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).

When a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain the weight assigned to the consulting physician's opinion.

Turner v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-22(e)(2)

Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain the weight given to the consulting physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion, requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight only when supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and gives no special significance to source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Thompson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-04(a)(2), (c)(2), (d)(2)-(3)

Furthermore, pursuant to Sections 404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(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 symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite your impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions. It is clear that Dr. Sayre’s prescription for the wheeled walker (Tr. at 710.) would not constitute a “medical opinion” as defined above. ... Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that Dr. Kureshi’s and Dr. Jefferson’s opinions restricting Claimant’s functional capabilities in lifting/carrying, walking/standing, and sitting in an eight-hour workday is a “residual functional capacity . . . or the application of vocational factors”, an issue solely reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... pursuant to Sections 404.1527(d)(3) and 416.1527(d)(3), the Commissioner “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” Accordingly, the ALJ provided “good reasons” for giving those opinions little weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as a judgment from an acceptable medical source about an impairment's nature and severity, and a chiropractor's views are not entitled to controlling weight reserved for acceptable treating sources.

Sims v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-10-27(a)(1), (c)(2)

A medical opinion is a “statement[] from [an] acceptable medical source[] that reflects judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Because Sims has not argued either to our court or below that the progress notes contained medical opinions, we will assume for purposes of this appeal that the progress notes do not contain medical opinions, meaning the ALJ was not required to indicate the weight assigned to them. ... Because a chiropractor is not an “acceptable medical source,” an ALJ has no duty to give controlling weight to a chiropractor’s views. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), (c)(2); SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2 (Aug. 9, 2006) (listing chiropractors among those “[m]edical sources who are not ‘acceptable medical sources’”). For an “other source,” such as a chiropractor, an ALJ generally should “explain the weight given” to the opinion or “otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” See SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *6 (Aug. 9, 2006). Although the ALJ did not explicitly state the weight given to Ozmon’s opinion, the decision contained sufficient detail to allow a reviewing court to follow the ALJ’s reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) provides that a medical opinion supported by more medical evidence is given greater weight.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-12-13(c)(3)

Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) states that the more medical evidence there is to support a medical opinion, the more weight it will be given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, expertise, and other relevant factors when weighing a non-treating medical source's opinion.

Johnson v SSA · filed 2017-10-12(c)

When weighing the testimony of a physician who is not the claimant’s “treating source,” an ALJ must consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship (including length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, and nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability of the opinion by evidence in the record, consistency with the medical opinions of other physicians, whether the doctor is evaluating a claimant in an area of the doctor’s expertise, and any other relevant factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats residual functional capacity as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner and does not require controlling weight for a non-treating physician’s opinion.

Brownell v. Social Security Administration · filed 2018-06-27(c)(2), (d)

The RFC is not a medical assessment, but instead is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); ... Finally, the ALJ properly accorded little weight to Dr. Graf’s 2015 evaluation, and instead relied on non-examining physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Dr. Graf was not a treating physician, but was consulted for the purposes of Brownell’s disability application; therefore the ALJ was under no obligation to give his opinion controlling weight. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering the examination and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Knapp v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-03(c)(1)-(6)

The relevant social security regulations provide that medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: 1) whether the source of the opinion examined the claimant; 2) whether the source treated the claimant and, if so, a) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and b) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and 6) any other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6); ... In this case, the ALJ supported her decision to give Dr. Sims’s opinion substantial weight by stating that his assessment was consistent with the record as a whole and noting his familiarity with Social Security laws and regulations. As noted above, the Court also recognizes that Dr. Sims’s opinion was consistent with the results of the FCE and Dr. Hall’s opinion. Based upon its review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to afford substantial weight to Dr. Sim’s opinion was based on substantial evidence and was, thus, not in error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement reflecting a judgment about an impairment’s nature and severity, including its symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Horr v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-31(a)(1)

Indeed, Dr. Roth’s reports contain symptoms and diagnoses, but not a prognosis, a discussion of what Horr could do despite her impairments, or an assessment of her physical restrictions. By contrast, a medical opinion is a statement that reflects a judgment about the nature and severity of the impairment, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, what the claimant can still do despite the impairment, and any physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1); House v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-02109-SEB-TAB, 2018 WL 1556173, at *6 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 30, 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider the evidence supporting a medical opinion when deciding how much weight to give it.

Patoski v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-31(c)(3)

The ALJ is also allowed to consider the underlying evidence supporting a medical opinion when determining how much weight to grant to that medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to an examining source's opinion than to a non-examining source's opinion, while § 404.1527(c)(3) favors opinions supported by relevant objective evidence and explanation.

Ramos v. Colvin · filed 2018-08-22(c)(1), (c)(3)

Examining physician opinions are normally afforded more weight than non-examining sources. 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.”) Here, the ALJ gave non-examining sources greater weight without providing substantial evidence in the record to build a logical bridge explaining his reasoning. ... “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give the opinion. The better explanation a source provides for an opinion the more weight we will give that opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to always give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Hocking v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-28(d)(2)

Regardless of how much weight the ALJ affords a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must “always give good reason” for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Because the ALJ gave good reason for discrediting Dr. Stover’s opinion, this Court finds that the ALJ did not err in assigning little weight to Dr. Stover’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it is not corroborated by adequate supporting explanations or laboratory findings.

Patoski v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-30(c)(3)

The ALJ can discount a medical opinion when it is not corroborated by adequate supporting explanations or laboratory findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to consider multiple factors when assessing medical opinions, including opinions from state-agency consultants.

Taylor v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-29

Further, the ALJ may rely on a non-examining physician as part of the medical evidence in formulating an RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (explaining the ALJ must consider a number of factors when assessing medical opinions including those of state agency consultants).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits the ALJ to assign weight to a medical opinion based on whether it comes from a treating source and on factors including the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, and consistency with the record.

Rose v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-14(a), (c)

As the Commissioner argues, a medical opinion is only entitled to controlling weight when it is (1) rendered by a treating source, (2) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (3) not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The regulations explicitly permit the ALJ to consider the length and nature of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 514-15 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirming ALJ’s decision to discount the report of a one-time examiner hired by Claimant’s attorney).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) allows an ALJ to consider nonexamining doctors’ opinions and ties the weight given to them to the supporting explanations they provide.

Ashley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-11(c)

Ashley also takes issue with the Disability Determination Services doctors who reviewed her medical files and issued opinions about her RFC in 2013 and 2014 because they never examined her, but the ALJ can consider nonexamining doctors’ opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[B]ecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement reflecting a judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment; a statement about when a claimant was diagnosed is not a medical opinion under that definition.

Wallaga v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-05-06(a)(1)

But even assuming that what Dr. Gullette-Crosson said about the date of Wallaga’s diagnosis was a medical opinion in the first place, which it was not, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (defining “[m]edical opinions” as “statements . . . that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)”), and assuming that Dr. Gullette-Crosson said that Wallaga was not diagnosed with a mental impairment until 2013, which is a bit of a stretch, the ALJ gave no weight to any such “opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators to determine the weight of a medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight by considering six factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-18(c)

When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the following factors will be applied to determine the weight to give the opinion: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ did not err in failing to give Dr. Kahl’s opinion controlling weight because it is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The proper weight to give this non-controlling physician opinion is determined through an analysis of the six factors listed above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based on the source’s relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record as a whole.

Jones v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-30(c)

The weight the ALJ gives to a medical source’s opinion depends on three factors: (1) the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, (2) the evidence the medical source presents to support his opinion, and (3) the degree of consistency between the medical source’s opinion and the medical evidence in the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) supports giving greater weight to medical opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole.

Biglow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-15(c)

Furthermore, the ALJ appropriately accorded significant weight to the opinions of reviewing physicians Dr. David Knierim and Dr. Elizabeth Das because their assessments were “generally consistent with the medical evidence viewed as a whole and with the claimant’s own description of her activities.” (Tr. 33); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (medical opinions given greater weight when consistent with record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including what the claimant can still do and the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions.

Mack v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(a)(1)

As per 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), “[m]edical opinions . . . reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including . . . what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” The Magistrate Judge correctly noted Dr. Singleton’s treatment records fail to constitute a medical opinion within the meaning of the Act.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs adjudicators to give greater weight to a medical opinion when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

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

In this case, the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Beig’s report is well supported by the record. See 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 opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing an other medical source opinion to apply the relevant treating-source factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, and to explain the weight given when the opinion might affect the outcome.

