'is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [a claimant's] case record.' ... When a treating physician's opinions "are inconsistent or contrary to the medical evidence as a whole, they are entitled to less weight." ... After evaluating Dr. Taylor's opinions regarding Halverson's abilities, the ALJ determined his opinions were not entitled to weight because they were inconsistent with and unsupported by the medical evidence of record, including Dr. Taylor's own treatment notes. ... The ALJ applied the correct legal standard in evaluating Dr. Taylor's opinion, and the ALJ's decision not to rely on the one GAF score of 40 was supported by the substantial evidence in the record, as described above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating physician opinions more weight and requires good reasons when controlling weight is denied, while allowing unsupported or conclusory opinions to be discounted.

Huet v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-22(d)(2)

Generally, more weight is given to a treating physician’s opinions. See id. § 404.1527(d)(2). Under certain circumstances, though, an ALJ may discount or reject a treating physician’s opinion. Instances include when “the treating physician’s evidence is conclusory . . . or is otherwise unsupported by the evidence.” Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 456 (5th Cir. 2000). If controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ is required to give “good reasons” for the weight given to this opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Regardless of whether it comes from a treating physician or not, conclusions that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” are not given special significance. Id. § 404.1527(e)(3). Those conclusions are reserved for the Commissioner. Id. § 404.1527(e)(1). The district court found that the ALJ carefully considered the statements of Huet’s physicians and properly determined that Dr. Dougherty’s opinions were not entitled to controlling weight. We agree. For the reasons explained by the district court, we hold that the ALJ did not err in determining the weight given to Huet’s physicians’ medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits rejection for a good reason when those conditions are not met.

Schaaf v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-26(d)(2)

The regulations state that an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques[,]” and (2) it is “not inconsistent” with substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2008); Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375, 376 (7th Cir. 2006). If the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record, the ALJ may still choose to accept it, but if the ALJ rejects the opinion, he must give a good reason. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rosa v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-28(d)(2)

The opinions and findings of the plaintiff's treating physician are entitled to "controlling weight" if that opinion is "`well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.'" Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(2000)). ... The court finds, therefore, that the decision of the ALJ not to give controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Little is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole and that the ALJ's decision in this regard is consistent with the case law and Regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires adjudicators to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require them to expressly enumerate every listed factor.

Turner v. Barnhart · filed 2010-05-10(d)(2)

Contrary to Turner’s assertions, the ALJ was under no obligation to specifically enumerate each of the six factors described in the Social Security regulations; the regulations require only that “good reasons” be provided for the weight given a treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.927(d)(2). Here, the ALJ specifically explained why he believed that Dr. Jackson’s opinions were not supported by objective medical evidence, which is one of the six factors discussed above, and explicitly stated that he “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, and 96-6p.” See AR at 20-21. Thus, the ALJ fulfilled his duty to “evaluate every medical opinion” by acknowledging Dr. Jackson’s opinions, and he fairly exercised his discretion to discount those opinions by providing good reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Carvey v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-07(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight with respect to the nature and severity of a claimed impairment if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). That is not this case. ... This record provides a sufficient basis for the ALJ’s decision not to give controlling weight to a treating physician opinion that Carvey could do no lifting. ... Thus, the record was sufficient to support the ALJ’s decision not to give controlling weight to Dr. Gabris’s opinion as to the limited total time Carvey could sit, stand, and walk during a workday.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an adjudicator to give good reasons for the weight assigned to the medical opinion of a treating physician.

Swain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-06-07(d)(2)

Rather, he states that the ALJ failed to give “good reasons” for the weight accorded to the physicians’ opinions, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). We conclude that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons for its decision not to give controlling weight to the opinions of Drs. Pierce and Gainsburg.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Commissioner to consider a treating physician's opinion, determine its weight using specified factors, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Black v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-30(d)(2)

Further, even were Dr. Karchere’s medical opinion undeserving of controlling weight, the Social Security Regulations require the hearing officer to consider the treating physician’s opinion, expressly determine the amount of weight to attribute to it based on the factors outlined above, and give good reasons in the decision for the weight attributed to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.

Edler v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-03(d)(2)

A treating physician's opinion is generally due 'controlling weight,' 20 C.F.R. y 404.1527(d)(2), and where, as here, it is contradicted by another doctor, it can be rejected only if the ALJ provides 'specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.'.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, and if another doctor contradicts it, permits rejection only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

O'Neal v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-04(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally due “controlling weight,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), and where, as here, it is contradicted by another doctor, it can be rejected only if the ALJ provides “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” ... Because the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the opinions of O’Neal’s treating physicians were not specific, legitimate, and supported by substantial evidence, the treating physicians’ opinions must be credited as a matter of law, Lester, 81 F.3d at 834, and are due controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Turner v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-04(d)(2)

The Social Security Administration’s regulations provide that the opinion of a “treating source” will be given controlling weight only if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and ... not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In order to be entitled to controlling weight, a treating source’s opinion cannot be “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [in the record],” § 404.1527(d)(2), and here, the ALJ carefully identified the ways in which the 2005 RFC was not in line with the bulk of the medical evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(5) directs the Commissioner to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization when weighing a treating physician’s opinion.

