20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using specified factors and explain the weight assigned.

Autman v. Colvin · filed 2018-05-15(c)

Generally, even where a treater's opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. ... In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician's specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must then provide a “sound explanation” for that decision. ... Here, the ALJ did just that. ... After this articulation, the ALJ accorded little weight to Dr. Tachauer’s opinion. Although a different adjudicator may have come to a different conclusion based on the evidence of record, the Court finds that the ALJ supported his decision with substantial evidence, and it will not be disturbed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, including under subsection (c)(3) how fully non-examining opinions account for pertinent evidence and provide support.

Heer v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-19(c)(3)

An ALJ is required to weigh the degree to which non-examining opinions consider and weigh evidence, including the evidence of treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in [Plaintiff’s] claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources.”) ... The opinions of state agency consultants can be given weight only to the extent they are supported by evidence in the record, which includes evidence that was not in their possession at the time they issued their opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed regulatory factors and provide a sound explanation for the weight assigned to each opinion.

Swint v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-21(c)

Social Security regulations require the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013). Generally, an ALJ will “give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has not examined [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). “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.” Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003). Unless a treating source’s medical opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh all medical opinions considering the following factors: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician’s specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). When evaluating opinions from “other medical sources,” such as a nurse practitioner, an ALJ should “apply the same criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 for evaluating medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.” Shegog v. Berryhill, No. 16 C 7436, 2018 WL 1898456, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2018) (citations omitted); see also Cummings v. Colvin, No. 14 CV 10180, 2016 WL 4483854, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2016) (“An ALJ should weight the opinions of these “other medical sources” by considering the same set of regulatory factors that they would for any other source.”). After considering the regulatory factors, the ALJ must then provide a “sound explanation” for the weight given each opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider its support and consistency and the examining or treating relationship, including the length, frequency, and nature of treatment.

Black v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-02-27(c), (d)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical evidence, including whether an opinion is well-supported and consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). The ALJ will further consider factors such as whether the physician examined or treated the claimant, and the length, frequency, and nature of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ properly gave little weight to the opinion of Black’s treating physician, Dr. Grant, because good cause existed to discount his opinions. ... Moreover, the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence because Dr. Grant’s opinions lacked explanations and were not entirely consistent with his own notes or other evidence in the record. ... Similarly, the ALJ properly gave limited weight to Dr. Storjohann’s opinion that Black had marked deficits in functional capabilities, as this opinion was not consistent with the totality of the record. ... Thus, the ALJ properly considered factors in weighing the medical evidence from Dr. Storjohann’s evaluation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions and explain the weight and basis assigned to them, but failing to do so is harmless when the claimant's RFC is more favorable than the opinion and the opinion does not support disability.

Lopardo v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-20(b), (c), (e)

The ALJ must consider the medical opinions in the record. See Bourinot v. Colvin, 95 F. Supp. 3d 161, 175 (D. Mass. 2015); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c). ... Unless an ALJ gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight, his decision must explain the weight he gives to other opinions, including those of state agency medical consultants. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). ... Although Plaintiff is correct that the SSA's regulations required the ALJ to explain what weight he assigned to Dr. Purins' opinion and to explain the basis for the assignment and the ALJ failed to follow the proper procedure, the error was harmless because Dr. Purins' opinion did not support a finding of disability and the ALJ's RFC was more favorable to Plaintiff than Dr. Purins' RFC analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining and treating relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, and generally gives more weight to a specialist's opinion on issues within the specialist's area.

Edwards v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-22(d), (c)(5)

The ALJ resolves conflicts between the various opinions and evaluation from treating and examining physicians. Wagner, 499 F.3d at 848. In determining what weight to give any medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the following factors: (1) examining relationship; (2) treating relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) “any factors [the applicant] or others bring[s] to [the ALJ's] attention.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)). ... Generally, more weight is given to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues that relate to his area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5); see Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (stating the ALJ “was within his purview not to give these observations [of depression] much weight because they were not from specialists in the mental health field.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, examination frequency, the physician's specialty, and the opinion's consistency and support.

Hurwith, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-24(c)

Further, the ALJ did not address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 in determining what weight to give Dr. Spencer’s opinion. SSR 96-2p. SSR 96-2p states that treating source medical opinions “are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” SSR 96-2p; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Moss, 555 F.3d at 561. Here, the ALJ did not assign Dr. Spencer’s opinion any weight and did not address many of the enumerated factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, the ALJ did not discuss the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, or whether Dr. Spencer had a relevant specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to treat whether a physician examined the claimant as one factor when evaluating that physician’s medical opinion.