Blythe v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-10(f)(1), (c)(2)–(6), and (f)(2)

When considering what weight to give to the opinion of an other medical source, the ALJ employs the same factors used for analyzing a treating source's opinion, and applies whatever factors are relevant to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). Those factors include the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the frequency of exams, the evidence upon which the therapist bases her or his opinion, the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole, whether the therapist has specialized in her or his area of practice, and any other relevant factor, like the source's familiarity with the claimant's full medical record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). After considering all the pertinent factors, if the ALJ determines that the opinion might impact the outcome of the case, then the ALJ must explain the weight given to the opinion in a fashion that “allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator's reasoning.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to apply the treating-source factors when deciding the weight of a medical opinion, and the ALJ need not discuss every factor if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Yoder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-17(c)(2)

Although an ALJ must “consider” all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and must “apply” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including its subsections, through (c)(6) to determine the weight to give that opinion, he is not required to discuss every factor in his decision as long as he provides “good reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 recognizes that an APRN is not an acceptable medical source whose opinion receives controlling weight, while reserving the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Clark v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-20(a)(2), (d)(1)

Although the ultimate issue of disability is a decision reserved to the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), the portion of Dr. Grise’s statement regarding the plaintiff’s limitations bears directly on the plaintiff’s functional limitations, none of which were addressed by the ALJ in his decision. ... While it was within the ALJ’s province to assign partial or limited weight to the opinion of an APRN as an APRN is not an “acceptable medical source” whose opinion would be entitled to controlling weight, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), the ALJ did not reject this opinion on that basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes a medical source’s understanding of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements a relevant factor in deciding how much weight to give the source’s medical opinion.

Verzino v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-27(c)(6)

“the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has, . . . are relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1)-(2) does not require an ALJ to accept a treating source's opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion of disability.

Gordon v. HHS · filed 1994-03-31(e)(1)-(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1)-(2) (ALJ does not have to accept treating source's opinion as to ultimate legal conclusion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion using all of the regulation’s listed factors when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Miller v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-22(d)(2)

Nevertheless, even when a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it 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 reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner and does not require controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that conflicts with other substantial evidence.

Giunta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-11-23(e)(1), (d)(2)

However, the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act is “reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). As noted by the ALJ and district court, a claimant’s subjective report of the effects of his impairment is not controlling, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and the opinion of a treating physician is not controlling if it conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record. Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... The ALJ was not required to accord controlling weight to Giunta’s subjective complaints or, in light of the conflicting evidence, the opinions of Giunta’s treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) provides that a medical source’s statement that a claimant is unable to work is not a medical opinion entitled to special significance because the ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner, but the ALJ must still carefully consider the opinion.

Prines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-22(d)

However, the regulations provide that a statement by a medical source that a Plaintiff is “unable to work” is not a medical opinion and is not due “any special significance” because the legal conclusion of disability is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (“We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner . . . .”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d). The legal conclusion of disability is reserved exclusively to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); see also McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 884-85 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Although a treating physician’s opinion is generally afforded the greatest weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability.”). Nevertheless, the ALJ is required to “carefully consider medical source opinions about any issue, including opinions about issues that are reserved to the Commissioner.” Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *2 (July 2, 1996); Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1203 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If the treating physician’s opinion on the issue of disability is controverted, the ALJ must still provide ‘specific and legitimate’ reasons in order to reject the treating physician’s opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) governs how an ALJ evaluates a treating source’s medical opinion, but it does not require applying the treating-physician rule to a statement on the ultimate issue of disability reserved to the Commissioner.

Short v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-25(c)

Because Dr. Huckell’s statements went to the ultimate issue of disability, which is reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ was not obligated to assess the statements under the treating physician rule. Further, many of Dr. Huckell’s statements were made after Plaintiff’s date last insured. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ erred in failing to apply the regulations at outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to Dr. Huckell’s statements regarding Plaintiff’s ultimate disability status fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527’s treating-physician rule does not govern state workers’ compensation authorities.

Ashe v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board · filed 1994-09-27

However, our state workers’ compensation authorities are not subject to federal social security regulations and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is inapplicable in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) lists factors for weighing medical opinions, and those factors may be applied to other-source opinions; the adjudicator must explain the weight given well enough for a claimant or later reviewer to follow the reasoning when the opinions may affect the outcome.

Mercogliano v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-13(c)(1)-(6)

The weight assigned to “other source” evidence will vary from case to case, and the factors which are used to evaluate opinions from “acceptable medical sources” “can be applied to opinion evidence from ‘other sources’” as well. SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *5 (emphasis added); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6) (listing factors used to evaluate opinions from acceptable medical sources). Furthermore, not every factor in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and 416.927(c)(1)-(6) will be relevant in every case, and there is a distinction between what the ALJ must consider and what he must explain. SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *6-7. All the ALJ must do is explain the weight given to the “other source” opinions or “otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” Id. The ALJ offered such an explanation here. A.R. at 80-82.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a treating source's noncontrolling opinion, an ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and support.

Barbarigos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-04(c)(2)-(6)

After declining to afford the treating physicians’ opinions controlling weight, the ALJ was required to address what weight the opinions merit considering the regulatory factors. See SSR 96-2p (treating source opinions “are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.”).4 The Court agrees that the ALJ failed to address several of the regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(3) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the frequency, length, and nature and extent of the treatment relationship.

Winick v. Colvin · filed 2017-01-04(c)(2)-(3)

Moreover, in assigning weight to a medical opinion, the ALJ is required to consider factors such as the frequency of treatment, the length of the treatment relationship, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(3), 416.927(c)(2)-(3). The ALJ’s analysis of these factors in this case rested on a flawed premise. He mistakenly assumed that Dr. Ganzell had only examined Mr. Winnick twice and had not treated him for his psychological impairments. But Dr. Ganzell’s psychotherapeutic relationship with Mr. Winnick included multiple treatment visits over an extended period of time.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Perry v. Berryhill · filed 2017-02-16

Upon a review of the record, and substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court, we conclude that the ALJ properly considered the above factors in according little weight to the February 2013 opinion of Dr. Carr and Warneck, and sufficiently explained its reasoning. Here, the ALJ properly considered the February 2013 opinion in light of other substantial evidence in the record, including Dr. Carr and Warneck’s subsequent May 2013 opinion, and explained as much in his decision. We also conclude that the ALJ properly afforded significant weight to the opinion of Dr. Blackwell. The ALJ did not rely solely on Dr. Blackwell’s opinion, and pursuant to the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, he accorded it weight because of Dr. Blackwell’s professional credentials and the fact that his assessment was consistent with much of the 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) does not require controlling weight for a chiropractor’s opinion; the ALJ may assign that opinion whatever weight is warranted by the evidence.

Juana DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donna SHALALA, Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services, Defendant-Appe · filed 1995-06-20(d)(2)

The regulation issued by the Secretary in August 1991, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), cannot be read to require the Secretary to accord controlling weight to the opinion of a chiropractor. Rather, the Secretary has the discretion to give a chiropractor’s opinion the weight she believes it deserves based on the facts of the particular case.

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)(3) permits an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion when it has more supporting evidence, and less weight when it lacks support.

Lynch v. HHS · filed 1995-02-17(d)(3)

The regulations clearly state that the more support a medical opinion is shown to possess the more weight the ALJ may give that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (3) . Dr. Sullivan's opinion concerning the claimant's ability to engage in gainful employment during the relevant period is lacking in support and therefore, under the regulations, the ALJ was clearly entitled to give it less weight in his determination.

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 to consider six specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Mary GOATCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, Donna Shalala, Secretary, De · filed 1995-04-04(d)(2)-(6)

In addition, the ALJ must consider the following specific factors to determine what weight to give any medical opinion: (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. 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 requires the ALJ to give substantial weight to medical evidence and opinions unless specific, legitimate reasons constituting good cause support rejecting them, and permits discounting evidence that is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other evidence.

