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).

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ rationale for weighing a medical opinion to be discernible and supported by substantial record evidence, though the ALJ need not explicitly address every listed factor.

Larocque v SSA · filed 2015-05-14(c)

While the Acting Commissioner is correct that the ALJ need not explicitly take account of all of the factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight to give to a medical opinion or an opinion from an “other medical source,” the court must at the least be able to discern the rationale the ALJ used to reach her determination, and that rationale must be supported by substantial record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) identifies factors for evaluating acceptable medical-source opinions, and an ALJ may also apply those factors to opinions from other sources.

Slattery v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-29(d)

... Although the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d) only apply to “acceptable medical sources,” the ALJ can apply them to opinions from “other sources.” SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *4. These factors include: the frequency of treatment, consistency with other evidence, degree of supporting evidence, thoroughness of explanation, and whether the source has an area of expertise.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an administrative law judge to consider all medical opinions in the claimant’s case record together with other relevant evidence.

McClurkin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2015-09-04(b)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions in a claimant’s case record, together with other relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). “[T]he ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the length of the treatment relationship and the medical source’s knowledge of the claimant’s impairments when evaluating a medical opinion.

Tucker v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-30(c)

The ALJ is required to consider the length of the treatment relationship as well as the level of knowledge the medical source has about the claimant’s impairments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six factors in weighing a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor when the decision sufficiently explains the assigned weight and reasons.

Rivera v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-20(c)

An ALJ must consider six factors to determine what weight to give a medical opinion: (1) the examining relationship between the physician and the applicant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of their treatment relationship; (3) the strength of the evidence supporting the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the physician’s specialty; and (6) any other factors, such as the physician’s familiarity with disability programs and the extent of his familiarity with other information in the record, that tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Goatcher v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir. 1995). Here, the ALJ did not discuss all the factors, but he cited them, and his decision was specific enough for us to determine what weight he gave the opinions and why.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527’s factors for weighing acceptable medical-source opinions apply equally to opinions from medical and non-medical sources that are not acceptable medical sources.

Hays v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-22(c)(2), (4), (6)

Physical therapists fall within the category of “other sources,” whose opinions may be considered to show the severity of a claimant’s impairment. ... “[T]he factors for weighing the opinions of acceptable medical sources set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) and § 416.927(d) apply equally to all opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources as well as from other non-medical sources.” ... Although some of the § 404.1527 factors weigh in favor of Mr. Brown’s evaluation, the ALJ was entitled to give it diminished weight because he was not a treating source and saw Ms. Hays only twice, made assessments that were inconsistent with each other, and noted in his report her unwillingness to perform some of the functional ability tests.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned to each, and generally give the greatest weight to treating-source opinions, less to examining-source opinions, and least to nonexamining-source opinions.

Boyer v. Colvin, Commissioner, SSA · filed 2016-01-15(c), (e)(2)(ii)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion he receives. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c). As a general rule, but subject to exceptions, an ALJ should give the greatest weight to the opinion of a medical source who has treated the claimant, less weight to the opinion of a medical source who has only examined the claimant, and the least weight to the opinion of a medical source who has neither treated nor examined the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1) & (2), 416:927(c)(1) & (2). Moreover, the ALJ is obligated to explain the weight he gives to each medical opinion he evaluates. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) & 416.927(e)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using relevant factors such as the treatment relationship and supportability, generally giving more weight to examining sources and considering supporting explanations from nonexamining sources.

Brindley v SSA · filed 2016-01-29(c), (c)(1), (c)(3)

... I note, however, that an ALJ considers a number of factors when weighing a medical opinion, including the relationship between the claimant and the source of the opinion, and the opinion’s supportability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Accordingly, an ALJ generally will “give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has not . . . .” Id. § 404.1527(c)(1). Moreover, “because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [the claimant], the weight [the ALJ] will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(3). The ALJ should address these and other relevant factors in weighing opinion evidence on remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to determine the weight of each medical opinion by considering factors including examination and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Frank Dooley, Jr. v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2016-07-28(c)

An ALJ must determine how much weight to give to each of the medical opinions in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). In making this determination, the ALJ should consider various factors, including (1) whether the medical source who provided the opinion has examined the claimant; (2) whether the source treated the claimant; (3) the amount of relevant evidence the source provided to support the opinion; (4) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether the source is a specialist; and (6) any other relevant factors, such as the source’s knowledge of the Commissioner’s disability programs and the extent to which the source is familiar with the claimant’s history of treatment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)−(6); 416.927(c)(1)−(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinions and explain the weight assigned to each opinion.