Maksutoski v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-13(c)

It is well-settled, however, that an ALJ may rely upon the opinions of non-examining doctors. See Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008); Moynihan v. Colvin, No. 14 C 10063, 2016 WL 6582232, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2016) (“There is no prohibition on the ALJ relying on the opinions of nonexamining doctors.”); SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *3 (July 2, 1996). Whether a physician has examined a claimant is just one factor for an ALJ to consider in evaluating that medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as supportability, consistency, and specialization when deciding how much weight to give medical opinions.

Bates v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-31(c)

An ALJ must consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when giving weight to medical opinions. ... Instead, the ALJ was required to weigh the opinions in light of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including supportability, consistency, and the doctor’s specialization. For the following reasons, the Court finds the ALJ properly weighed these opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability, and failure to do so requires remand.

Owen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-13(c)

An ALJ is required to weigh all medical opinion evidence pursuant to the “checklist of factors” that 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) enumerates. Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). The checklist requires an 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.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). An ALJ’s failure to weigh medical opinion evidence pursuant to the factors that the checklist provides mandates remand. Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 263 (7th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) makes the length of the treatment relationship one factor in weighing a medical opinion, while § 404.1527(d)(1) reserves RFC and disability determinations to the Commissioner and makes a medical source's disability opinion nonbinding.

Everett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-06-19(c), (d)(1)

However, the length of the relationship is only one factor used to determine the weight given to a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The Commissioner, not a physician, is responsible for determining a claimant’s RFC and whether a claimant is statutorily disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). “A statement by a medical source that [a claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Commissioner] will determine that [the claimant is] disabled.” Id. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to properly consider State agency medical opinions, even when the opinions come from non-examining psychologists.

Riley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-24(c)

Even though they were from non-examining psychologists, the ALJ was required to properly consider the State agency opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and weigh medical opinions from acceptable and non-acceptable medical sources using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Rosemarie Wall v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-27(c), (f)

The ALJ is instructed to consider the same factors when evaluating opinions from both acceptable and non-acceptable medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c),(f). ... Those factors include the nature of the relationship between the medical source and the claimant, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the source of the opinion is a specialist. See id. ... First, the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Krasnof’s opinion on the ground that she was not a specialist in the orthopedic issues about which she opined. Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Second, the ALJ supportably found that Dr. Krasnof saw Wall only once or twice a year. Cf. id. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). Third, the ALJ correctly stated that Dr. Krasnof did not support her opinion by citing clinical examinations, specific deficits, or observations of Wall’s functioning. Cf. id. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, when a treating opinion is not controlling, weigh the opinions using factors including examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Kennedy v. Saul · filed 2019-07-08(c)

If the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion should not be considered controlling, the ALJ must then analyze and weigh all of the medical opinions in the record, taking into account the following non-exclusive list: (1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 654 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source's specialization.

Raymond v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-09(c)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing a medical opinion, including whether the source of the opinion has examined the claimant; whether the source has treated the claimant, and the length, frequency, nature, and extent of that treatment; whether the opinion is well supported; whether the opinion is consistent with the record; and whether the source is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ must give a treating physician’s medical opinion substantial or considerable weight, unless the ALJ clearly articulates good cause for discrediting that opinion. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. “Good cause exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) [the] treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Id. (quoting Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to assign substantial weight to Dr. English’s opinions in the questionnaire. The ALJ found Dr. English’s opinions were conclusory, as they were unsupported by narrative statements or particular medical signs and/or tests.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, support, and consistency, while the ALJ remains responsible for assessing the claimant's RFC.

Whitten v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-10(c), (d)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinion evidence, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether the opinion is supported, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ may discount any medical opinion that is conclusory or inconsistent with the record; the ALJ may also discount a medical opinion when the evidence supports a contrary finding. See id. ... Physicians’ opinions about a claimant’s abilities and restrictions are relevant evidence, but they’re not determinative because the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors and generally give more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues within the specialist’s area, explaining any departure.

Gandy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-15(c)(1)–(6), (c)(5)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must weigh it using such factors such as: the examining relationship; the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). ... “We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Where the ALJ does not give more weight to a specialist opining on medical issues related to his specialty, the ALJ must explain his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh medical opinions and assign them the weight the ALJ deems appropriate; a treating doctor's opinion need not receive greater weight than other doctors when it is inconsistent with the objective record.