Billie J. KNIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-05-24(c)-(d)

The ALJ must give substantial weight to the medical evidence and opinions submitted, unless specific, legitimate reasons constituting good cause are shown for rejecting it. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)-(d); ... Medical evidence may be discounted if it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to weigh internally inconsistent evidence against the record as a whole when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Connor v. Shalala · filed 1995-09-26(c)(2)

If evidence is internally inconsistent, the ALJ must weigh it in relation to all of the evidence to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires greater weight for an examining source's opinion than a nonexamining source's opinion and generally gives a treating doctor's opinion controlling weight unless specified evidentiary exceptions apply.

Ingram v. SSA · filed 1997-01-27(d)(1), (d)(2)

The consultative orthopedic surgeon. Dr. Davison's, assessment of Ingram's functional capacity was based on an examination and is entitled to more weight than the opinion of a nonexamining doctor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... A treating doctor's opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a consultation examiner's opinion and is given controlling weight unless it is not supported by accepted medical diagnostic evidence or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ decided not to give Dr. Nagel's opinion controlling weight but did not identify the reasons for his determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation directs that medical opinions be weighed by factors including the type of evaluation, treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, and specialization, while opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or meets a listed impairment receive no particular significance.

Marcotte, Jr. v. SSA · filed 1997-09-30(d), (e)

A psychologist's professional opinion is weighed based on the type of evaluation, the treatment relationship, evidentiary support for the opinion, the opinion's consistency with the record, and his specialization. ... Because the Commissioner is responsible for making the decision as to whether a claimant is disabled based on the evidence in the record, an opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work or that his impairments meet or egual the reguirements of a listed impairment is not entitled to any particular significance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on the treatment relationship and consistency, permits reduced weight for unsupported or inconsistent opinions, and does not make a medical source’s disability conclusion binding.

Schmidt v. Callahan · filed 1998-02-13(a)-(e)

Initially, we note that the power to determine whether the plaintiff meets or equals the Listing of Impairments resides solely with the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (“A statement by a medical source that you are disabled or unable to work does not mean you are disabled.”) ... The ALJ must consider whether the witness is a treating physician, the duration and extent of the treatment relationship, and the veracity of the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)-(d). The ALJ may discount medical opinions that contain internal inconsistencies, or that are inconsistent with other evidence. ... In addition, the ALJ need not accord a treating physician’s opinions great weight if is not supported by clinical or diagnostic data. ... The ALJ may even reject a treating physician’s opinion in favor of a non-treating physician’s conflicting findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to weigh a physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consideration of the record, persuasiveness, consistency, and specialization.

Butera v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1999-03-31(d)

However, in rejecting Newton’s opinion, the ALJ applied the criteria that the regulations require to weigh the value of a physician’s opinion: (1) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the degree to which the medical signs and laboratory findings support the opinion; (3) the degree to which the opinion takes into account all of the pertinent evidence in the record; (4) the persuasiveness of the opinion rendered; (5) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and (6) the specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give substantial weight to submitted medical evidence and opinions unless good cause, such as internal or evidentiary inconsistencies, supports rejecting them.

Gibson v. Massanari · filed 2001-09-06(e)-(d)

The ALJ is required to give substantial weight to the medical evidence and opinions submitted, unless there is good cause for rejecting them, such as internal inconsistencies or inconsistencies with other evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors such as the treatment and examining relationships, consistency, and specialization, with supported and consistent treating-source opinions receiving controlling weight.

Shontos v. Barnhart · filed 2003-05-07(d)

We further find the ALJ erred in discounting the opinions of Ms. Shontos’ treating mental health providers. The amount of weight given to a medical opinion is to be governed by a number of factors including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, consistency, specialization, and other factors. Generally, more weight is given to opinions of sources who have treated a claimant, and to those who are treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The regulations provide that the longer and more frequent the contact between the treating source, the greater the weight will be given the opinion: “When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the source’s opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.” Id. at (d)(2)(i). A treating source’s opinion is to be given controlling weight where it is supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and where it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Id. at (d)(2). Where controlling weight is not given to a treating source’s opinion, it is weighed according to the factors enumerated above. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Cole v. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-26(d)(2)-(6)

In weighing any medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (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 relevant evidence supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent that opinion is with the rest of the record; (5) whether the physician is a specialist; and (6) other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the Commissioner to weigh medical opinions using the examining and treating relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

Irelan v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-04(d)

The District Court correctly determined that the Commissioner gave appropriate weight to Dr. Vernick’s opinion using the framework at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Under these provisions, the factors in determining the weight of a medical opinion rendered by a non-treating source are the (1) nature of the examining relationship, (2) the nature of the treating relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (5) the specialization of the physician offering the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh inconsistent medical opinions and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Down v. SSA · filed 2004-11-16(c)(2), (d)(2)

I f , on the other hand, she accepted the agency physician’s opinion that claimant had the capacity to stand and/or walk for six hours per eight-hour workday, then she had an obligation to explain the way in which she weighed the two medical opinions and chose one over the other. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) (“If any of the evidence in your case record, including any medical opinion(s), is inconsistent with other evidence or is internally inconsistent, we will weigh all of the evidence and see whether we can decide whether you are disabled based on the evidence we have.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) does not require an ALJ to perform its detailed treating-physician-opinion analysis when reliable medical evidence from an examining physician controverts the treating physician's assessment.

Glenn v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-17(d)(2)-(6)

The ALJ specifically considered these factors. However, because there existed reliable medical evidence from an examining physician, Dr. Pieratt, controverting Dr. Bahm’s assessment, the ALJ was not obligated to perform the detailed analysis set forth in 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 applies its medical-opinion evaluation rules to acceptable medical sources and requires the ALJ to consider the length of a treating relationship when weighing a treating source’s opinion.

Hatton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2005-05-24(a)(2), (d)(2)(I)

Consequently, the rules for evaluating acceptable medical source statements do not apply to the physical therapist’s notes. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). ... Thus, Dr. Zubchevich’s assessment does not provide the longitudinal picture of Hatton’s assessment contemplated by the treating physician regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(I) (providing that an ALJ should consider the length of a treating relationship in assessing the weight to be given to a treating medical source’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors.

Ferstl v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-03(d)(2)-(6)

In weighing any medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (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 relevant evidence supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent that opinion is with the rest of the record; (5) whether the physician is a specialist; and (6) other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator to weigh every medical opinion using factors such as the examining and treating relationships, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations; it generally favors specialists on issues within their specialty.

Gabaldon v. Barnhart · filed 2005-10-26(d)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the A.L.J. is to consider several factors in deciding how much weight to give every medical opinion: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treating relationship with the claimant; the evidence supporting the opinion; how consistent the opinion is with the record; whether the source is a specialist; and any other relevant factors. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5) states, “[w]e 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(d) directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions under the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship and specialization.

Boineau v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-27(d)

The state physicians did not examine Boineau, and there is no indication in the record that they were specialists. Thus, under applicable federal regulations, the ALJ erred by giving ■ more weight to the opinions of the state’s physicians than to Dr. Niemer’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be weighed under the regulatory factors, gives controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and permits discounting unsupported or conclusory opinions.

Pettus v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-05(c)(2), (d)(2)

In making a disability determination, the regulations specify that, where evidence in the record is inconsistent, all of the evidence will be weighed to see whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... A medical opinion of a treating source 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), 416.927(d)(2). ... In this case, the ALJ weighed the various medical opinions in accordance with the factors contained in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

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 to weigh a treating-source opinion using the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, and to explain the weight assigned.

Beth v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-26(d)(2)-(6)

Rather, he must evaluate the opinion’s weight by looking at the length, nature and extent of the claimant’s and physician’s treatment relationship; the degree to which the opinion is supported by the evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; whether the doctor is a specialist; and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). “Regardless of the weight the ALJ ultimately gives the treating source opinion, she must always ‘give good reasons’ for her decision.”

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 medical opinions are consistent on the determinative factors, the ALJ need not identify the weight assigned to each opinion; inconsistent opinions require the ALJ to weigh the evidence.

Hepp v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-07(c)(1), (c)(2)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), if the medical opinions in the record are inconsistent with each other, the ALJ must weigh all the evidence. ... Because Dr. Blankenship’s report and Dr. West’s reports are consistent with regards to the determinative factors, the ALJ did not err in not identifying the weight he gave to each medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions and assign and explain the weight given to each opinion.