Edelen v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-06(d)(2)-(5)

The opinion of a claimant’s treating physician must be accorded considerable weight by the Commissioner unless good cause is shown to the contrary. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Important to the determination of whether there is a “detailed, longitudinal picture” of impairments is the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the extent of the knowledge of the treating source as shown by the extent of examinations and testing, the evidence and explanation presented by the treating source to support his or her opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the treating source is a specialist with respect to the particular medical issues. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-07-07(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded controlling weight only if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... Here, the ALJ noted several inconsistencies in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-07-21(d)(2)

As long as a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 requires evaluating treating-physician opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Kirby v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-03

Social Security Ruling 96-2p requires that treating physicians’ opinions be assessed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927: 1) Examining relationship; 2) Treatment relationship; 3) Length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; 4) Nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 5) Supportability; 6) Consistency; 7) Specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In this case, the ALJ failed to properly apply these factors to Dr. Liguori’s assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Tilley v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2010-08-31(d)(2)

[i]n social security cases involving a claimant’s disability, the Commissioner’s regulations require that if the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and [is] “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record,” it must be given “controlling weight.” ... Although treating physicians’ opinions can be entitled to “controlling weight,” it is clear that a treating physician’s opinion that is not “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,” is not controlling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions, while § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2) generally favors treating-source opinions because they provide a more detailed and longitudinal picture than individual or consultive examinations.

Simmons v. SSA · filed 2010-09-08(b), (d)(1)-(2)

In making a disability determination, an ALJ must consider medical opinions in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). In evaluating various medical opinions, the ALJ will generally give greater weight to treating physicians, as these sources provide a more detailed and longitudinal picture than individual or consultive examinations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(1)-(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the listed treatment and evidentiary factors and explain the weight given with good, specific reasons.

McMurtry v. Astrue · filed 2010-10-27(d)(2)-(6)

An ALJ’s finding that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight “does not mean that the opinion is rejected. It may still be entitled to deference and be adopted by the adjudicator.” SSR 96-2p. In determining the weight to give a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the physician’s evidence supporting the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the specialty of the physician, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). ... The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-2p. The ALJ must give reasons “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p. An ALJ can reject a treating physician’s opinion only for reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

When reliable medical evidence from another treating or examining physician contradicts a treating physician's opinion, § 404.1527(d)(2) does not require the ALJ to perform a detailed analysis before rejecting it.

Holifield v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner · filed 2010-11-10(d)(2)

This court has interpreted 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) to mean that, “absent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant’s treating specialist, an ALJ may reject the opinion of the treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).” Newton, 209 F.3d at 453 (emphasis added). Since the record is replete with reliable medical evidence controverting Dr. Purser’s opinions, the ALJ had no obligation to perform a detailed analysis before rejecting his opinions.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to give good reasons for declining to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight and generally favors the opinion of a specialist on medical issues within the specialist's area of expertise.

Payne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-11-18(d)(2), (d)(5)

Even where a reviewing court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, the agency’s regulations require the ALJ to give “good reasons” for a decision not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. ... In fact, the ALJ’s decision relied upon Dr. Tan’s lack of specialization as one fact among several (“Furthermore, Dr. Tan is not a psychologist or a psychiatrist . . . .” (emphasis added)), and it was not error to do so after declining to give Dr. Tan’s opinion controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh all the evidence.

Banks v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-30(d)(2), (c)(2)

In reaching a determination, the ALJ must afford great weight to a treating physician’s assessment, and if that assessment is disregarded, an explanation must be provided. ... Nevertheless, the opinion of a treating physician is controlling only “if [it is] not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence and [is] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... If the record, including any medical opinions, is inconsistent, the ALJ must “weigh all of the evidence and see whether [he] can decide whether [a claimant is] disabled based on the evidence [he has].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Dougherty v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-07(d)(2)

Indeed, a treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.”

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an adjudicator to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require explicit enumeration of every regulatory factor.

Turner v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-10(d)(2)

These factors include (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the amount of evidence supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is a specialist giving an opinion about his area of specialty; and (6) other factors brought to the adjudicator’s attention. ... Contrary to Turner’s assertions, the ALJ was under no obligation to specifically enumerate each of the six factors described in the Social Security regulations; the regulations require only that “good reasons” be provided for the weight given a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 gives treating-physician opinions greater weight and requires controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and consistent with the record; a controverted opinion may be rejected only for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

JONKER v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-29

Generally, the opinions of treating physicians are given greater weight than those of other physicians, “because treating physicians are employed to cure and thus have a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient.” ... The treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [plaintiffs] case record.” ... Even where the treating physician’s opinion on disability is controverted, it can only be rejected with “specific, legitimate reasons ... that are based on substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) governs the weight given to treating physicians' opinions, allowing an ALJ to withhold controlling weight when the opinion is contradicted by the record.

Price v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner · filed 2010-11-18(d)(2)

It is legal error for an ALJ to give more weight to a non-treating physician than to a treating physician,7 but the ALJ need not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s determination if it is contradicted by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when controlling weight is denied.

Partridge v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-01(d)(2)

The hearing officer is bound to give “controlling weight” to the opinions of treating physicians only if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and ... not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If a hearing officer decides not to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, he must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-06(d)(2)

Although Johnson argues that Dr. Yelvington’s opinion should be given “controlling weight” because he was a treating physician, the ALJ’s analysis was consistent with the Commissioner’s regulations, which provide that a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight if, and only if, it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment when it is consistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires sufficient reasons for declining to give it controlling weight.