Deherrera v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-30(c)

The ALJ must of course consider all medical opinions in the record and discuss the weight assigned to each opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to provide good reasons for rejecting a contradictory treating-source medical opinion in favor of non-medical evidence or a non-treating medical opinion, but § 404.1527(e)(2) does not require good reasons to reject a non-treating source’s opinion.

Orndorff v. Colvin · filed 2016-04-13(c)(2), (e)(2)

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to provide “good reasons” to reject a contradictory medical opinion from a treating source in favor of non-medical evidence or a non-treating medical opinion. ... However, for non-treating sources, the Regulations do not require “good reasons” to reject them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as a statement from a physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical source reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, capabilities, and restrictions.

Nixon v. Colvin · filed 2016-06-07(a)(2)

Medical opinions are defined as "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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) supplies the factors an ALJ should use when weighing opinions from medical sources that are not acceptable medical sources.

Durden v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-03(c)

When the evidence is from “[mjedical sources who are not ‘acceptable medical sources,’ such as nurse practitioners, physician assistánts, licensed clinical social workers, naturo-paths, chiropractors, audiologists, and therapists,”, the ALJ should apply “the factors for weighing opinion evidence” contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) distinguishes medical opinions from symptom descriptions lacking specific functional restrictions, while § 404.1527(a)(2) defines a treating source through an ongoing relationship arising from a medical need rather than solely support for a disability claim.

MILLNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-07-25(a)(1), (a)(2)

Additionally, the questionnaires do not fit the definition of “medical opinions” provided by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1)7 because, although many symptoms are described, specific functional restrictions are not. ... Therefore, the ALJ was not required to weigh these questionnaires, especially when they are not supported by the medical evidence in the record. ... Further, it is not clear Dr. Crain is a “treating source,” as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) as a physician that has an ongoing relationship with the claimant and provides treatment or evaluation. ... If a claimant’s relationship with a treating source does not stem from a medical need, but rather solely from a claimant’s need to support a disability claim, it is a “nontreating source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain how a medical source’s terminology connects to the agency’s definitions when evaluating that opinion.

Dunn v. Saul · filed 2019-11-26(d)(2)

The ALJ omitted any explanation of how Dr. Grujic’s terminology connected to the agency’s definitions in Dunn’s case, as the regulations require. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not make a physician's conclusion that a claimant is disabled dispositive of the claimant's ability to work.

Willie GARRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1985-06-25

The treating physician’s further assertion that Garrison is disabled from any employment is not a medical statement at all. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (physician’s conclusion not dispositive).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not bind the Secretary to a doctor's conclusion that a claimant is disabled.

Barbarine CARRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret M. HECKLER, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defend · filed 1985-01-17

The Secretary is not bound by a doctor's conclusion that a claimant is disabled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves the ultimate disability determination to the agency and requires review of the medical findings and other evidence supporting a physician's disability statement.

Boyes v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1990-03-06

This regulation states, "We are responsible for determining whether you are disabled. Therefore, a statement by your physician that you are 'disabled' or 'unable to work' does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled. We have to review the medical findings and other evidence that supports a physician's statement that you are 'disabled.' "

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 makes the agency—not a physician—responsible for deciding disability and requires it to review the medical findings and other evidence supporting a physician's statement that a claimant is disabled.

Short v. Sullivan · filed 1989-12-29

Section 404.1527 provides: "We are responsible for determining whether you are disabled. Therefore, a statement by your physician that you are 'disabled' or 'unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled. We have to review the medical findings ... and other evidence that support a physician’s statement that you are ‘disabled.’"

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) provides that a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not decide disability; that determination belongs to the Commissioner.

Ostronski v. Chater · filed 1996-08-22(e)(1)

"A statement by a medical source that [a claimant is] `disabled' or `unable to work' does not mean that [the Commissioner] will determine that [the claimant is] disabled." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). The determination of whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability is the responsibility of the Commissioner. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A physician's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not controlling; the agency must review the medical findings and other evidence supporting it.