Bronson v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-08(d)

First, it is the ALJ’s duty to evaluate the medical opinions and assign and explain the weight given to each medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). ... The ALJ weighed Dr. Mintz’s opinion, he did not substitute his own medical judgment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors unless a treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight.

Wagner v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-24(d)

The regulations provide that “unless [the ALJ] give[s] a treating source’s opinion controlling weight ... [the ALJ] consider^] all of the following factors in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion”: (1) examining relationship, (2) treating relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) “any factors [the applicant] or others bringfs] to [the ALJ’s] attention.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and properly weigh the opinions under the regulation’s factors.

Blackwell v. Astrue · filed 2007-11-28(d)

As noted by Magistrate Judge Reid, the deficiency underlying the decision stems from ALJ Brock’s failure to properly weigh the medical evidence opinions as required of him under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The Social Security Administration promises that an ALJ “will evaluate every medical opinion reeeive[d]” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires evaluation of every medical opinion and generally gives greater weight to opinions from examining and treating sources.

Shinaberry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2008-03-07(d)

Further, The ALJ was required to consider Dr. Landis’ opinion, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, which states: ... 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 requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions against the other evidence, considering the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Hernandez v. Astrue · filed 2008-05-13(c)(2), (d)

see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“If any of the evidence in your case record, including any medical opinion(s), is inconsistent with other evidence or is internally inconsistent, we will weigh all the other evidence and see whether we can decide whether you are disabled based on the evidence we have.”). ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (stating that in weighing medical opinions, the ALJ should consider the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) and (d) direct the ALJ to weigh inconsistent medical evidence and consider the treatment and examining relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization when evaluating medical opinions.

Nugent v. Astrue · filed 2008-05-16(c)(2) and (d)

In sum, the ALJ “is entitled to determine the credibility of medical experts as well as lay witnesses and weigh their opinions accordingly.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“If any of the evidence in your case record, including any medical opinion(s), is inconsistent with other evidence or is internally inconsistent, we will weigh all the other evidence and see whether we can decide whether you are disabled based on the evidence we have.”). ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (stating that in weighing medical opinions, the ALJ should consider the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization). Here, the ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Younis’s conclusory October 2002 statement that Nugent cannot work because it contradicts his earlier treatment notes, the objective medical findings, and the other examining physicians’ opinions. ... Accordingly, substantial evidence indicates that the Commissioner properly evaluated the physician opinions of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to give a treating source controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record.

Davis v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-09(d)(1)-(6)

Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to use when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinions, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, how supported an opinion is, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and a doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6). In Social Security disability benefits cases, generally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating physicians are given more weight than non-treating physicians, and specialists are given more weight on issues within their areas of expertise than non-specialists. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (2), (5). When the ALJ does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ applies other factors such as the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with other evidence, and the specialization of the physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions by considering the source’s treatment relationship, medical support, consistency, qualifications, and explanations; an examining opinion may be rejected for reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Ziegler v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-15(d)

Although Dr. Bush’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it should be given more weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(l)-(2). However, an administrative law judge is not bound by an examining physician’s opinion and must evaluate it the context of the expert’s medical specialty and expertise, supporting evidence in the record, consistency with the record as a whole and other explanations regarding the opinion. ... An administrative law judge can reject an examining physician’s opinion if his reasons for doing so are supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... When the record contains well supported contradictory evidence, even a treating physician’s opinion “is just one more piece of evidence for the administrative law judge to weigh.” ... Opinions from physicians “who do not have a treatment relationship with the individual are weighed by stricter standards, based to a greater degree on medical evidence, qualifications, and explanations for the opinions, than are required of treating sources.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, with generally greater weight for treating, examining, and specialized opinions.

Schuhardt v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-17(d)(1)-(6)

The ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinions, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the amount of objective support underlying the opinion, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and a doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6). The opinions of examining physicians are generally given more weight than non-examining physicians; treating physicians receive more weight than non-treating physicians; and specialists on issues within their areas of expertise receive more weight than non-specialists. See § 404.1527(d)(1), (2), (5). When the ALJ does not give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ applies other factors such as the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the relationship, the opinion’s supportability, the opinion’s consistency with other evidence, and the physician’s specialization. See § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). ... Here, the treating physician found that Schuhardt could work only 6 to 7 hours a day, 5 days a week if she could sit or stand at will. The physician reported in February 2004 that Schuhardt could not type or sit in one position for a prolonged period of time. But the physician reported in October 2005 that Schuhardt’s Permanent Impairment Rating was 4% of the whole person. He did not restrict her from typing, and he did not report that she was completely disabled. He further reported that Schuhardt’s Percocet medication provided 10 to 12 hours of relief, which was greater than 6 to 7 hours. Because the treating physician’s medical records contradicted his RFC evaluation, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to give limited weight to the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs an ALJ to evaluate a physician’s opinion using factors including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Tommie Kemp, Jr. v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-26(d)

The ALJ should consider a physician’s opinion in accordance with the factors set forth in the guidelines: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) directs that medical opinions receive more weight when supported by relevant evidence and better explanations.

Blankenship v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-24(d)(3)

The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion. ... In the instant case, the court is constrained to conclude that there is substantial evidence consistent with the Commissioner’s determination that Dr. Harrison’s opinions regarding the impact of plaintiffs alcoholism are not supported by the body of medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider an examining source’s opinion and give greater weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence, including medical signs or laboratory findings.

Morrison v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-28(d)(1), (d)(3)

The ALJ may consider the opinion of a source who has examined the claimant, and give more weight to a medical opinion that is supported by relevant evidence, such as medical signs or laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the adjudicator to consider all medical opinions when determining a claimant’s disability status.

Pollock v. Astrue · filed 2009-11-16(b)

All medical opinions are to be considered in determining the disability status of a claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). ... However, examining the second and related issue, the ALJ did not indicate the weight he gave to either of the doctors’ opinions. ... The Court is therefore left to guess whether there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision. This, of course, is impermissible.

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 defer to and weigh a treating-source opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, even when the opinion lacks controlling weight.

Jeffries v. Social Security Administration · filed 2009-12-22(d)(2)

Even if the ALJ finds that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, she must still afford it deference and weigh it according to the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. ... In reaching this conclusion, she considered the factors described in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) and 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 does not require an ALJ to discuss every opinion-weighing factor in the written decision, so long as the ALJ considered the factors; consistency with the record may justify giving an opinion less weight.

Thomas v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-08

However, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 does not specifically state that the factors must all be discussed in the opinion by the ALJ, as long as the ALJ considered them while making his decision. It is clear that the ALJ did consider these factors. For example, 20 C.F.R § 404.1527 allows room for ALJ determination, stating; “[g]enerally, 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. The ALJ has the authority to give Dr. Craig’s opinion less weight if, for example, he finds it to be less consistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the ALJ to consider opinions from acceptable medical sources when evaluating a disability claim.

Bailey v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-30(d)

In a disability proceeding, the ALJ must consider the opinions of acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d); S.S.R. 96-2p; S.S.R. 96-6p. Acceptable medical sources include licensed physicians and psychologists.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

D'Andrea v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2010-07-28(d)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical evidence based on many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, whether an opinion is amply supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and a doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Where an ALJ articulates specific reasons for failing to accord the opinion of a treating or examining physician controlling weight and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence, there is no reversible error. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1212-13.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh medical opinions using factors such as treatment relationship, support, consistency, explanation, and specialization.

Abed v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-24(d)

These factors include the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination by the treating physician and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship between the patient and the treating physician. ... Additional factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided; the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; and the specialty of the physician providing the opinion. ... A finding that a treating medical source medical opinion is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record means only that the opinion is not entitled to “controlling weight,” not that the opinion should be rejected.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on the provider's relationship with the claimant and give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Spielberg v. SSA · filed 2011-10-18(d)(2)

The ALJ is required to attribute weight to a medical opinion based on the nature of the relationship between the medical provider and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). An opinion based on one or more examinations is entitled to more weight than a non-examining source’s opinion, and a treating source’s opinion, which is properly supported, is entitled to more weight than other opinions. Id. A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments will be given controlling weight 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.” § 404.1527(d)(2). “If any of the evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, including any medical opinion(s), is inconsistent with other evidence or is internally inconsistent, [the ALJ] will weigh all of the evidence and see whether [she] can decide whether you are disabled based on the evidence we have.” § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, and consistency with the record, while generally giving more deference to treating and nontreating sources than to nonexamining sources.