Allord v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-13(d)(2)

Allord is correct that the Social Security Administration is bound to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if her “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the applicant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the applicant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If an ALJ does not afford controlling weight to such an opinion, he or she must articulate sufficient reasons for not doing so.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Treating-source medical opinions remain entitled to deference and must be weighed under all of § 404.1527’s factors even when they are not given controlling weight.

Peckham v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-03(d)

In accordance with the law in this circuit, the opinions of Dr. Taylor-Butler, and Dr. Kalender-Rich as treating source opinions (1) might be found worthy of controlling weight, (2) are generally worthy of “particular weight,” and even when not accorded controlling weight, (3) are “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to a treating physician's opinion, requires controlling weight for a well-supported opinion that is consistent with the record, and requires consideration of treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when weighing the opinion.

Allen v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-18(d)(1), (d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician will generally be given greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). A treating physician’s medical opinion will be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and if the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ should consider factors including the length of the treatment and frequency of evaluation, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating physician. ... Once the ALJ found that Dr. Geringer’s opinion was not controlling, he was required to determine how much weight to give the opinion under the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The ALJ’s findings as to supportability and consistency are sufficient to “minimally articulate” his reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) does not require an administrative law judge to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when the opinion is not persuasive in light of the record as a whole.

Mercado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-12-01(d)

While plaintiff argues that the administrative law judge did not give proper weight to the treating psychiatrist’s evaluations and reports, it is well settled that even the opinions of treating physicians are not entitled to greater weight merely because they are treating physicians. ... The administrative law judge considered the treating psychiatrist’s opinions regarding plaintiffs functional capacity, but in view of the record as a whole, found them not to be persuasive. Under the circumstances, the administrative law judge was not required to give those opinions controlling weight.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial record evidence.

Banks v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-01(d)(2)

Nevertheless, the opinion of a treating physician is controlling only "if [it is] not inconsistent with other ... substantial record evidence and [is] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques." 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1527(d)(2); see also Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003; Gurrola v. Astrue, 706 F. Supp. 2d 78, 83 (D.D.C. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(5) requires the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization when determining the weight of a treating physician's opinion if controlling weight is not given.

Marques v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-17(d)(2)-(5)

If the ALJ fails to give controlling weight to the opinion of the treating physician, then the ALJ must consider several factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion of the treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) frequency of examinations, (3) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) supportability by medical signs and laboratory findings, (5) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (6) specialization of the doctor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(5). ... The ALJ adequately discussed these two factors as to each treating source. A thorough review of the record supports the ALJ’s decision to discredit the two Medical Source Statements.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s supported, consistent opinion controlling weight or provide good reasons for discounting it, and then consider the regulatory factors when assigning weight.

Griffo v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-10(d)(2)-(6)

An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... If an ALJ provides good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, he must decide what weight to give that opinion by considering the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... Claimant has raised no argument that the ALJ failed to consider these factors, and in any case, the ALJ seems to have sufficiently considered them even though he did not explicitly invoke the list. The ALJ noted that Dr. Akuche only met with Claimant on three occasions and cited no objective evidence to support his opinions. ... In sum, the ALJ did not commit reversible error in determining Claimant’s exertional RFC.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes a treating physician’s opinion controlling when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other record evidence.

Butler v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-24(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is controlling when it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent” with other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting explanations and evidence, specialization, and consistency.

Copeland v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-01(d)(2)

Nevertheless, once the ALJ articulates reasons for rejecting the treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still determine what weight the physician’s opinion is due under the applicable regulations. ... Factors the ALJ should consider when determining the weight to give the treating physician’s opinion include the length of treatment and frequency of examination, whether the physician supported his opinion with sufficient explanations, the extent to which the treating physician presents relevant evidence to support his opinion, whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue, and the consistency of the opinion. ... In this regard, the Court finds that the ALJ also adequately considered the factors established in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2), when determining how much weight to give Dr. Haughn’s opinion. ... Consequently, it appears that the ALJ appropriately considered and sufficiently discussed what ultimate weight to give Dr. Haughn’s opinion, consistent with the factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Spencer v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-02(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... In deciding how much weight to accord a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ should consider various factors, like how often the treating physician examined the claimant, whether the physician is a specialist in the condition claimed to be disabling, and so forth; consistency with the record and support are rolled back into the equation as well. ... Simply put, if an ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he has to provide “good reasons” for how much weight he accords it.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527(d) requires the ALJ to consider factors including treatment length and frequency, the treating physician’s specialization, the quality of the explanation, and consistency with the record when deciding the weight of the opinion.

Norris v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-02(d)

Additionally, plaintiff argues that even if the ALJ did not give Dr. Banias’s opinions controlling weight, Dr. Banias’s opinions should have been given great weight under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Under this social security regulation, the ALJ should look at factors such as length and frequency of the treatment, whether the treating physician is a specialist on the medical issues relevant to the plaintiff, how good of an explanation the treating physician provided, and how consistent the opinion is with the records as a whole. ... Although on the first look it appears that Dr. Banias’s second assessment contradicts his first assessment, we find that these two assessments, in fact, do not contradict each other. It seems that the confusion regarding Dr. Banias’s opinions occurred primarily because different forms were used for these two assessments. ... Accordingly, we find that the ALJ’s conclusive decision, based on the assumption that the forms contradicted each other, warrants further review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion deference and weigh it using the relevant regulatory factors even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Salazar v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-04(d)

Even if an ALJ decides that a treating physician’s opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, this does not allow him to reject their opinions outright. ... Instead, the physician’s opinions are “ ‘still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the [relevant] factors.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to evaluate the opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and the physician's specialization.

Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2011-03-04

Under' § 404.1527, if the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must consider the following factors to determine the weight to be afforded the physician’s opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence with which the physician supports his opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area in which he is rendering an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that a treating physician’s opinion is controlling when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other evidence of record.

Longmore v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-07(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is controlling when it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent” with other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 permits greater weight for treating-physician opinions, particularly when based on numerous examinations that provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairment.

O’Dell v. SSA · filed 2010-09-08

Medical opinions that are rendered by treating physicians, particularly when based on a large number of examinations, may be given greater weight because such opinions often provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment. . . .” 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion.

Thompson v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-13(d)(2)

Regardless of the weight the ALJ elects to give the treating source opinion, he must always “give good reasons” for his decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Walton v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-18(d)(2)

Among these is the treating physician rule which requires the ALJ to give a treating source opinion “controlling weight” if the treating source opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection 404.1527(d)(2) provides that a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

O'NEILL v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-01(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is typically entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory and diagnostic techniques” and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 favors the opinion of a treating physician over opinions from non-treating physicians when evaluating medical evidence.

SATTERWAITE v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-24

By rule, the Social Security Administration favors the opinion of a treating physician over non-treating physicians.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the case record.

Saxon v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-04(d)(2)

Under the Regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the record.

Mortise v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-13(d)(2)

the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion when that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bavaro v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-14(d)(2)

An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. ... The ALJ must also “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight” accorded to the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ assigning weight to a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialty, and other relevant factors.

Emanuele v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-17(d)(2)-(6)

An ALJ’s finding that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight “does not mean that the opinion is rejected. It may still be entitled to deference and be adopted by the adjudicator.” SSR 96-2p. In determining the weight to give a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the physician’s evidence supporting the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole,' the specialty of the physician, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the bases for weighing a treating physician’s opinion, including when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Freels v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-25(d)(2)-(6)

Here, the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Shoemaker’s opinion and provided the bases for his determination as required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Russo v. Comm Social Security · filed 2011-04-06(d)(2)

According to regulation, we will give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if the “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

A treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight when supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence, but an ALJ may discount or reject it when conflicting medical evidence exists and the ALJ clearly explains the reasons.

Ferguson v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-06(d)(2)

As plaintiffs treating physician, Kehagias’ opinion is entitled to special significance and, when it is supported by objective medical evidence of record and is consistent with other substantial evidence of record, it is entitled to controlling weight. ... The ALJ cannot disregard the opinion of a treating physician without explaining the reasoning for rejecting the opinion and referencing objective medical evidence conflicting with the opinion. ... “If, however, the treating physician’s opinion conflicts with other medical evidence, then the ALJ is free to give that opinion less than controlling weight or even reject it, so long as the ALJ clearly explains [his] reasons and makes a clear record.” ... In the case at bar, there is objective medical evidence conflicting -with Kehagias’ opinion. ... These two reports are inconsistent with a determination that plaintiff is unable to work in any capacity and, combined with the reports of other treating physicians, provide a sufficient basis for the ALJ to discount Kehagias’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires other opinions to be weighed using specified factors.

Parker v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-09(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it receives controlling weight. 20 C.P.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... When an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the court must weigh several factors to determine what weight is appropriate. These factors include the length of treatment relationship, nature and extent of treatment, supportability, consistency and specialization. ... Here, the ALJ correctly found that Dr. Manalo’s opinion was not deserving of controlling weight because it was not supported by clinical evidence.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight on impairment severity when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Copher vs Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-06-13(d)(2)

In a disability proceeding, the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is generally given “controlling weight” in determining the severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). But that is only the case if the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion only when it is medically well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors and an explanation of the weight given.

ORMON v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-14(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight when it is 1) medically well-supported and 2) not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If the ALJ does not give such an opinion controlling weight, he or she must consider ... (1) the physician’s length of treatment of the claimant, ... (2) the physician’s frequency of examination, ... (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, ... (4) the support of the physician’s opinion afforded by the medical evidence of record, ... (5) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and ... (6) the specialization of the treating physician. ... After consideration of those factors, the ALJ must explain the reasons for the weight he or she gives to a treating physician’s opinion. ... The Court concludes that the ALJ properly explained why he discredited Dr. Ross’s opinion of April, 2007. ... After considering the record as a whole, the Court finds that the ALJ’s opinion is adequately supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally directs adjudicators to give greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions, but controlling weight is required only when the opinion is well supported and consistent with the substantial evidence in the record.

WHITZELL v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-17(d)(2)

The hearing officer is instructed generally to accord “more weight to the opinions from [the claimant’s] treating [physicians], since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most likely to be able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The hearing officer, however, is only bound to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [ ] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to give good reasons and consider specified factors when assigning weight.

Eakin v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011). An ALJ who declines to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician must offer “good reasons” that are “sufficiently specific” in explaining what weight, if any, she assigned it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). ... But even assuming that the ALJ had legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Mess’s opinion, she did not apply the correct legal standard in determining what weight to assign it. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). Had she considered the required factors, including the nature of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the type of tests performed, and the reliability of the opinion, see § 404.1527(d)(2), she would have been compelled to give the opinion considerable weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s conclusions controlling weight unless the conclusions lack support in the physician’s records or conflict with other providers’ reports, and to give good reasons for denying controlling weight.