WRIGHT, Joya, Appellant, v. SULLIVAN, Louis, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1990-04-09

"[a] statement by your physician that you are 'disabled' or 'unable to work' does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled. We have to review the medical findings and other evidence that support a physician's statement that you are 'disabled.' "

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) provides that a medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not determine that the claimant is disabled.

Hughes v. Barnhart · filed 2003-02-20(e)(1)

As the regulations make clear, however, 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 Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner, so an opinion that a claimant is disabled receives no weight, although its supporting medical findings and evidence must still be considered.

Slaydon v. Saul · filed 2019-08-06(d)(1)

Medical source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are not entitled to any weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). One issue reserved to the Commissioner is whether plaintiff is disabled. Id. § 404.1527(d)(1). “[W]hen a medical source renders an opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work, the ALJ will consider all of the medical findings and other evidence that support the medical sources opinion, but will not necessarily make a favorable disability determination.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 256 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, the ALJ properly declined to give Dr. Watson’s statement that plaintiff is disabled any weight, but failed to properly weigh the medical findings and other evidence supporting the medical source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)'s factors for weighing acceptable medical-source opinions apply equally to opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and other non-medical sources.

Chavez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-04(d)

“[T]he factors for weighing the opinions of acceptable medical sources set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) apply equally to all opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources as well as from other non-medical sources.” ... Therefore, the Court agrees that it was impermissible to reject PA Maroney’s opinion on the ground that he was not an acceptable medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) provides that medical opinions are weighed under factors including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, and specialization, with examining, treating, and specialist opinions generally receiving more weight.

Henley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-01(c)

Relevant here, the opinions of examining physicians are generally given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1-5). ... To begin, as a one-time consultative examiner, Dr. Fontoura’s opinion was not entitled to any special consideration by the ALJ. In other words, the ALJ did not need to articulate good cause for rejecting Dr. Fontoura’s findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to treating and examining opinions than to non-examining opinions and permits rejection of a contradicted treating or examining opinion only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-04(d)(1)-(3)

“Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are afforded more weight than those of non-examining physicians, and the opinions of examining non-treating physicians are afforded less weight than those of treating physicians. ... “If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” ... The ALJ provided a specific and legitimate reason to reject Dr. Stuart’s April 12, 2018 opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that medical-source opinions on issues such as residual functional capacity do not control the decision because final responsibility for those issues is reserved to the Commissioner.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-09(d)(2)

Although medical opinions are considered in assessing a claimant’s RFC, ALJs are not required to adopt wholesale any one opinion. It is the ALJ’s duty to assess the record as a whole, resolve any conflicts, and formulate a RFC finding that is unique to the claimant and the evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as ... your residual functional capacity...the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”); see also Cage v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 692 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2012) (“In our review, we defer to the Commissioner's resolution of conflicting evidence.”); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider acceptable medical source opinions and assign each opinion weight.

Sarbu v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-18(c)

An ALJ must consider the acceptable medical source opinions of record and assign weight to each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider each relevant factor before deciding how much weight to give a treating-source medical opinion, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

LAFFITTE v. SAUL · filed 2021-02-22(c)

even if a “medical opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, it does not follow that the ALJ had free reign to attach whatever weight to that opinion that he deemed fit. The ALJ was requited to consider each of the six 20 C-F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors before casting [treating physician] opinion aside.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to medical opinions by considering the relevant factors, but does not require a slavish recitation of each factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Zwiebel v. Saul · filed 2020-11-17(c)

Although the ALJ did not necessarily recount the factors (see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)) in assigning “some weight” to Dr. Pollack’s opinions, the Second Circuit has made clear that the ALJ need not produce a “slavish recitation of each and every factor [set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” ... Rather, the ALJ need only apply “the substance of the treating physician rule.” ... The Court thus concludes that the ALJ adequately explained the factors he considered in assigning some weight to Dr. Pollack’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on supportability and consistency, and bars controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless it is well supported and not inconsistent with the record.

Cathey v. Berryhill · filed 2021-04-30(c)(2)

When evaluating a disability claim, an ALJ weighs each medical opinion in a claimant’s case record based on factors including, among other things, how well the opinion is supported by relevant evidence and how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Opinions from treating physicians generally receive greater weight than non-examining sources, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), but not if the opinions are conclusory, unsupported, or inconsistent with the evidence of record. See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). An ALJ may not give controlling weight to a treating doctor’s medical opinion unless it is well supported and not inconsistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) gives more weight to examining-source opinions, while § 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned to treating-source opinions.