Norris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-02-07(d)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927, an ALJ is to “evaluate every medical opinion” submitted in light of a variety of listed factors, which include the nature of the treatment relationship, the supporting medical basis for the opinion, and overall consistency with the larger record. The regulation also sets out a presumptive sliding scale of deference to be given to various types of opinions. ... Although Norris is correct that the opinions of nontreating sources are generally accorded more weight than nonexamining sources, it is not a per se error of law, as Norris suggests, for the ALJ to credit a nonexamining source over a nontreating source. Any record opinion, even that of a treating source, may be rejected by the ALJ when the source’s opinion is not well supported by medical diagnostics or if it is inconsistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; Ealy, 594 F.3d at 514.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and generally give treating or examining opinions more weight absent good cause.

Reynolds-Buckley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-02-09(d)

The Social Security Regulations also provide guidelines for the ALJ to use when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ considers many factors when weighing such evidence, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and a doctor’s specialization. Id. § 404.1527(d). Generally, the opinions of examining or treating physicians are given more weight than non-examining or non-treating physicians unless “good cause” is shown. See id. § 404.1527(d)(1), (2); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). ... Because our limited review precludes us from reweighing the evidence, when the ALJ articulates specific reasons for failing to give the opinion of a treating physician controlling weight, and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence, there is no reversible error. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, and to consider all pertinent evidence when evaluating opinions from non-treating sources.

Fogg v. SSA · filed 2012-07-06(c)(2)-(6)

When determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion, the ALJ should consider: the length of treatment & frequency of examination, the nature and extent of treatment relationship, the sufficiency of explanations with which the physician supported his opinion, the extent to which the physician presents relevant clinical and diagnostic evidence to support his opinion, the consistency of the opinion, and whether the physician specializes in medical conditions at issue. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... The ALJ is entitled to weigh conflicting medical opinions, including those of non-treating, non-examining, agency physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Social Security Ruling 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2 [hereinafter SSR 96-6p]. When assigning weight to non-treating sources, however, the ALJ must especially consider “the degree to which they provide support for their opinions” based on “all of the pertinent evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the record or unsupported by relevant clinical evidence, while generally giving more weight to treating-source opinions.

Yang v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2012-07-06(c)(2)-(4)

The ALJ explained that Dr. Shaffer’s report was an outlier, contradicted by almost all other medical evidence, 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 that opinion.”), including that of Yang’s treating physician, Dr. Chu, see id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, we give more weight to opinions from . . . treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s).”). The ALJ explained that Dr. Damania’s findings were unsupported by his own clinical examination, see id. § 404.1527(c)(3) (the more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight will be given to that opinion), and inconsistent with a record devoid of any treatment for physical impairments, see Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding rejection of a medical opinion where clinical notes and observations were contradictory).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to determine how much weight to give medical opinions and explain those decisions.

Sanders v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-16(d), (f)

The ALJ determines how much weight to afford the doctors and must explain those decisions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), (f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (4) allow an ALJ to give a doctor's opinion less weight when it is internally inconsistent or conflicts with substantial evidence, provided the ALJ explains the reasons.

Glenda Hall v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-20(c)(3), (4)

An ALJ can give less weight to a doctor’s opinion if it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record as long as she articulates her reasons for giving the opinion less weight, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4); Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008); Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, an ALJ considers the support the source provides and the opinion's consistency with the record, with nonexamining opinions depending on the explanations supporting them.

McDonald v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-23(c)(3)-(4)

Supportability—the extent to which a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion—and consistency with the record are two of the factors relevant to the weight that an ALJ gives to a medical opinion from any source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), 416.927(c)(3)-(4). Moreover, under the regulations, “because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight [the agency] will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). And “[g]enerally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the agency] will give to that opinion.” Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). Opinions from non-physicians, like Montoya, should likewise be weighed by the ALJ according to the same factors applicable to opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate nonexamining opinions based on the pertinent evidence considered and the supporting explanations provided, and to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Carter v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-20(c)(3), (c)(2)

The ALJ was also entitled to assign significant weight to the opinions from the state agency medical consultants despite the fact that they did not review all of the medical records from UIHC. When evaluating a non-examining source’s opinion, the ALJ “evaluated] the degree to which these opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in [the] claim, including opinions of treating and other examining sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). The weight given to their opinions “depend[s] on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” ... If the ALJ finds that a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned, but does not require discussion of every factor if the explanation is sufficiently clear.

Tucker v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-27(c)

Although 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) provide that in the absence of a controlling opinion by a treating physician, all of the medical opinions must be evaluated and weighed based upon various factors, the regulations do not explicitly require the ALJ to recount the details of that analysis in the written opinion. Instead, the regulations mandate only that the ALJ give “good reasons” in the decision for the weight ultimately allocated to medical source opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician's opinion under the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned, but does not require expressly discussing every factor.

Endriss v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-26(d)

Finally, we reject Ms. Endriss’ argument that the ALJ erred by failing to “provid[e] an analysis of the relevant factors, as required by law.” Aplt. Br. at 24. As we noted above, there is no authority “requiring an ALJ’s decision to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258. The ALJ stated in his decision that he “considered [the] opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527 and SSRs 96-2p, 96-5p, 96-6p and 06-3p.” Aplt. App., Vol. II at 17. He then summarized Dr. Munneke’s opinion, determined that a portion of the opinion was entitled to controlling weight but that the remainder of the opinion was entitled to little weight, and gave a good reason for the weight he ultimately assigned the opinion. Nothing more is required. See Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258; Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300-01.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) identifies factors for weighing medical opinions, and an ALJ may decline to adopt a consultative examiner's opinion when substantial evidence supports that decision.

Pellam v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-28(c)

There is no requirement that the agency accept the opinion of a consultative examiner concerning a claimant’s limitations, and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision not to adopt many of Dr. Dave’s conclusions: (1) her findings were inconsistent with nearly contemporaneous medical records from Pellam’s treating physicians; (2) Dr. Dave examined Pellam on only one occasion and Pellam did not consent to the full range of tests; (3) Dr. Dave thought Pellam was not completely forthcoming during the examination; and (4) Dr. Dave’s ultimate conclusions were relatively vague. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (explaining the factors used to weigh medical opinions); Curry v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 117, 123 (2d. Cir. 2000) (finding medical opinion that a claimant had “moderate” limitations for lifting and carrying and “mild” ones for standing, walking, pushing, pulling, and sitting was too “vague”), superceded by regulation on other grounds by, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1560(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the treatment or examining relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Luterman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-05-02(c)

In determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors such as the examining or treating relationship, whether the opinion is well-supported, whether the opinion is consistent with the record, and the doctor’s specialization. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tapia v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-03(c)

When assigning weight to medical expert opinions, Social Security regulations require consideration of the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and any other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Under this framework, it was not error for the ALJ to assign less weight to the medical consultants’ opinions based on their (1) lack of an in-person examination, id. § 404.1527(c)(1), and (2) unfamiliarity with all of the relevant record evidence, id. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the adjudicator to consider the treatment and examining relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Register v. Colvin · filed 2013-05-10(c)(1)-(6)

Several factors should be considered including the treatment and examining relationship between the claimant and the physician, the extent to which the medical sources opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, consistency of the opinion to the evidence of record as a whole, whether the medical source is a specialist, and any other relevant factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(l)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing conflicting medical opinions to apply the listed factors, including the examining relationship, treating relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Giebudowski v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-06(c)

When faced with conflicting opinions, an ALJ must weigh the opinions by applying the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which includes the following: (1) whether the doctor examined the claimant; (2) whether the doctor established a treating relationship with the claimant; (3) the nature of the treating relationship including its length and the frequency of treatments; (4) the support offered for the opinion; (5) the consistency with the record; and (6) the doctor’s area of specialization. The ALJ did not acknowledge these factors or explicitly purport to apply them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the regulatory factors, generally giving greatest weight to treating sources and less weight to examining and non-examining sources, and to give good reasons for declining to give a treating opinion controlling weight.