Underwood v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-13(d)(2)

The regulation at issue, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), provides that the ALJ must give the treating physician’s conclusions controlling weight unless they are not supported by the treating physician’s records or are otherwise inconsistent with the reports of other providers. “An ALJ who does not give controlling weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician must offer ‘good reasons’ for declining to do so.”

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to decline to defer to a treating physician's opinion when that opinion is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2011-08-11(d)

Although the opinion of a treating physician is normally entitled to deference, an ALJ need not defer to such an opinion when it is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record. See id. at 1070; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, or otherwise consider specified factors and give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Sawdy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-08-29(d)(2)–(6)

The “treating source rule” is one such regulation. It demands that an ALJ give “controlling weight” to a medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable . . . diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to such an opinion, the rule still requires the ALJ to fully consider it in accordance with certain factors, id. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6), and to provide “good reasons” for discounting the opinion, id. § 404.1527(d)(2)—i.e., reasons “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight . . . [given] to the . . . opinion and the reasons for that weight,” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (July 2, 1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, an ALJ gives more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-12(c)(4)

An ALJ may determine the weight of medical opinions by considering the evidence in the record as the ALJ did here. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the support for a medical opinion in relevant evidence and its consistency with the record relevant factors when the opinion is weighed.

HODNETT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-08-12(c)(3)

It also is well-established that lack of support is a valid and acceptable factor in weighing opinion evidence. ... Moreover, as set forth above, both Plaintiff’s self-reported limitations and the few references to Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms contained in other treatment notes of record are inconsistent with the significant restrictions set forth in the cursory forms at issue. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) gives more weight to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole.

Elliott v. Saul · filed 2019-09-03(c)(4)

The ALJ noted that the “Dr. Hardy based the assessed functional limitations solely on the claimant’s statements to him during the history.” (Tr. 18). The ALJ is not required to include the claimant’s subjective statements in his RFC. See Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 803 (8th Cir. 2005) (“Physician opinions that are internally inconsistent, however, are entitled to less deference than they would receive in the absence of inconsistencies.”’); Johnson v. Chater, 87 F.3d 1015, 1018 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Where a treating physician's opinion is itself inconsistent, it should be accorded less deference.”). Dr. Hardy’s checklist opinion was contrary to the evidence as a whole, including his own narrative, and the ALJ properly evaluated his medical opinion in the context of the entire record. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(4), 416,927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); see also Toland v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2014) (“The ALJ explained Dr. Garlapati's evaluation in the MSS was unsupported by Toland's medical records, daily activities, and work history.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether medical opinions are consistent with one another when weighing them.

Brockus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-17(c)(4)

To the extent the opinions were consistent with one another, the ALJ was required to take that into consideration in weighing them. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole and less weight to one that is inconsistent with other evidence.

Rosenbaum v. Saul · filed 2019-09-24(c)(4)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to the greatest weight because the treating physician is hired to examine and treat the patient over an extended period of time and has the best opportunity to assess the claimant. Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Treating physicians are “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Here, the ALJ’s reasons for giving limited weight to the opinions of Dr. Welch and Dr. Yang are supported by substantial evidence. ... The ALJ reasonably relied on the other record evidence to find Dr. Yang’s opinion was inconsistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); Rollins, 261 F.3d at 856.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires giving more weight to an opinion from a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not.

WILSON v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-31(c)(1)

Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to the opinion of an examining medical source than to that of a non-examining source.

BROWN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-02-11(c)(1)

Although "an ALJ is not required to credit the agency's examining physician in the face of a contrary opinion from a later reviewer or other compelling evidence," the opinion of an examining source generally receives "more weight" than the opinion of a non-examining source. Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1): "Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you.").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) recognizes that treating and examining physician opinions often deserve more weight than opinions from doctors who review records, but a treating physician’s opinion on functional capacity does not bind the ALJ.

LANZILOTTI v. SAUL · filed 2022-07-29(d)(1)

Although treating and examining physician opinions often deserve more weight than the opinions of doctors who review records, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2),9 “[t]he law is clear ... that the opinion of a treating physician does not bind the ALJ on the issue of functional capacity.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires giving more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined the claimant than to the opinion of a source who has not examined the claimant.

Ballentine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-07(c)(1)

Plaintiff filed the application prior to March 27, 2017, therefore, under the regulations in effect at that time, an examining physician’s opinion is “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives an examining source’s opinion greater weight than a nonexamining source’s opinion, so an ALJ may not discount an examining physician merely because the physician examined the claimant only once.

Fagerlie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-17(c)(1)

An examining physician’s opinion is “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician.” Lester v. Chater, at 830 (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”). ... With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, the fact the Dr. Thorpe examined plaintiff once is not, in and of itself, a specific, legitimate reason for discounting the opinion. An examining doctor, by definition, does not have a treating relationship with a claimant and usually only examines the claimant one time. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Therefore, the ALJ improperly rejected Dr. Thorpe’s opinion because it was based on a one-time examination rather than a treating physician relationship.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to the opinion of a source who examined the claimant than to one who did not.

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-15(c)(1)

An examining physician’s opinion is “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”). ... Regardless of whether the Court applies the clear and convincing standard, or the specific and legitimate standard, the ALJ erred by discounting Dr. Wheeler’s 2020 opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c)(1) generally gives more weight to the opinion of a source who examined the claimant than to the opinion of a source who did not.