Bailey v. SSA · filed 2021-06-15(c)(1), (c)(2)

Under § 404.1527(c)(1),2 the SSA generally “give[s] more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [the claimant].” ... Treating source opinions are also “give[n] more weight” because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ is required to give “good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] [the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. ... In evaluating Dr. Monderewicz’s opinion, the ALJ followed the guidelines in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), by giving appropriate weight to an examining source opinion, and even used Dr. Monderewicz’s opinion to help craft Plaintiff’s RFC. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ did not consider Dr. Monderewicz opinion is not supported by the record and therefore lacks merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 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.

Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(c)

The opinion of a treating physician 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(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based on factors including the source’s examining and treating relationship, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, and medical specialty.

George v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-14(c)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and apply its six-factor weighing analysis when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, but the analysis is not required for a consultative examiner’s opinion.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2021-07-15(c)

Where a treating physician’s medical opinion is not afforded controlling weight, the ALJ must consider all of the following six factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion: (1) the examining relationship, (2) the nature, extent, frequency, and length of treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the physician is a specialist, and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c). ... However, Dr. Bolz is not a treating physician; he is a physical consultative examiner. ... Because Plaintiff has records from various treating physicians (such as exhibits 1F, 11F, 12F, 14F, 15F, 19F, 20F, and 21F) there is no need to give “controlling weight” to the opinions of consultative examiners or utilize the six-factor analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion and explain the reasons for the weight assigned, while a non-treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Jones v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-30(c)

An ALJ’s determination as to the weight to be assigned to a medical opinion generally will not be disturbed absent some indication that the ALJ has dredged up “specious inconsistencies,” Scivally v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070, 1077 (7th Cir. 1992), or has failed to give a sufficient reason for the weight afforded a particular opinion, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). While the ALJ was required to evaluate the opinion, because Dr. Shrouder was not Plaintiff’s treating physician, his opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. Id. Here, the ALJ provided specific reasons for the weight given to Dr. Shrouder’s opinion. Furthermore, the ALJ followed the applicable regulations regarding how much weight she could give the opinion because Dr. Shrouder was not Plaintiff’s treating physician. Tr. 22.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the record as a whole.

Calloway v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-07(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ found the consultative evaluation “very persuasive” because the evidence as a whole supported its conclusions. R. 29; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (noting that more weight will be given to a medical opinion in which the medical source presents relevant evidence to support that opinion); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion when the source provides a better explanation for it.

Rutledge v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

The ALJ also properly considered the “somewhat vague and unspecified nature” of Dr. Oguntuyo’s opinion (Tr. 33), as the regulations direct the Commissioner to afford more weight to properly explained medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) directs that the weight given to a non-examining physician’s testimony depends on the degree to which the physician supports the opinion with explanations.

Gerrity v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-19(d)(3)

“The weight afforded a non-examining physician’s testimony depends ‘on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.’” Ryan v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) identifies the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and source specialization as factors in weighing a medical opinion.

Ham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-28(c)(1)-(6)

The relevant factors considered in determining what weight to afford an opinion include the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence which supports the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization (if any) of the opinion’s source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6)2. ... Overall, the ALJ properly assessed Dr. Liu’s 2019 opinion and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s weight determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that opinions from non-treating or non-examining sources usually are not entitled to controlling weight and directs an ALJ to consider factors including supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Cotton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-24(c)(2)

When opinions come from a non-treating but examining source, like Dr. Miller, or from non-examining sources, like the state agency reviewing psychologists, they are usually not entitled to controlling weight. See id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Instead, an ALJ should consider relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate opinions from non-acceptable medical sources using the listed factors, permits such an opinion to outweigh an acceptable source’s opinion, and requires consideration of functional limitations even when a source’s ultimate disability conclusion is reserved to the Commissioner.