Martel v. SSA · filed 2013-11-18(c)

Generally, an ALJ should give the greatest weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating source, less weight to an examining source, and the least weight to a non-examining source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). For all medical sources, the ALJ must assess certain factors listed in the regulations and provide “good reasons” for the weight given to any treating source opinion deemed not controlling.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the relevant regulatory factors, but the ALJ need not expressly apply each factor when the record shows that the factors were adequately considered.

Mays v. Colvin · filed 2014-01-08(d)(2)-(6)

Ms. Mays argues that the ALJ failed to weigh Dr. Chorley’s opinion based on the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. But the ALJ listed those factors, and the record shows that the ALJ adequately considered them. He recognized that Dr. Chorley is Ms. Mays’ treating physician and discussed the doctor’s treatment records going back several years. See Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 2004) (noting that the relevant factors included the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the length of treatment, and the frequency of examination). The ALJ also considered whether Dr. Chorley’s opinion was consistent with the medical evidence. See id. (listing consistency with the record as another factor). A doctor’s relevant area of specialization is also pertinent. See id. ... See Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that the ALJ need not expressly apply each factor in weighing a medical opinion). ... Finally, the ALJ considered other factors, including Ms. Mays’ report that her pain does not become severe if she takes her medication. See Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 2004) (listing “other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention”). Ms. Mays has not shown that the ALJ failed to consider the relevant regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a treating psychologist’s judgments about the severity and effects of self-reported symptoms as medical opinions that the ALJ must weigh, while opinions that a claimant is unable to work are reserved to the Commissioner.

Kaighn v. Colvin · filed 2014-02-06(a), (d)

The regulations do not state that a treating psychologist’s opinion based on the claimant’s subjective statements is not a medical opinion. ... In other words, while Dr. Scribner’s judgments and opinions about Mr. Kaighn’s self-reported symptoms might be less persuasive than tests or laboratory findings about those symptoms, they still must be treated as a medical opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and the ALJ must determine what weight to give them. ... This time, I agree. Mr. Blankenship’s statement intrudes on a decision that is properly an administrative finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors, and to give good reasons for declining controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Ryan v. Astrue · filed 2014-03-18(c)(2)-(6)

Before an ALJ can give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ must apply various factors to determine the amount of weight the opinion should be given. 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 medical support for the treating physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the physician’s level of specialization in the area and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... “[G]ood reasons” must be given for declining to afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. ... On remand the ALJ should assess Dr. Belayneh’s opinion — as he should assess all opinions — according to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a state agency consultant's opinion as opinion evidence.

Ware v. Colvin · filed 2014-01-31(e)(2)(i)

In evaluating the opinion of a state agency consultant, the ALJ must consider it as “as opinion evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give little weight to a medical opinion when the physician has not seen the claimant for years and the opinion relies on data from before the alleged disability date.

Winslow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-05-15(c)

In addition, the ALJ reasonably gave little weight to Dr. Parker’s February 2011 opinion on the basis that he had not seen Winslow in four years and his conclusions were based on data from a time before her alleged disability date. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Quintero v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-05(c)(4)

Certainly, the consistency of Dr. Vega’s opinions with the record as a whole was a legitimate factor to be considered in evaluating the 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.”); id. § 416.927(c)(4) (same). But here, the ALJ did not evaluate Dr. Vega’s opinions against the record as a whole. She only compared them in conclusory fashion to Dr. Valette’s opinion, and assigned great weight to portions of Dr. Vega’s opinion—which she had previously rejected in toto—for no other reason than their agreement with Dr. Valette’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a medical opinion but does not require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor.

Dillard v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-26(c)

Neither does the Court find any error in the ALJ’s failure to explicitly consider the factors enumerated under §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). Indeed, although the regulations outline factors that an ALJ must consider when evaluating a medical opinion, they do not require ALJs to explicitly discuss each of the enumerated factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors for evaluating medical opinions, but does not require the ALJ to discuss every factor.

Goddard v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-22(c)

The regulations do not require the ALJ to discuss the factors, but only to consider them. Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562 n.4 (9th Cir. 2018); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did discuss the § 404.1527(c) factors that were relevant to Dr. Bailey’s opinion, in particular its supportability, and found the opinion wanting. See Tr. 25-26. The ALJ even noted that Dr. Bailey was a treating physician and had been rendering opinions since 2015. Tr. 25-26.This satisfied the ALJ’s obligation under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all of the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to discuss every factor.

Anderson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-01(c)

The regulations do not require the ALJ to discuss all these the factors, but only to consider them. Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562 n.4 (9th Cir. 2018); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). And contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did discuss the § 404.1527(c) factors that she found most relevant to NP Foerst’s opinion—in particular its supportability and consistency with other evidence—and found the opinion wanting. See Tr. 22. This satisfied the ALJ’s obligation under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors for weighing a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss every factor.

King v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-12-12(c)

The regulations do not require the ALJ to discuss the factors, but only to consider them. Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562 n.4 (9th Cir. 2018); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did discuss the § 404.1527(c) factors that were relevant to Dr. Gordon’s opinion, in particular its supportability, and found the opinion wanting. See Tr. 24. This satisfied the ALJ’s obligation under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors for weighing medical opinions, but does not require the ALJ to discuss those factors explicitly in the opinion.

Caldwell v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-03(c)

Plaintiff also argues the ALJ erred throughout by failing to discuss all the factors about the reliability of medical opinions found in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c). Pl. Br., ECF No. 16 at 16. The regulations do not require the ALJ to discuss the factors explicitly in the opinion, but only to consider them. Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562, n.4 (9th Cir. 2018); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did consider the § 404.1527(c) factors that were relevant to the medical opinions, and discussed them in depth: in particular their consistency and supportability. See Tr. 23-25. This satisfied the ALJ’s obligation under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss each factor.

Schaar v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-20(c)

Schaar is correct that the ALJ did not tick through all the factors listed for evaluating these opinions, but the ALJ is not required to address each factor. See Collins v. Berryhill, 743 F. App’x 21, 25 (7th Cir. 2018) (“In weighing a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must consider the factors found in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c), but need only ‘minimally articulate’ his reasoning; the ALJ need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor.”) (citing Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008)). Here, some of the factors were obvious. For example, these doctors are state agency psychological consultants, so they did not have a treating relationship with Schaar but do specialize in the mental-health field. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Moreover, the ALJ indirectly addressed the supportability and consistency of these opinions by weighing the findings in tandem with other subjective and objective evidence. See infra at 10 (addressing the weight the ALJ assigned to the consultants’ opinions in comparison with other evidence); R. 382–83. Accordingly, Schaar has not established error in the ALJ’s evaluation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, requires consideration of specified factors when weighing opinions, and makes supporting explanations relevant for nonexamining opinions.

McDowell v. Saul · filed 2019-09-09(d)(2), (c)(1)-(6), (c)(3), and (e)

Under the regulations, a treating source's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2005); Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000). ... Before a treating physician's opinion can be discounted, the ALJ must provide “good reasons.” Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir. 1998). ... The ALJ is required to assess the following factors in determining how much weight to accord the physician's opinion: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors.” Schaal, 134 F.3d at 503. ... The factors for considering opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, with the consideration of whether the source examined the claimant or not replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). ... Moreover, the regulations advise that “because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally directs an administrative law judge to give the greatest weight to a treating source’s opinion, but permits reduced weight when the opinion conflicts with substantial evidence and requires reasons and factor-based evaluation.

McDonough v. U.S. Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2014-06-23(c)(2)-(6)

Generally, an ALJ should accord the greatest weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating source, less weight to an examining source, and the least weight to a non-examining source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. This general rule, however, is tempered by the ALJ’s responsibility to resolve any conflicts in the evidence. ... An opinion from a treating source can be accorded little weight - less than that accorded a non-treating source - if the ALJ finds the opinion to be inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... In such circumstances, he or she must give “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the opinion and apply a number of factors to reach this determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) generally favors opinions from examining sources over non-examining sources but does not require absolute deference to the examining source.

Beardsley v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-10(c)(1), (c)(2)

As a general rule, 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. Not even the claimant’s treating physician, who presumably is the expert most familiar with the claimant’s condition, is given such complete deference. See Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375, 376–77 (7th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). But rejecting or discounting the opinion of the agency’s own examining physician that the claimant is disabled, as happened here, can be expected to cause a reviewing court to take notice and await a good explanation for this unusual step. See Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003) (“An ALJ can reject an examining physician's opinion only for reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record; a contradictory opinion of a non-examining physician does not, by itself, suffice.”); 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.”). The problem in this case is that the ALJ did not provide a valid explanation for preferring the record reviewer’s analysis over that of the agency’s examining doctor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the nature of the examination, its supportability, and its consistency with the medical record.