VELOSO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-07-23(c)(1)-(4)

As to Plaintiff’s reliance on Dr. Weiner’s opinions, the ALJ is not required to give Dr. Weiner more credit than other doctors. ALJ Lee appropriately considered Dr. Weiner’s opinions in conjunction with the entire record of objective medical evidence. ... He sufficiently explained why he gave greater weight to the opinions of the state agency experts. ... Despite treating Plaintiff since 2005, Dr. Weiner’s records did not present objective findings or provide functional data evaluating Plaintiff’s mood, suicidality, cognition, memory, attention and concentration, nor did Dr. Weiner conduct a complete MSE until August 31, 2017, or update his records to reflect changes over time.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to treating-physician opinions than examining-physician opinions, and more weight to examining-physician opinions than non-examining-physician opinions; explained opinions and relevant specialist opinions receive more weight.

Hahn Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-24(c)(1)-(2)

Title II’s implementing regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant but who review the claimant’s file (non-examining physicians). Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a non-examining physician’s. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202. In addition, the regulations give more weight to opinions that are explained than to those that are not, and to the opinions of specialists concerning matters relating to their specialty over those of non-specialists. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to sufficiently account for the relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Leonard v. Saul · filed 2019-07-24

While the ALJ in this case did not explicitly weigh each factor in discussing Dr. Turk’s opinion, her decision makes clear that she was aware of and considered the factors, including the consistency of Dr. Turk’s opinion with the record as a whole and the supportability of his opinion as discussed above. The ALJ also considered Dr. Turk’s treatment relationship with Donald. (Id. at 22-23.) For instance, the ALJ explained that Dr. Turk’s treatment notes, which span about two months, contain several dates that are close in time, and “suggest that each of Dr. Turk’s assessments [is] intended to be of limited duration.” (Id. (citing id. at 593-611).) The court may not necessarily agree with the weight the ALJ afforded to Dr. Turk’s opinion, but its inquiry is limited to whether the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the § 404.1527 factors, see Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of benefits where ALJ discussed only two of the relevant § 404.1527 factors), and built an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, and permits little weight for an unsupported or inconsistent treating opinion.

Whitaker v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-29(c)

When considering how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider a number of factors: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s “opinion is with the record as a whole”; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. Forsyth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 503 F. App’x 892, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)). In particular, the Commissioner’s regulations require that the opinions of examining physicians be given more weight than non-examining physicians, the opinions of treating physicians be given more weight than non-treating physicians, and the opinions of specialists (on issues within their areas of expertise) be given more weight than non-specialists. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), (5). ... There is no medical evidence supporting Dr. Odle’s opinion Plaintiff’s cardiac symptoms and limitations began in 2012 or Plaintiff’s physical limitations were as he stated prior to March 31, 2013, the date last insured. ... For all of these reasons, the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Odle’s opinion little weight is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical source's opinion based on the source's relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record.

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

An ALJ’s weighting of a medical source’s opinion depends on the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support his opinion, and the degree of consistency between the medical source’s opinion with the medical evidence in the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)(2). Under the “treating physician-rule,” a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to substantial weight unless good cause is shown for not crediting it. MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986). Good cause exists when: (1) the opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) the opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records. Crawford v. Comm’r, 363 F.3d 1155, 1159-60 (2004); Winschel v. Comm’r, 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Michael’s opinion as inconsistent with his own treatment notes and other evidence of record. (R. 19). Dr. Michael found that Plaintiff had significant limitations which would distract him from being able to work, including significant side effects from medication used to treat pain. (R. 304, 305). However, Dr. Michael's treatment notes consistently state that Plaintiff’s pain is well-controlled by prescription medication with no reported side effects. (R. 295-98, 302). Moreover, Dr. Michael opined that Plaintiff had significant limitations in lifting, walking, sitting, and standing, but he provided no rationale for this opinion. To the contrary, Dr. Michael’s notes indicate that Plaintiff was more active and feeling better. Because Dr. Michael’s opinion is not bolstered by his own evidence, it is not entitled to substantial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion that lacks controlling weight to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-31(c)(1)–(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must weigh it using such factors such as: the examining relationship; the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). ... The ALJ failed to analyze Dr. Safavi’s treating relationship with Plaintiff or his specialty. ... This indicates a long and ongoing treating relationship, which the ALJ fails to acknowledge. ... The ALJ has failed to discuss the majority of the other regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, supportability, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Davis v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-07-31(c)

Opinions from non-treating sources are never assessed for controlling weight but are evaluated using the regulatory balancing factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). These opinions are weighed “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). “Other factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the opinion’ may be considered in assessing any type of medical opinion.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6)). ... Ultimately, the ALJ’s assignment of little weight to Dr. Goewey’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ properly considered the supportability of the opinion with the medical record and examination findings. See Norris, 461 F. App’x at 469 (holding a consultative examiner’s opinion “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 also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (directing that an ALJ evaluates a non-treating source opinion by considering the supportability of the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including supportability and consistency and to explain the weight assigned with sufficient specificity.