Bishton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-29(c), (d), (f)(1)

However, an ALJ considers opinions from “medical sources” who are not “acceptable medical sources” using the same factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) that apply to “medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1); ... The factors are (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the provider’s specialization, if any; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In fact, the regulations recognize that in considering these factors, “[d]epending on the particular facts in a case . . . an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source . . . may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source, including the medical opinion of a treating source.” Id. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... However, this is not an instance where the entirety of Mr. Lewis’ opinion is a statement on the ultimate issue of the ability to work. The ALJ must still consider the functional limitations and explanations contained in the opinion. See Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining that, even though a statement on the ultimate issue will not dictate a finding of disability, the statement must still be considered).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not make a claimant’s failure to pursue treatment directly relevant to the weight assigned to a medical provider’s opinion.

Juarez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-29(c)

For the purposes of the remand, the Court notes that the fact that a claimant fails to pursue treatment is not directly relevant to the weight of a medical provider’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, including a treating physician’s opinion, and the court treated failure to do so as reversible error.

Meixner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-08(c)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ must comply with two requirements. First, the ALJ must consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion: (1) length and frequency of the examining relationship; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability and whether the medical opinion includes supporting explanations and relevant evidence such as laboratory findings; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) physician specialization and; (6) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). The failure to consider these factors constitutes reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a medical opinion controlling weight to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and the source’s specialization when deciding the opinion’s weight.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-17(c)(1)–(6)

When the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ will address factors including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion, whether the treating source is a specialist in the area, and any other relevant factors in determining the weight to give the medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist's opinion about medical issues related to the specialist's area of specialty than to a nonspecialist's opinion.

Thielen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-01(c)(5)

The ALJ could discount this portion of the opinion regarding plaintiff’s physical limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(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 establishes a hierarchy among medical opinions as a framework for determining the weight given to each opinion.

Hatley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-23

The Regulations establish a hierarchy among medical opinions that provides a framework for determining the weight afforded each medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1)-(3) provides the framework for weighing treating, examining, and non-examining medical opinions, and a contradicted treating or examining opinion may be rejected only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Vue v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-31(d)(1)-(3)

If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give greater weight to medical opinions that are consistent with the record and that come from sources with longer, more frequent treatment relationships.

Rosa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-23(c)(4)

Dominguez’s assessment was also inconsistent with treatment notes indicating that plaintiff’s depressive disorder was “mild.” AR 29, 340; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (instructing an ALJ that the weight given to a medical opinion generally depends upon its consistency with the record as a whole). ... Indeed, Dominguez only evaluated plaintiff once, in November 2017, and did not have an ongoing treatment relationship with plaintiff. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2015) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs the Commissioner to give greater weight to a medical opinion when the medical source supports it with relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Kidd v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2022-08-02(c)(3)

“Supportability,” a factor used to evaluate medical opinions, means “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the Commissioner] will give that medical opinion.” § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give specific, reviewable reasons for the weight assigned to a medical opinion.

Rios v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-16(d)(2)

The ALJ must provide good reasons for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 places treating-source opinions above examining-source opinions, and examining-source opinions above non-examining-source opinions, in the weight assigned to medical opinions.

(SS) Stockdale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-26(a)(2), (c)(1)

At the top, the opinions of those who treat the claimant and have an ongoing relationship with her (treating physicians) are entitled to “substantial weight.” Id. (quotation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). In the middle tier, those who examine but do not treat the claimant and do not have an ongoing relationship with her (examining physicians) are entitled to less weight than a treating physician but more weight than a non-examining physician. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). “To reject either a treating or an examining physician’s opinion, an ALJ must provide ‘clear and convincing reasons,’ if the opinion is uncontradicted by other evidence, or ‘specific and legitimate reasons’ otherwise, and the reasons must be supported by substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion less or no weight when it lacks relevant evidence or sufficient supporting explanation, or conflicts with the record as a whole.

Kramer v. Saul · filed 2022-08-29(c)

Further, an ALJ may give an opinion less weight or no weight if it does not present relevant evidence or a sufficient explanation to support it, or if it is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions using factors including supportability, consistency, and the treating or examining relationship.

Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-22(c)

Dr. Amado’s opinion lacks a thorough explanation, relies only on Morgan’s medical records, and conflicts with the opinion of providers who treated or examined Morgan personally. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (factors to consider when deciding the weight to give a medical opinion include supportability, consistency, and whether the opinion arose from a treating or examining relationship).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be weighed based on the treatment or examining relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's specialty, generally giving greater weight to treating sources than to non-treating or non-examining sources.