Warren v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-15(c)

Because it is not clear how much the ALJ devalued Rang’s opinion based on the lawyer’s involvement, on remand the ALJ should reconsider the opinion in light of the brief nature of the one-time examination, the supportability of Rang’s explanation, the X-ray he relied upon in offering his opinion, and its overall consistency with the medical record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) permits an ALJ to rely on a state-agency physician’s opinion about a claimant’s ability to work only when it satisfies the standards for evaluating medical opinions and is supported by the record.

Snow v. SSA · filed 2015-01-15(e)

An ALJ may rely on a state agency physician’s opinion as to the claimant’s ability to perform work as long as that opinion meets the standards for evaluating medical opinion evidence but only to the extent the opinion is supported by evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to acknowledge an expert medical opinion and explain the reasons for the weight assigned to it.

McLaurin v. Colvin · filed 2015-08-14(c)(2)

Rather, § 404.1527 only requires that the ALJ generally acknowledge an applicant’s expert’s opinion and provide reasons for the weight given (or not given) to it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to discount GAF scores when they provide little information about occupational functioning.

Eugenio Colon v. Colvin · filed 2015-11-13(c)

The ALJ also considered Colon’s GAF scores and, consistent with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) and SSR 06-03p, discounted them because they provided little information on occupational functioning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors, including supporting evidence and explanation, and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a medical opinion.

Vigil v. Colvin · filed 2015-11-16(c)(3)

When assessing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and give good reasons for the weight he assigns to the opinion. ... The ALJ’s finding that Dr. Summerlin’s restrictions on standing and walking were inconsistent with his own examination findings is a good reason for giving that medical opinion only moderate weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (stating that “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that opinion [and t]he better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering factors including examination, supporting explanation and medical evidence, and consistency with the record as a whole, while generally giving examining opinions greater weight unless contrary evidence supports rejection.

Hunt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2015-11-17(e)

In determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers, among other things, (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the degree to which a doctor’s opinion is supported by an explanation and by medical evidence; and (3) how consistent the doctor’s “opinion is with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). Although the opinion of an examining doctor is generally entitled to greater weight than that of a non-examining doctor, the ALJ may reject any doctor’s opinion if the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to generally give more weight to an examining source than a nonexamining source and to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when weighing medical opinions.

Miller v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2016-01-29(c)

Social Security regulations specify that “[g]enerally,” the ALJ assigns "more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). ... When determining how much weight to assign the opinion of a non-treating source, such as Leemgraven, Vila,7 and Imasa, “the ALJ should consider factors including the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the evidence that the physician offered in support of her opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and whether the physician was practicing in her specialty.” Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). Unless an ALJ assigns controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider “all” of the above factors “in deciding the weight [the ALJ] give[s] to any medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also id. at § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to discuss every factor used to weigh a medical source opinion.

Berumen v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-10

An ALJ is not required to discuss all of the factors for weighing a medical source opinion in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a treating-source medical opinion, an ALJ should consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Walter v. SSA · filed 2016-02-18(c)(3)-(4)

Under the applicable regulations, an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion from a treating source should consider: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) 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 specialization of the treating source; and (6) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c). ... Thus, the ALJ gave a good reason, rooted in the regulations and based on substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Ford’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4) & 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give it.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) supports giving more weight to a medical opinion when the examining doctor has obtained a longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairment.

Tellez v. Colvin · filed 2016-06-17(c)(2)(i)

Second, the ALJ properly based his rejection of Dr. Townsend’s opinion on the fact that she predicated her opinion on an evaluation conducted during a single visit. Generally, more weight is given to an examining doctor’s opinion when she has obtained a longitudinal picture of her patient’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(c)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the medical source's treatment and examining relationship, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record, with treating-source opinions generally receiving more weight than examining-source opinions.

Miles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-06-21(c)

In weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider, among other things, the medical source’s treatment and examining relationship with the claimant, the evidence supporting the opinion, and the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, the opinions of treating physicians are given more weight than examining physicians. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including supporting evidence, consistency with the record, physician specialty, and other relevant factors.

Suttles v. Colvin · filed 2016-06-30(c)

Medical opinions are evaluated based on, inter alia, the following factors: (1) the evidence in support of the opinion; (2) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the specialty of the physician; and (4) any other factors which may support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Under the Commissioner’s regulations, the ALJ accorded great weight to Dr. Wassef’s opinion because it was consistent with the evidence in the record. As the district court ruled, Dr. Kabeli did not specify any functional limitations, and Dr. Wassef’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence, including Dr. Kabeli’s treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give more weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s field and to opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

Lacourse v. SSA · filed 2016-08-17(c)(4), (c)(5)

The ALJ ought “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). At the same time, “the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight” that opinion should be given. Id. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in his treatment of this specialist’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires greater deference for treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture and a unique perspective on a claimant’s impairment.

Woodcock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-08-16(c)(2)

Treaters are entitled to greater deference because they “are likely to be.. .most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations^]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence and generally give more weight to opinions from sources with longer and more frequent treatment relationships and opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Henry S. Chambers, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-12-01(b), (c)(2), (c)(4)

In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider the medical opinions in a case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Generally, the longer a treating source has treated a claimant and the more times a treating source has seen a claimant, the more weight the ALJ will give to the source’s medical opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Furthermore, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight the ALJ will give to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion when weighing inconsistent evidence and gives greatest weight to treating-source opinions, followed by nontreating and nonexamining opinions.

Nickerson v. SSA · filed 2017-01-06(c)(2), (d), (d)(1) and (2)

[d]uring the process of review, when the Commissioner determines that “any of the evidence in [a] case record, including any medical opinion(s), is inconsistent with other evidence or is internally inconsistent, [she] will weigh all of the evidence and see whether [she] can decide whether [claimant is] disabled based on the evidence [she has].” [20 C.F.R.] § 404.1527(c)(2). When it is necessary to weigh medical evidence, every medical opinion will be evaluated, regardless of its source. [20 C.F.R.] § 404.1527(d). According to the established hierarchy of medical sources, opinions from treating sources are given the greatest weight, followed, in order, by opinions from nontreating sources and opinions from nonexamining sources. [20 C.F.R.] §§ 404.1527(d)(1) and (2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of regulatory factors, including other factors that support or contradict a medical opinion, when weighing a non-treating physician’s opinion.

Covington v. Colvin · filed 2017-02-02(c)

But the ALJ cited three reasons for giving less weight to the opinion, all of which touched on relevant factors: the extent of Dr. Hardy’s relationship with Ms. Covington; the consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; and Dr. Hardy’s own stated uncertainty regarding the accuracy of his conclusions. See Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 764 (10th Cir. 2003) (noting ALJ must consider and weigh opinions of non-treating physicians based on regulatory factors); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (listing relevant factors, including “[o]ther factors . . . which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider listed factors, including the opinion’s consistency with the overall medical record.

Malone v. Colvin · filed 2017-02-24(c)(4)

The second reason, inconsistency with the medical record, can be a valid reason to discount a medical report. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (listing consistency with the overall medical record as a factor to be used to determine the weight to give to a medical opinion). ... The ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Grafs opinion but greater weight to a non-examining physician was error in light of the failure to identify specific inconsistencies in the medical record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with all relevant record evidence, evaluate them using the source relationship, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors, and assess independent-medical-expert opinions under the same criteria.

Squeglia v. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-02-28(b), (c), (e)(2)(iii)

An ALJ is required to consider the medical opinions along with all other relevant evidence in a claimant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Medical opinions from all sources 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). ... In addition, an ALJ may obtain information and opinions from an independent medical expert about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(iii). Those opinions are assessed under the same criteria used for other medical opinions. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical-source opinion to consider all relevant regulatory factors, with an examining-source opinion presumptively receiving more weight than a record-review opinion.