Waldron v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-02(c)

In determining what weight to give to an opinion, the ALJ evaluates several factors including, inter alia, the supportability and consistency of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The ALJ need not expressly consider all of the relevant factors, but his or her decision must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the…medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) allows an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors such as examination and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty; under subsection (c)(2), treating-source opinions generally receive more weight and the ALJ must give good reasons for discounting them.

Hollis v. Berryhill (CONSENT) · filed 2019-08-12(c), (c)(2)

In determining the weight to give a medical source’s opinion, an ALJ may consider numerous factors, including whether the doctor examined the claimant, whether the doctor treated the claimant, the evidence the doctor presents to support his opinion, whether the doctor's opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the doctor’s specialty. Denomme v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 518 F. App’x 875, 877 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)). A treating doctor’s opinion generally is entitled to more weight, and an ALJ must give good reasons for discounting a treating doctor’s opinion. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1160; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2). However, the opinions of one-time examiners or reviewing physicians, are not entitled to deference or special consideration. Denomme, 518 F. App’x at 877 (citing McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987)). ... Here, the ALJ properly considered and weighed the opinion evidence from Dr. Durant. ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to afford Dr. Durant’s opinion only “some weight.” ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err by discounting the opinion of Dr. Durant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating source's opinion to weigh it using factors including supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, while allowing greater weight for a supported, consistent specialist opinion.

Medeiros v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-12(c)

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the amount of weight to give the opinion, based on factors that include (1) the length of the treatment relationship; (2) whether the treating source provided evidence in support of the opinion; (3) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (4) whether the treating source is a specialist. ... Because the ALJ found the opinions of the treating physicians inconsistent with the record, he was not required to give their opinions controlling weight and could instead assign significant weight to Dr. Kwock’s opinion. ... The ALJ found that Dr. Kwock’s opinion was consistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). ... In addition, the ALJ noted that Dr. Kwock is an expert in surgeries such as the ones Medeiros received. (A.R. 733 referring to 756, 1097-99). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about the medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”). ... Finally, Dr. Kwock’s testimony was supported by medical evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a non-treating medical opinion to consider factors including supportability, consistency, the examining relationship, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Kaufmann v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-08-12(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ also found that Dr. Summers’ opinion was entitled to little weight, as “his assessment is not consistent with his findings on examination.” [Tr. 28]. Opinions from non-treating sources are never assessed for controlling weight but are evaluated using the regulatory balancing factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). These opinions are weighed “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). “Other factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the opinion’ may be considered in assessing any type of medical opinion.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6)). ... Here, the ALJ’s assignment of little weight to Dr. Summers’ opinion is supported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ properly considered the supportability of the opinion with the examination findings. ... The ALJ found that Dr. Summers’ mild examination findings did not support the restrictive opined limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 makes the weight assigned to a physician's opinion depend on whether the physician is treating, examining, or nonexamining.

Hiller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-13

The weight given to the opinion of a physician depends on whether the physician is a treating, examining, or nonexamining physician. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to state how much weight is given to each medical opinion and explain the reasons for that determination.

Flamer v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-15

The Eleventh Circuit has held that an ALJ “must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)); accord 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight assigned to medical opinions and reserves the RFC determination to the ALJ.

Heazeltine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19

In making a determination, the ALJ must decide which treating and examining doctors’ opinions should receive weight, and explain the reasons for that finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The Court finds that the ALJ met her burden to explain which opinions she accepted and which she discounted and why. ... The determination of the RFC is an issue reserved to the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors when weighing any medical opinion and explain the assigned weight sufficiently for meaningful review.

Garner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19(c)

The ALJ did not sufficiently analyze the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors in deciding to give greater weight to the state agency doctors’ opinions. The ALJ must “consider all of [those] factors in deciding the weight [she] give[s] to any medical opinion.” Id. Though the ALJ need not recite these points verbatim, she must explain enough for meaningful appellate review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors, give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight unless good cause supports less weight, and explain the weight assigned and the reasons for it.

Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; 3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; 4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence); see also Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight where: 1) the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; 2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or 3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. The ALJ must state the weight assigned to each medical opinion, and articulate the reasons supporting the weight assigned. Id. The failure to state the weight with particularity or articulate the reasons in support of the assigned weight prohibits the Court from determining whether the ALJ’s ultimate decision is rational and supported by substantial evidence. Id. ... Thus, the ALJ’s first reason for assigning little weight to Dr. Baez’s opinions is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh consulting and other-source opinions using factors such as supportability, examination frequency, and consistency, without requiring deference to a nonmedical source.