Keith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-23(c)(1)

An examining physician’s opinion is “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives an examining source's opinion more weight than a nonexamining source's opinion, but examining status alone does not establish error when the ALJ properly discounted the examining opinions.

Berg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-06-04(c)(1)

An examining physician’s opinion is “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”). ... As to Dr. Layton’s opinion, plaintiff argues that the opinions of Dr. Lima, Dr. Wheeler, and Dr. Tarantino, are entitled to more weight because unlike Dr. Layton, these doctors examined plaintiff. Dkt. 16 at 11. This conclusory argument cannot by itself show error and the Court has determined that the ALJ properly discounted the opinions of Dr. Lima, Dr. Wheeler, and Dr. Tarantino.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of specified factors in deciding the opinion weight.

Quattlebaum v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-09-13(d)(2)

By failing to consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) to determine the weight to be given the opinion of Dr. Ford-Crawford, the ALJ’s rejection of the treating psychiatrist’s assessment of plaintiff s functional capacity is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting medical findings, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

Newsome v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-30(d)(2)

The ALJ is required to accord special evidentiary weight to the opinion of the treating physician, as long as the treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques, results from frequent examinations, and is supported by the administrative record. ... When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider various “factors” to determine how much weight to give the opinion, such as: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical and laboratory findings; (4) the physician’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. ... Based on the records, Dr. Berkowitz was the Plaintiffs treating neurologist from April 1, 2005 until at least November 1, 2005. During this time period, the records reflect that Dr. Berkowitz met with the Plaintiff at least four times and performed a number of clinical and laboratory tests, pursuant to which he diagnosed the Plaintiff with a seizure disorder and neuropathy. This treatment relationship qualifies Dr. Berkowitz as a treating physician under the regulations. As such, the ALJ was required to either give Dr. Berkowitz’s opinions controlling weight, or provide “good reasons” for not giving his opinions controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports discounting it, and requires the ALJ to clearly articulate good reasons for giving it less weight.

Perry L. Flowers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-09-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion “must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Good cause exists “when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2004). “The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (requiring the agency to “give good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s opinion). ... The ALJ articulated good cause for giving very little weight to the opinions of Drs. Raber and Lubin as to Flowers’s RFC. ... Thus, although an ALJ generally gives treating and examining physicians’ opinions more weight, here the ALJ was not required to do so. See Sharfaz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[T]he ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding.”)

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

A treating physician’s opinion gets controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical, laboratory, and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the record.

Kliber v. Social Security Administration · filed 2011-06-28(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is typically entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) does not require an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician's statement that a claimant is disabled or unfit for work.

Reed v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-15(e)

However, the AU is not required to give controlling weight to the statements of a plaintiffs treating physicians regarding the plaintiffs disability or fitness for returning to work.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors.

Freeman v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-16(d)(2)-(6)

In determining the weight to give a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the physician’s evidence supporting the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the specialty of the physician, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Jarvis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-02(c)(2)

Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, to be entitled to controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion must be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Gibson v. Saul · filed 2021-02-03(c)(2)

“According to [the treating physician] rule, the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Black v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, “[t]reating source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to specifically consider all listed factors when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Simmons v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-03(c)(2)

The ALJ is to consider all evidence, including all opinion evidence, paying heed to the rule recently reiterated in Dowling that specific consideration must be given to all of the factors of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(c)(2)

The ALJ must give the opinions of treating physicians controlling weight only if they are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and they are not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In this case, the record contains inconsistent substantial evidence, including the opinions of Dr. Ghanayem and Dr. Westin.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Noyce v. Saul · filed 2021-02-11(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” ... The ALJ rejected Dr. Krafft’s opinion regarding Petitioner’s 10 pound lifting limitation on the grounds that he provided no explanation for the same, and later treatment notes did not support that level of restriction. (AR 23.) ... This conclusion is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; non-controlling opinions are weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

(SS) Mallory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-16(c)(2)–(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). ... Thus, the Court weighs whether the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to Dr. Zaw’s opinions. ... Therefore, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to Dr. Zaw’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Michles v. Berryhill · filed 2021-02-16(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to consider specified factors if controlling weight is declined.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-16(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good, evidence-supported, sufficiently specific reasons when discounting a treating-source opinion.

Peters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-17(c)(2)

As noted above, the Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. ... These reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical-opinion evidence about a claimant’s ability to work and, when declining controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion, weigh the entire opinion under the listed factors.

Herron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(c), (d)(3)

While the ALJ was correct in not affording controlling weight to the opinion that Mr. Herron was unable to work, he still needed to consider and weigh the entire opinion, including the severity of the impairments, and apply the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c). These factors are: the examining relationship; the treatment relationship; the length of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support the opinion; the consistency of the source’s opinion with the other evidence; whether the source specializes in an area related to the individual’s impairment; and any other factors tending to support or refute the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to a treating physician’s opinion, but permits less weight when there is good cause, including that the opinion is conclusory or unsupported by the record.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(d)(2)

“[A]n ALJ should generally give more weight to a treating physician's opinions, because such doctors ‘are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [claimant's] medical impairment(s).’” Carstens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 12-1335, 2013 WL 3245224, at *7 (D.P.R. June 26, 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The ALJ, however, can give less weight to a treating physician's opinion with a showing of good cause: “(1) that they are brief and conclusory, (2) not supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory diagnostic techniques, or (3) are otherwise unsupported by the record.” Carrasco v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 528 F. Supp. 2d 17, 25 (D.P.R. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence controlling weight and to consider specified factors when assigning it less weight.