Hope v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-27(c)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The regulations and case law establish a general preference for assigning greater weight to the opinions of treating medical sources than the opinions of non-treating medical sources, and greater weight to the opinions of non-treating medical sources than the opinions of non-examining medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2); Ryan v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 939, 942 (11th Cir. 1985).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion when it is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed using the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors.

Rodriguez v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-06(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” as 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); Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). 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. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Id. ... Given that both evaluators relied on their observations and diagnostic tools in evaluating Plaintiff and making their conclusions and their results were consistent indicates the ALJ should have given more weight to their opinions rather than less. The ALJ incorrectly assumed that these evaluators were only relying on Plaintiff’s self-reports in coming to their conclusions. Rather, the record demonstrates that both evaluators observed and tested Plaintiff and came to similar conclusions. ... Thus, rather than be inconsistent with the longitudinal record, Dr. Marks’ evaluation is consistent with most of the records indicating that Plaintiff suffers from chronic depression and anxiety that prevents him from being able to work full-time. As such, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Marks’ testimony.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the weight given to a nonexamining source depend on how well the source explains the opinion, and permits that opinion to outweigh an examining physician’s opinion when supported by the record.

Brink v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-12(c)(3)

An ALJ is permitted to consider the opinion of non-examining sources, but the regulations caution that “because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [claimant], the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). ... Notwithstanding the general rule, the opinion of a non-examining source may be credited over that of an examining physician provided the opinion of the non-examining source is supported by the evidence in the record. Id. ... As such, Dr. Kwock’s opinion is supported by the evidence in the record. See D'augustino, 2016 WL 5081321, at *2. ... Accordingly, this Court concludes that the “internal inconsistencies” underscored by the ALJ in her reasoning constitutes an adequate explanation for assigning greater weight to Dr. Kwock’s opinion, a non-examining medical source, in comparison to Dr. Lee’s opinion, the consultative examiner. Tr. 2061.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion after considering its supportability and consistency with the physician’s own findings, the claimant’s reported activities, and other relevant evidence.

FETHERMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-06-05(c)(3), (4), (6)

As detailed above, in discounting Dr. Jasper’s opinion (including limitations in sitting and standing to 20 minutes at a time), the ALJ expressly considered the supportability and the consistency of Dr. Jasper’s opinion with other evidence, including that physician’s own findings and Plaintiff’s reported daily activities. Id. The Court finds no error with the ALJ’s consideration in this regard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) is not violated by a supposed failure to assign weight to medical opinions when the claimant identifies no unweighed opinion and the ALJ’s decision shows that it assigned weight.

Scharbrough v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2023-06-09(d)

Plaintiff also appears to argue that the ALJ erred by giving “no clear weight” to medical opinions other than VA opinions, in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ECF 9, at 22, 34. But Plaintiff does not identify which opinions were not weighed and, in any event, the ALJ’s decision contradicts this argument. See Tr. 1102 (“I give no weight to the December 2014 letter from the claimant’s treating internist”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinion evidence based on factors including the source’s relationship with the claimant, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Mendez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-07(c)

This includes opinion evidence, which the ALJ must weigh according to, among other things, the relationship between the claimant and the medical expert, how well the opinion is supported, and its consistency with the record. Id. at § 404.1527(c). ... ALJ Gontis contrasted Dr. Butler’s opinions with other evidence and found that they were inconsistent with and unsupported by the record as a whole. Id. ALJ Gontis thus gave the opinions little weight and supported that finding with substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) generally gives more weight to a medical opinion when the source supports it with a better explanation.

Giron v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-19(c)(3)

Under the Regulations, a better explained medical opinion, as a general matter, is given more weight. ... Because Dr. Blumenthal’s opinions provided minimal, if any, explanation in support, the ALJ appropriately discounted those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when the source provides relevant supporting evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, and a better explanation.

Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-31(c)(3)

Under the regulations, “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). The ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Qureshi’s opinion does not assume that Plaintiff’s treatment completely resolves her symptoms. Instead, the ALJ assigned the opinion “little weight” because she found that the Dr. Qureshi and the evidence do not support his opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Royalty v. SSA · filed 2023-12-27(d)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), a medical source’s opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is given controlling weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... The ALJ explained that the opinion is not well supported because it is inconsistent with the other evidence. ... Ultimately, the ALJ’s explanation is sufficiently detailed to enable Royalty to understand why Dr. Fishkoff’s medical opinion was granted little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors, and permits discounting a nonexamining physician’s opinion when it conflicts with the claimant’s demonstrated work abilities.