Alvarez v. Saul · filed 2019-08-22(c), (f)

Indeed, the applicable regulations do not require the ALJ to defer to the opinion of a nonmedical source, but rather direct the ALJ to consider criteria such as supportability, frequency of examination, and consistency with the record in weighing consulting and other source opinions. See id. § 404.1527(c), (f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than examining-source opinions, and greater weight to examining-source opinions than non-examining-source opinions; opinions from other sources do not receive the same deference as opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Marquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-20(c)(1)-(2), (f)

Title II’s implementing regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant but who review the claimant’s file (non-examining physicians). ... Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a non-examining physician’s. ... “Other sources” for opinions—such as nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, therapists, teachers, social workers, chiropractors, and nonmedical sources—are not entitled to the same deference as acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Walker-Trew v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-13(c)(1)

Non-examining doctors’ opinions do not constitute substantial evidence on which to base an administrative decision and are entitled to little weight when they contradict the opinions and findings of treating or examining physicians. Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 1988); Kahle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires non-examining medical opinions to be evaluated according to the degree to which they consider all pertinent evidence, including the opinions of treating and examining sources.

Gilliam v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-06-28(c)(3)

It is notable that the ALJ’s reliance on the non-examining chart reviewers’ opinions violated the requirements of the Treating Physician Rule that the opinions of non-examining and non-treating physicians would be weighed on the same standards as the treating physicians and would be evaluated on “the degree to which these opinions consider all the pertinent evidence . . ., including the opinions of treating and other examining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and assign weight to a non-examining state-agency medical consultant’s opinion, with its consistency with other record evidence affecting the weight it receives.

Randolph v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-05(c), (e)

An ALJ must consider the opinions of non-examining physicians, including state agency psychological consultants. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (e). State agency medical consultants are considered experts in social security disability evaluation, and the ALJ must consider and assign weight to their opinions in the same manner as other medical sources. See id. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1513a(b). The weight to be given to a non-examining physician’s opinion depends, among other things, on the extent to which it is consistent with other evidence. See id. § 404.1527(c)(4); see also Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158. ... Accordingly, because Dr. Krishnamurthy’s standing/walking limitation was internally inconsistent with observations from examining physicians that Randolph was, on multiple occasions, walking without difficulty and participating in activities like lifting logs and riding all-terrain vehicles, good cause existed for the ALJ to give no weight to the limitation. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 applies the same weighing factors to treating and non-treating medical opinions, except that examination replaces the treatment relationship when assessing a non-treating source.

Hyde v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)(1)-(6)

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 replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and better explanations, and requires consideration of pertinent evidence, including other medical opinions.

Freddette v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-01-07(c)(3)

When determining the weight to give to a medical opinion, an ALJ must consider, inter alia, the nature of the relationship between the medical source and the claimant, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the source of the opinion is a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Regarding supportability, the regulations explain: ... The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. Furthermore, because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [a claimant], the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions. We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in [a] claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, while reserving the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Hernandez v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-02-06(c), (c)(4), (d)(1)

In conducting this evaluation, an ALJ must state with particularity the weight given different medical opinions and the accompanying reasons. ... The ALJ should consider, among other things, the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and doctor, the length of the treatment, the supportability and consistency of the evidence, and the specialization of the doctor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). More weight is generally given to opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole. Id. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... First, the ALJ correctly concluded that he was not required to consider Dr. Johnston’s opinion that Hernandez’s conditions prevented her from being able to work, as regulations reserve that decision to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must consider the listed weighing factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bond v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-15(c)(2) and (c)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimed impairment is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). Correspondingly, an ALJ need not give controlling weight to an opinion that is not well-supported by clinical findings or laboratory techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... If the opinion of a treating source is not afforded controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding what weight is due: (1) the existence of an examining relationship; (2) the nature of the treatment relationship, such as length of treatment and frequency of examination; (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical evidence such as medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) consistency with the record; (5) the source’s specialty; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each and every factor, as long as he or she considers all the factors and gives good reasons for the weight assigned. ... The Court finds that the ALJ considered the relevant factors for weighing medical opinion evidence and gave good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Molony’s December 2014 opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Medina v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-24(c)

Specific factors to consider include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician's opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to evaluate opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources based on the case-specific probative value of the opinions and all evidence, and to explain the weight assigned.