Gauda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” ... “An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the[se] . . . factors when assigning weight at step two is a procedural error.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to explain the decision by addressing the listed regulatory factors.

Spagnola v. Saul · filed 2020-08-03(c)(2)

If the ALJ decides not to assign controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion, then she must explain the basis of her reasoning by addressing the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) for claims – like the one at issue here – that were filed prior to March 27, 2017.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion.

Rosario v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-03(c)(2)

Furthermore, the ALJ’s articulation of the weight accorded to each medical opinion must be accompanied by “a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests.” Cotter, 642 F.2d at 704. This principle applies with particular force to the opinion of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2) (same as 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and requires an ALJ to consider specified factors before assigning it less than controlling weight.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(c)(2)

But an ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are in the best positions to provide “detailed, longitudinal picture[s] of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 F. App’x 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and[ ] (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of relevant factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the adjudicator's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-18(c)

However, as already discussed, the ALJ properly considered the “supportability” and “consistency” of Dr. Ravelo’s opinions, which are two of the relevant 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) factors. The fact that the ALJ did not explicitly address each of the factors is of no consequence because a “slavish recitation of each and every factor” is unnecessary “where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Shoults v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-18(c)(2)

First, opinions from treating physicians are entitled to controlling weight if the opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

GAYDOSH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-26(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to discount a non-examining physician’s speculative opinion when it conflicts with opinions from treating and examining physicians, without further explanation of the weight given.

Longerbeam v. Astrue · filed 2012-02-10(d)

The ALJ considered the testimony of Dr. Schorn, a non-examining physician, sufficiently. The ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Schorn’s opinion regarding Longerbeam’s inability to sustain work, particularly because it was speculative and conflicted with the opinions of several other physicians who treated and examined Longerbeam. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). No further explanation of the weight given to Dr. Schorn’s testimony was required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to decide what weight to give treating and examining doctors’ opinions and explain the reasons for that decision.

McDonald v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-12(d), (f)

In making that determination, the ALJ must decide which treating and examining doctors’ opinions should receive weight, and explain the reasons for that finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), (f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A medically supported assessment that full-time work is unlikely is not merely a conclusory statement that a claimant is unable to work, and every medical opinion must be evaluated.

Debbra Hill v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-07(d)(1), (c)

Dr. Johnson’s statement that Hill would be “unlikely” to work full time was not a conclusory statement like those described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), but instead an assessment, based on objective medical evidence, of Hill’s likelihood of being able to sustain full time employment given the many medical, mental, and financial impairments Hill faces. Thus, the ALJ’s disregard for Dr. Johnson’s medical opinion was not harmless error and Dr. Johnson’s opinion should have been considered. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and examination or testing, and permits discounting opinions that lack support or conflict with the record.

Filus v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-07(c)(2)-(4)

The ALJ addressed Dr. Kachmann’s opinion and explained why he was discounting it: the infrequency of treatment, the cursory nature of the second examination, and the lack of clinical tests. These are all reasons with support in the record, and the ALJ was entitled to rely on them. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(3); ... The ALJ also faulted Dr. Kachmann’s diagnosis of “failed back syndrome” because Filus never had surgery (a normal prerequisite for this conclusion). See 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). ... Dr. Owen’s opinion that Filus has “severe” difficulty lifting, traveling, and carrying was likewise not supported by the other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) (physicians’ opinions will be evaluated for supportability and consistency); ... This is enough.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors and explain the weight assigned to an acceptable medical source opinion, while generally giving more weight to treating-source opinions.

Beasley v. Astrue · filed 2013-04-10(c)

If an ALJ fails to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, as the ALJ did here, then the ALJ must decide how much weight to assign the opinion. The ALJ should consider the six factors in the relevant regulation 2 and then “give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). When an ALJ rejects a treating-physician opinion completely, the ALJ must give “specific, legitimate” reasons for doing so. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). An ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss all of the factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as a judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what the claimant can still do despite the impairments, and the claimant's physical or mental restrictions.

Moua v. Astrue · filed 2013-07-30(a)(2)

Overall, Dr. Bhakta’s treatment notes do not offer any medical opinions concerning Ms. Moua’s abilities or limitations. Rather, they document her complaints and chronicle the pain medications and treatment he prescribed for her. Thus, there was no pertinent medical opinion for the ALJ to weigh. Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (defining medical opinions as “judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, specialization, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Timmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-07-09(c)

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ considers many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the doctor’s specialization, whether the opinion is amply supported, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the decision-maker to weigh a medical opinion based on factors including examination, treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Becker v. Colvin · filed 2013-09-16(c)

When an opinion is not given controlling weight as the opinion of a treating source, the weight given to the opinion depends on a number of factors, including whether the source has examined the claimant, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the relevant evidence provided in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, whether the opinion is related to the source’s area of specialty, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the examining and treating relationships, specialization, support, and consistency, and generally gives more weight to examining and treating opinions.

Hickel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-10-28(c), (c)(1)-(2)

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ considers factors such as the examining relationship, the treating relationship, the doctor’s specialization, whether the opinion is amply supported, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining physicians, and the opinions of treating physicians are given more weight than non-treating physicians. See id. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)-(2). ... The fact that Dr. Eastridge was a one-time consultative examiner retained by the claimant rather than the Commissioner is not, standing alone, a valid basis for rejecting his medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, regardless of its source, even though opinions from sources not classified as acceptable medical sources are not entitled to special weight.