Gageby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-29(c)(1)-(6)

In determining the weight to be assigned to a medical opinion, the ALJ considers the following factors: length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship; supportability of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with other evidence in the record; the specialization of the source; and any other factors that support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). ... In summary, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Gageby’s ability to work in skilled employment for 8 years after her traumatic brain injury undermined Dr. Campion’s opinion that Gageby had moderate limitations with concentration, persistence, and pace, and undermined Dr. Campion’s opinion that Gageby was restricted to only routine, repetitive tasks. The reasons provided by the ALJ for discounting Dr. Campion’s opinions were specific and legitimate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source, while treating-source opinions generally receive more weight under subsection (c)(2).

Ritchie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-05(c)

ALJs generally give more weight to medical opinions from treating sources, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), but must evaluate every medical opinion they receive regardless of its source, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... On this record, the court finds no issues with the “some weight” given to the state agency decisions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion little weight when it is internally inconsistent and conflicts with the overall medical evidence, including sparse objective findings and limited treatment.

Lopez v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-13(c)

The ALJ cited the following reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Barua’s opinion: ... These were sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for finding Dr. Barua’s opinion was entitled to little weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257, 1266 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming the ALJ’s decision discounting the treating physician’s opinion where the doctor’s treatment note from the same day was inconsistent with the doctor’s opinion); Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (ALJ reasonably discounted treating physician opinion which was inconsistent with other medical evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency with the record as a whole, and the physician's specialization; an unexplained rejection despite consistent record evidence can require remand.

Hogren v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-29(c)

In determining the weight of medical source opinions not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ will evaluate the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of treatment relationship; evidence in support of the opinion; consistency with the record as a whole; and the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010). ... Furthermore, as noted by Plaintiff, there is relevant evidence in the record that is consistent with Dr. Thornton’s and Dr. Watt’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”). ... The ALJ's failure to provide such an explanation requires remand because it prevents this Court from conducting meaningful review to determine whether substantial evidence supports her decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the extent to which the physician’s own findings support the opinion; an examining relationship is only one factor in determining weight.

LESSIG v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-04-12(c)(3)

Second, the existence of an examining relationship is only one of the considerations in determining the weight to be given to a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ is also required to consider the extent to which the doctor’s opinions are supported by his or her own findings. Id. § 404.1527(c)(3). Here, the ALJ’s decision is based on the fact that Dr. Marmar’s conclusions were inconsistent with his observations on examination. I find that the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Marmar’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on examining or treating relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and specialization.

King v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2024-09-13(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), an ALJ considers the medical opinions in the record together with the rest of the relevant evidence in determining whether the claimant is disabled. Id. When weighing medical opinions, the ALJ gives more weight to opinions from medical sources who have examined or treated a claimant, considering the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(2). Further, the ALJ gives medical opinions more weight when a medical source presents relevant evidence to support the opinion, when the medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and when the medical source is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(5). ... In this case (as explained above), and pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the ALJ found that “Dr. Blanton’s opinion that [King] is malingering is afforded great weight because it is consistent with [Dr. Blanton’s] own examination of [King] and consistent with the rest of the record including his work activity and reported activities of daily living which do not support [King’s] presentation at the consultative examination.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives greater weight to medical opinions that are better supported by evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

McKean v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-26(c)(3)

The ALJ dutifully explained that she gave great weight to the less restrictive portions of Dr. Schwab’s opinion because they were supported by his largely normal examination findings. (Tr. 1998; see Tr. 3316-17). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“ ([t]he more a medical source presents evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues within the specialist’s field than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Glick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-12-06(d)(5)

The ALJ was also permitted to discount Dr. Peterson’s opinion on Plaintiff’s physical impairments because it was outside his area of expertise as a psychologist. An ALJ may reject a doctor’s opinions when they are “on a matter not related to her or his area of specialization.” John D. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. C19-743 TLF, 2020 WL 5869065, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 1, 2020) (quoting Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001)); 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.”). The Court finds no error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives more weight to an examining source, while the weight assigned to a non-examining source depends on its supporting explanations and consistency with the record as a whole.