Kellams v. Berryhill · filed 2017-08-10(c)

In weighing a medical source opinion, the ALJ must evaluate “all of the [relevant] factors set out in [20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)],” mindful that an examining source opinion “is presumptively entitled to more weight than a doctor’s opinion derived from a review of the medical record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions in the case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence, and acknowledging and evaluating a social worker’s opinion can satisfy that requirement.

Anteau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-09-14(b)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ will always consider the medical opinions in a case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... The ALJ reviewed Wells’ opinion by asking about it during the hearing and stating in his decision the record contained several opinions from Wells that found Anteau completely incapable of maintaining competitive employment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Accordingly, the ALJ properly weighed Wells’ opinion because while the ALJ acknowledged her opinion in his decision, she was not an accepted medical source, her opinion was contradicted by the psychologist credited by the ALJ, and the only acceptable medical source that diagnosed Anteau with Asperger’s disorder was a psychologist whose opinion was given little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Putman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2017-09-18(c)(4)

And in general, the more consistent a physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight an ALJ can place on that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires adjudicators to consider whether a medical opinion is supported by the record and whether it is consistent with the record as a whole.

Shepard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-09-26(c)(3), (4)

Adjudicators must consider whether a medical opinion is supported by the record and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(3), (4). The treatment notes from Dr. Tanir in the record cited by the ALJ demonstrate that Dr. Tanir’s opinion could be denied controlling weight by the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues related to the specialist’s field than to a non-specialist’s opinion.

Gorman v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-30(c)(5)

But agency regulations specifically afford more weight to specialists. 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(c)(2)-(6) provides that an ALJ generally should give greatest weight to a treating physician’s opinion and more weight to an examining physician’s opinion than to a non-examining physician’s opinion.

Cervantez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-07-06(c)(2)-(6)

Generally, the ALJ should give the greatest weight to a treating physician’s opinion and more weight to the opinion of an examining physician than to one of a non-examining physician. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040-41; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, while giving more weight to examining than non-examining sources and greater weight to treating sources.

Adkins v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-27(c)(1)-(6)

The regulations outline how the opinions of accepted medical sources should be weighed in determining whether a claimant qualifies for disability benefits. Id. § 404.1527(c). For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017 (such as Claimant’s), the ALJ should give more weight to the opinion of an examining medical source than to the opinion of a non-examining source, and even greater weight to the opinion of a treating physician, because that physician is usually most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant’s alleged disability. Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment may be afforded controlling weight when the following two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is well-supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. Id. When a treating physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical findings, or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the ALJ may give the physician’s opinion less weight. Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions under the regulatory factors, and a lack of personal examination does not prevent consideration of a nonexamining agency consultant’s opinion.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2017-12-21(c)(2)(ii), (c)(6)

That might implicate the second factor’s “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship,” including “the kinds and extent of examinations and testing the [medical] source has performed or ordered,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), 416.927(c)(2)(ii). ... The ALJ, however, was well aware of whether each of the five doctors examined Jones, and the ALJ was entitled, indeed required, to consider Dr. Gawo’s opinion even though he didn’t examine Jones. See Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067, 1071 (10th Cir. 2007) (explaining that an ALJ is entitled to consider the opinions of nonexamining physicians); 20 C.F.R. §§ 1513a(b)(1), 416.913a(b)(1) (requiring ALJs to consider evidence supplied by agency medical consultants according to §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 because such “consultants are highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation”); cf. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6) 416.927(c)(6) (directing ALJs to consider how much understanding a medical source has of “disability programs and their evidentiary requirements”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion.

Fain v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-01(c)

In weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the treating source, and other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the SSA to evaluate every medical opinion and directs ALJs to weigh opinions using the source's treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors; it generally favors treating sources over examining and nonexamining sources.

Edwards v SSA · filed 2018-03-07(c)

The SSA is required to evaluate every medical opinion that it receives. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c). Moreover, the Social Security regulations describe a hierarchy of medical opinions that generally favors those from treating sources, gives lesser weight to those from sources who have only examined a claimant, and gives the least amount of weight to opinions from sources who have neither examined nor treated a claimant. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) & 416.927(c)(1)-(2). In weighing any medical opinion, the SSA, and by extension an ALJ, should consider: (1) the length of the medical source’s treatment relationship with the claimant, if any, and the frequency of his or her examination of the claimant, if any; (2) the nature and extent of the claimant’s treatment relationship with the medical source; (3) the opinion’s supportability; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the medical source who provided the opinion; and (6) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) & 416.927(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and determine how much weight to give each one.

Porter v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-07(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), ALJs are required to consider all medical opinions, and decide how much weight that each should be afforded. Porter argues that the ALJ committed reversible error by failing to consider Dr. Ceaser and Dr. Isenberg’s medical opinions, or to identify the weight that was given to them. The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ failed to acknowledge either opinion, and that she was indeed required to. However, the Commissioner maintains that the error was harmless. The Court disagrees. ... Dr. Isenberg’s opinion, however, contains several limitations that the ALJ failed to include. ... The ALJ failed to identify the weight afforded to the opinion, and, moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the opinion was even considered. ... The Court cannot find such an error harmless, because it is uncertain whether the ALJ would have reached the same decision had she considered the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) does not support giving significant weight to non-examining opinions that fail to consider all pertinent evidence.

Pulliam v. Berryhill · filed 2018-04-02(c)(3)

The ALJ also erred in giving significant weight to the state agency’s non-examining physicians’ opinions, because they did not consider “all of the pertinent evidence,” including ten opinions from Pulliam’s treating providers indicating that Pulliam cannot work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the specified regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, and consistency and support.

Samuel v. Saul · filed 2018-04-09(c)(1)-(6)

In assessing conflicting medical opinion evidence, ALJs must consider several factors, including “the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician’s specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion.” ... “[W]e consider all of the [above] factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Here, the ALJ failed to weigh Drs. Hawkins’ and Elias’ opinions under all of the regulatory factors. ... Without consideration of the additional regulatory factors, the ALJ’s decision to credit the opinion of Dr. Hawkins over that of Dr. Elias is not supported by substantial evidence. ... On remand, the ALJ should evaluate and weigh each of the medical opinions in light of all of the regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires consideration of all medical opinions and gives controlling weight to a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the substantial evidence of record.

Dandy · filed 2018-04-26(b), (c)(2)

The regulations require that all medical opinions in a case be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The regulations further direct ALJs to accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion that is well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider factors including the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability, and to give more weight to an opinion from a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not.

Tapia v. Colvin · filed 2018-05-14(c)(1), (c)(2)-(5)

Even if an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician’s specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion in determining what weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). ... As Dr. Oh and Dr. Bilinsky’s opinions appear to be contradicted by the record, it was error for the ALJ to give them determinative weight, especially since they never examined Tapia. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), (an ALJ should “give 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].”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4)-(6) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion more weight when it comes from a specialist, is consistent with the record as a whole, or reflects the source's understanding of disability-program requirements.

Newman v. SSA · filed 2018-05-15(c)(4)-(6)

The ALJ relied on Dr. Salt’s opinion not only because it was consistent with the longitudinal medical record, but because of her expertise as a licensed psychologist and her knowledge of the disability program and its requirements. These were proper factors to consider. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)-(6) (stating that ALJ may give medical opinion more weight if it is made by a specialist, if it is consistent with the record as a whole, or if the medical source understands “our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions with the rest of the record, while reserving ultimate responsibility for deciding the RFC to the Commissioner.

Barraza v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-23(d)(2)

The ALJ considers the medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence in determining disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. While the ALJ considers medical evidence from a claimant’s doctors, he remains the ultimate arbiter of the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) (medical sources may be used to “provide evidence” regarding several factors including RFC, but “final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, testing, and support and consistency when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-24(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician's specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician's opinion. See Id. ... To the extent the ALJ considered Dr. Ranganath’s opinion, he did so for the period after March 25, 2015. In his decision, the ALJ failed to discuss Plaintiff’s long-term treating relationship with Dr. Ranganath, the nature of their treating relationship, or the consistency of Dr. Ranganath’s findings, as required by the regulations. Accordingly, remand is appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to consider the listed factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned to a medical-source opinion, but does not require an explicit discussion of every factor.

Kaeder v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-07(c)

The ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each and every § 404.1527(c) factor, as long as he considers all the factors and gives good reasons for the weight assigned.