Cottam v. Colvin · filed 2014-01-03(d)

It-is correct that social workers and mental health counselors do not meet the definition of “acceptable medical sources” under the Regulations and, as such, their opinions are not entitled to special weight. SSR 06-03p. However, the ALJ was obliged to consider every medical opinion, regardless of its source. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a source's specialization as only one factor in weighing a medical opinion.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-09-23

While the Court recognizes that Dr. Sawyer is not a mental health specialist, this is only one factor to be considered under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a medical opinion but does not require express factor-by-factor discussion.

Sawyer v. Colvin · filed 2014-02-03(d)

To the extent Plaintiff argues that the ALJ should have addressed each of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d), this argument also fails. Although the regulations provide factors that an ALJ must consider when evaluating a medical opinion, nothing in the regulation requires express discussion on a factor-by-factor basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Andersen v. Colvin · filed 2013-10-03(c)(2)

First, an ALJ must determine whether the opinion deserves controlling weight. Id. Controlling weight must be given if the opinion is both supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If both of these conditions are met, no other factors need be considered and the inquiry is at an end. See id.; Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)'s factors, including the treating relationship, supportability, and specialization, may be applied when evaluating opinions from other sources.

Karabinas v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-21(d)

The Court recognizes that Dr. Kosmicki, as a chiropractor, is not considered an “acceptable medical source” under the Regulations. However, SSR 06-3p specifically provides that the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d) (i.e., the length, frequency, and extent of the treating relationship; the extent to which the provider’s opinion is supported by the record; and the provider’s degree of specialization) can be applied to opinion evidence from “other sources”.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2014-04-25(c)

In addition, despite Smith’s argument to the contrary, the ALJ properly considered Dr. Pickering’s medical opinion and gave valid reasons for discounting it. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). ... In deciding the weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers the following factors: 1) examining relationship; 2) treatment relationship; 3) supportability; 4) consistency; 5) specialization; and 6) any other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)'s factors expressly apply only to medical opinions from acceptable medical sources, although an ALJ may also apply them to opinions from other sources.

Akers v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-21(c)

“[T]he factors in 20 CFR 404.1527[(c)] . . . explicitly apply only to the evaluation of medical opinions from ‘acceptable medical sources,’ [though] these same factors can be applied to opinion evidence from ‘other sources.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as statements by acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, residual abilities, and restrictions.

Coltey v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-27(a)(2)

Second, after recognizing this pain, Dr. Lehman’s notes are silent on the extent to which it would limit Plaintiffs activities, including his ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (“Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”) Nothing in Dr. Lehman’s medical report contradicts Dr. Corsetti’s conclusion that Plaintiff would be forced to miss work more than four days per month on account of the pain.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, what the claimant can still do, and physical or mental restrictions.

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-08-05(a)(2)

However, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as “statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a patient’s] impairment(s), including [ ] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [a patient] can still do despite impairment(s), and [ ] physical or mental restrictions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate medical opinions using specified factors and gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Trumbull v. SSA · filed 2015-01-08(b), (c), and (c)(2)

The ALJ is required to consider the medical opinions in a claimant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Medical opinions are evaluated based on the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the amount of supporting evidence the medical source provides, the consistency of the opinion with the record, the medical source’s specialization, and other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. § 404.1527(c). A treating medical source’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2). ... As such, the ALJ provided appropriate and adequate reasons for the weight given to those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion using factors including treatment and examination relationships, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

Gonzales v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-17(c)

An ALJ must acknowledge and weigh every medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[W]e will evaluate every mfedical opinion we receive”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) establishes the factors to be considered by the ALJ when weighing medical opinions. Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1) and (2), the opinions of treating physicians are given greater weight than opinions of non-treating physicians and opinions of examining physicians are given greater weight than opinions of non-examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) also differentiates among treating relationships based on the length of the, treating relationship and the nature and extent of the treating relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) states that “the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) provides more weight to specialists, and 20 C.Í\R. § 404.1527(c)(6) allows consideration of other factors which “tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, consider specified factors, and clearly explain the weight assigned and the reasons for it.

Barnes v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-23(d)

An ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. ... The regulations lay out six factors an ALJ should consider as part of this analysis, including the nature and length of the treatment relationship, the medical expert’s specialization, and the degree to which a source’s opinion is supported by other evidence. ... The ALJ must clearly state the weight he has given to the medical sources and the reasons that support the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when assigning weight to medical source opinions, but does not require reciting each factor verbatim.

Birkle v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-12(c)

Contrary to plaintiff's argument, the law. requires that the ALJ consider these factors, not that he recite them as a litany.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and weigh medical opinions using specified factors, gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and does not require discussion of every finding if the opinion was considered and weighed.

Mohr v. SSA · filed 2015-04-01(c)

The ALJ is required to consider the medical opinions in a claimant’s administrative record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Medical opinions are evaluated based on the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the consistency of the opinion with the other record evidence, the medical source’s specialty, and other factors that may be brought to the ALJ’s attention. § 404.1527(c). A treating medical source’s opinion about the claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2). ... More specifically, an ALJ is not required to discuss every finding in a medical opinion as long as the opinion was considered as part of the administrative record and weighed as required by § 404.1527(c).