Cannon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-02(f)(1), (f)(2)

The evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an “acceptable medical source” depends on the particular facts in each case. Each case must be adjudicated on its own merits based on a consideration of the probative value of the opinions and a weighing of all the evidence in that particular case. Id. at *5; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... In doing so, the ALJ met his burden “to explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow [his] reasoning.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source to receive significant weight and bars discounting it solely because the source is not an acceptable medical source.

Wingo v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-31(f)(1)

Under the regulations, the ALJ can give a non-acceptable medical source significant weight. See SSR 06-03; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1) (“Depending on the particular facts in a case, and after applying the factors for weighing opinion evidence, an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source[.]”). On its own, this is not a germane reason to give Dr. Harman’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires the ALJ to consider opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and evaluate them using relevant factors, including consistency with the record, while opinions from acceptable medical sources receive more weight.

Bowden v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2019-09-30(f)

Though the opinion of an acceptable medical source is entitled to more weight, see Falge v. Apfel, 150 F.3d 1320, 1324 (11th Cir. 1998), the ALJ still must consider the opinion of other medical sources and evaluate that opinion in light of various factors, including whether it is consistent with the rest of the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to discuss a rehabilitation counselor's opinion when it is clearly relevant to whether the claimant can work.

Gibbs v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-16(f)

Because Ms. Cormack’s opinion is clearly relevant to the issue of whether plaintiff is capable of working, the ALJ was required to discuss it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); see also Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1393, 1395 (9th Cir. 1984) (ALJ must discuss all relevant and probative evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to evaluate opinions from other medical sources using the same factors used to evaluate medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Ibrahim v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-18(d)

A nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source who can give medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a). The ALJ may evaluate opinions of other medical sources using the same factors used to evaluate medical opinions of acceptable medical sources. Social Security Ruling 06-03p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The ALJ must give specific, germane reasons for rejecting opinions from other sources that are not acceptable medical sources. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993). But the ALJ may give less weight to opinions of other medical sources than to those of acceptable medical sources. SSR 06-03p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources using the same factors applicable to acceptable medical sources, and § 404.1527(c)(3) permits discounting an opinion that is not supported by the medical evidence.

Olson v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2021-01-08(f)(1), (c)(3)

Even though Mayes was not an acceptable medical source, the ALJ was required to consider her opinions using the same factors applicable to acceptable medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1). The ALJ’s primary reason for discounting Mayes’ opinions was that they were not supported by the medical evidence. This is a legitimate reason to discount a medical opinion. See id. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An occupational therapist’s evaluation cannot receive controlling weight as an acceptable medical source’s opinion, but it may show the severity of an impairment and its effect on functioning.

Snyder, Kristi v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-05-18(f)

Although the administrative law judge correctly noted that occupational therapists are not “acceptable medical sources” who can offer medical opinions entitled to controlling weight for purposes of social security disability determinations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502 and 404.1527(f), “this evidence may be used to show the severity of an impairment and how it affects a claimant’s ability to function.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must determine and explain the weight assigned after considering the listed factors, and must explain the weight given to a non-acceptable source's opinion when it may affect the outcome.

McArthur v. Colvin · filed 2018-10-16(c)(2), (d)(2)-(d)(6), and (f)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician is afforded controlling weight if it is both “well supported” by clinical and diagnostic evidence and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. ... Even where the ALJ chooses not to give a treating opinion controlling weight, she must still determine what weight to give the treating opinion. ... In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician’s specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. ... The ALJ must then provide a “sound explanation” for that decision. ... Although physical therapists are not an acceptable medical source as defined in 20 C.F.R § 404.1502(a) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the ALJ is required to articulate what weight is given to such sources when the opinion “may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20. C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). ... In such cases where the ALJ gives greater weight to a not acceptable medical opinion, he “must explain the reasons in the notice of decision in hearing cases … if the determination is less than fully favorable.” 20. C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). The ALJ did not do so here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion, requires good reasons for declining that weight, and calls for considering supportability, consistency, and specialization when evaluating a non-treating opinion.

Parkinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(c)(2), (d)(2)

A physician qualifies as a treating source if there is an ‘ongoing treatment relationship’ such that the claimant sees the physician ‘with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for [the] medical condition.’ Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If the treating physician’s opinion is “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,’ then an ALJ ‘will give it controlling weight.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). And, when an ALJ does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must give “‘good reasons’” for discounting the opinion. Id. (quoting Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242). On the other hand, when the opinion comes from a non-treating or non-examining source, it is usually not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Rather, the ALJ should consider relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). There is however, no “reasons-giving requirement” for non-treating source opinions. Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 658 F. App’x 255, 259 (6th Cir. 2016). Rather, the ALJ must provide only “a meaningful explanation regarding the weight given to particular medical source opinions.” Mason v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:18 CV 1737, 2019 WL 4305764, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2019) (citing SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Praytor v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2018-10-19(c)

The opinion is still entitled to deference, however, and thus the ALJ must weigh the opinion using the relevant factors listed at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the examining and treatment relationships, the opinion's support, and its consistency with the record.