Shannon Montgomery v. Martin O'Malley · filed 2024-12-13(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4)

Though generally, more weight is given to the medical opinion of an examining source than a non-examining source, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the SSA] will give that medical opinion,” id. § 404.1527(c)(3). Thus, “because [non-examining] sources have no examining or treating relationship with [the claimant], the weight [the SSA] will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(3). Further, “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the SSA] will give to that medical opinion.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives greater weight to examining physicians than to physicians who merely review medical records, but an ALJ may credit reviewing physicians when their opinions are consistent with the record as a whole.

MacKey v. Colvin · filed 2025-01-31(c)

To be sure, several doctors who examined or treated Mackey concluded that she could not work at all. And ALJs generally give greater weight to doctors who examine patients than those who merely review medical records. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). But when the medical evidence supports conflicting interpretations, the ALJ may reasonably decide which interpretation to adopt. Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041–42 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, two examining physicians and several reviewing physicians opined that Mackey could perform simple, work-like tasks. The ALJ deemed their opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a medical source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Lyons v. SSA · filed 2025-03-07(d)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), a medical source’s opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is given controlling weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... The Court, however, finds that the ALJ adequately considered Dr. Ramsey’s own examination findings, as well as the findings of Dr. Cornett in reaching the conclusion that Dr. Ramsey’s opinion was inconsistent both with her own findings and others’ medical findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4) support giving less weight to a medical opinion when the source does not adequately explain it and it conflicts with other record evidence.

Salisbury v. Dudek · filed 2025-03-31(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for partially rejecting Dr. Stuckey’s opinion. The ALJ stated that Dr. Stuckey failed to fully explain those conclusions that the ALJ rejected. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007). And the ALJ also identified instances in which Dr. Stuckey’s opinion conflicted with parts of the record concerning Salisbury’s daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence and explanation, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-10(c)

The ALJ is to consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s ‘opinion is with the record as a whole’; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. ... In this case, the ALJ extensively reviewed the record as a whole, including the medical records and opinions from both Dr. Soto-Varela and Dr. Minor, and found that these opinions were entitled to little weight because they were not supported by objective medical evidence, were not explained in detail, and were not consistent with all of the other evidence throughout the record from all sources. (Tr. 1312-17).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the pre-March 2017 rules, § 404.1527 permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based on the source’s familiarity with the record, consistency with other evidence, specialization, and whether it addresses an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Duval v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-07(c)(5), (c)(6), (d)(1)

The Court further observes that the ALJ here properly discounted Dr. Deming’s opinion based on her apparent lack of familiarity with other information in the record, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6); upon finding it inconsistent with the overall unremarkable MSE, Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216, and the longitudinal record, Smartt, 53 F.4th at 496; as offering equivocal assessments that failed to articulate specific limitations, Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020); Thomas v. Saul, 796 F. App’x 923, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2019); Shelly A. O. v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., C18-2158, 2020 WL 3868504, at *10 (D. Or. Jul. 8, 2020); as intruding on issues reserved to the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1); and as offering an opinion falling outside of Dr. Deming’s area of expertise, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires the agency, when weighing a nonexamining source’s opinion, to evaluate how fully the opinion considers the pertinent evidence in the claim.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-08(c)(3)

The regulations specify that for non-examining sources, “we will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (emphasis added). Thus, the ALJ did not err when he gave less weight to Dr. Levine’s opinion due to Dr. Levine not having reviewed the entire record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to give little or no weight to a medical opinion, including a treating source’s opinion, when the ALJ explains the decision using the regulatory factors and the record supports it.

Kersey v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-24(d)

Furthermore, while an ALJ may not reject medical evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason, see King v. Califano, 615 F.2d 1018, 1020 (4th Cir.1980), an ALJ may, under the regulations, assign no or little weight to a medical opinion, even one from a treating source, based on the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d), if he sufficiently explains his rationale and if the record supports his findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a consultative examiner’s opinion greater weight than a treating source’s opinion when it is more consistent with the medical evidence.

Corbett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-03(c)(2)

A consultative examiner’s opinion may be accorded greater weight than a treating source’s opinion where the ALJ finds it more consistent with the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A medical opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole affects the weight it receives.

Maserang v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(c)(4)

Additionally, because their opinions are consistent with the other medical evidence in the record, they further support the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Kotha’s assessment.