Underwood v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2018-10-26(c)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinion evidence, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, and whether an opinion is consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ had good cause to depart from Dr. Royster’s opinions because they were not supported by his own medical records, by the testifying doctor, or by any of Underwood’s other medical specialists. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give parts of Underwood’s treating physician’s opinions little evidentiary weight, as the physician’s opinions were inconsistent with his own treatment records, and the medical evidence as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves the final determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner and gives no special significance to a physician’s opinion on that issue.

Kelham v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-31(d)(2), (d)(3)

Regardless, the final determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity is reserved to the Commissioner, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), and thus Dr. Onamusi’s opinion that Kelham could perform “light” work is not entitled to “any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3); see Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 638 (7th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider the listed factors when assigning weight; it does not require a treating physician to cite the physician’s own treatment notes in an expert report.

King v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-27(d)(1)-(6), (c)(3)

An ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... The regulations lay out six factors that an ALJ should consider as part of this analysis, including the nature and length of the treatment relationship, the medical expert’s specialization, and the degree to which a source’s opinion is supported by other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6). ... While an ALJ may appropriately discount an expert opinion when it conflicts with the physician’s treatment notes, Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842-43 (7th Cir. 2007), the regulations do not require a treating physician to cite as support his or her own notes in an expert report, as the ALJ seems to have incorrectly assumed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, and consistency with the overall record.

Fleenor v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-09(c)(2)-(6)

However, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion according to factors such as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; supportability; and consistency with the overall record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires the ALJ to recontact treating physicians for additional information about an applicant's ability to work when the record is insufficient to decide whether the applicant is disabled.

Ripley v. Chater · filed 1995-10-30(c)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (1994) (requiring the recontacting of the treating physicians to obtain additional information regarding an applicant's ability to work when the record is insufficient to make a determination of whether an applicant is disabled).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii) and (3)-(5) directs an ALJ deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialty.

Gavin, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-31(d)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(5)

These factors include: “[1] the [l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; [2] the [n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship; [3] the relevant evidence . . . , particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; [4] the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and [5] whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.” Id. at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(5)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Estrella, 925 F.3d at 94.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an adjudicator to give a treating source's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to consider four factors when declining to do so.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-01(c)(2)

... Given that Dr. McMahon-Tronetti was a treating source, the A.L.J. was required to give Dr. McMahon-Tronetti controlling weight provided her assessment was “well supported” and was “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).9 When an A.L.J. does not give controlling weight to a treating physician, the A.L.J. must ... “explicitly consider” four factors provided in Burgess (the “Burgess” factors). Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95–96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)) (the four “Burgess” factors stated in Estrella and earlier in Burgess ... are drawn from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2): “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified factors when weighing treating-source opinions, although an ALJ need not recite every factor when the reasoning clearly shows the rule was followed.

Bernardo v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-09-04(c)

However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician controlling weight when the opinion is medically supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Murray v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(c)

When supported by medically accepted diagnostic techniques and if consistent with the record, an ALJ should afford a treating physician controlling weight. Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1132 (8th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). But when these requirements for controlling weight are not met, the ALJ must consider the length of the treating relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the relationship, the degree to which the treating physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence, the consistency between the treating physician’s opinion and the record, whether the treating physician is a specialist in the area of treatment, and any other factors that support or contradict the opinion. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Morales v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-08(c)

However, as already discussed, the ALJ properly considered the “supportability” and “consistency” of Dr. Mbadugha’s opinions, which are two of the relevant 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) factors. ... The ALJ also addressed the length of the treating relationship, see R. 33, which is another factor, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The fact that the ALJ did not explicitly address each of the factors is of no consequence because a “slavish recitation of each and every factor” is unnecessary “where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” ... Thus, Dr. Mbadugha’s opinions were given the appropriate weight and the ALJ did not violate the treating-physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight, requires good reasons when it does not qualify, and permits harmless-error review when the treating-physician rule's substance was not traversed.

Jedermann v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-08(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 requires that the “treating physician rule” be applied when determining a claimant’s disability status. ... Indeed, the regulations require that the treating source’s medical opinion be controlling only if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Where the treating source’s medical opinion does not meet these criteria, the ALJ is required to give “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the opinion. Id. ... An ALJ's failure to explicitly apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion is a procedural error. ... Nevertheless, if “a searching review of the record” assures the reviewing court that the procedural error was harmless, and “that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” then the reviewing court will affirm the ALJ’s decision. ... In the present case, the ALJ committed procedural error when she did not explicitly apply the Burgess factors while assigning weight to Dr. Saunders’ opinion. However, after an independent, “searching review” of the record as a whole, including both the ALJ’s decision, and Dr. Saunders’ opinion, the Court finds that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed in this case. The ALJ’s otherwise thorough opinion allows this court to conclude that the ALJ’s error was harmless, and her weighting of Dr. Saunders’ opinion was based on substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to analyze the checklist factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but failure to address every factor may be harmless if the omitted factors would not support greater weight.

Wagner v. Saul · filed 2020-09-09(c)

In this Court’s view, the failure to explicitly analyze each checklist factor is itself a ground for a remand. See, e.g., Kathy P. v. Saul, No. 18 CV 50295, 2020 WL 2571899, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2020). However, failing to address every single checklist factor may not require a remand if the unconsidered factors do not support giving greater weight to the treating physician’s opinion. See Collins, 743 F. App’x at 25.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Farnach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-09(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks medically acceptable support or conflicts with substantial evidence, and requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization in assigning weight.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(d)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (d)(5)

This Court finds the ALJ properly weighed the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians. A treating physician’s opinion can be disregarded if it lacks medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If the opinion is not given controlling weight the ALJ will consider the following factors in determining how much weight to give the treating doctor’s opinion: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise requires weighing it based on factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Cendejas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)(2)–(6)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). “When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Davenport v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(d)(2)

Under this rule, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (same (internal citations omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Herring v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)(2)

“The ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1132 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 848–49 (8th Cir. 2007)); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ must give “good reasons . . . for the weight [the ALJ gives a] treating source's medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2000).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the listed factors, while § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion and consideration of those factors if controlling weight is denied.

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c), (c)(2)

Moreover, an ALJ has an obligation to evaluate every medical opinion and explain the weight given to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: (1) whether there is an examining relationship; (2) whether there is a treatment relationship, and if so the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of the examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by 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 that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6). ... The treating physician rule, applicable in this case,1 provides that the opinion of a treating physician on the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Jelinek, 662 F.3d at 811 (explaining that, under the “treating physician rule,” the opinion of a treating physician “that is consistent with the record is generally entitled to ‘controlling weight’”). If an ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the factors set forth in the regulations to determine what other weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Yurt, 758 F.3d at 860 (requiring an explicit discussion of certain § 404.1527(c)(2) factors on remand). “An ALJ must offer good reasons for discounting the opinion of a treating physician.” Israel v. Colvin, 840 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Moore, 743 F.3d at 1127). ... Thus, the ALJ applied the regulatory factors in weighing the opinion and gave good reasons for the weight given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Avrutskaya v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)

“An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. Among those factors are: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the [SSA’s] attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. The regulations also specify that the Commissioner will always give good reasons in her notice of determination or decision for the weight she gives [the] claimant’s treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to recite every factor for weighing a treating physician’s opinion when the ALJ’s reasoning is clear and the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.

Harrington v. Saul · filed 2020-02-12(c)

However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it under the regulatory factors and give good reasons.

Scales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ did not comply with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) by properly evaluating whether Dr. Tegtmeier’s opinion was entitled to “controlling” weight. The ALJ further erred by failing to evaluate Dr. Tegtmeier’s opinion in accordance with the regulatory factors under § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). The ALJ did not provide “good reasons” for giving Dr. Tegtmeier’s opinion “some partial weight.” (Tr. 30).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating doctor's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing it under factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.

(SS)Binford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-05(c)(2)-(6)

The m edical opinion of a claimant's treating doctor is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating doctor's opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion using the listed regulatory factors and give good reasons.

Ellis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-05(c)(2)

Medical opinions, regardless of the source, are evaluated by considering several factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Controlling weight will be given to a treating physician’s opinion that is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). Unless controlling weight is given to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in determining the weight assigned to a medical opinion: whether or not the source examined the claimant; the existence, length and nature of a treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; evidentiary support offered; consistency with the record as a whole; and specialization of the examiner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must provide “‘good reasons’ for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion.” Petrie v. Astrue, 412 F. App’x 401, 407 (2d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Herring v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-05(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule that was applicable at the time the ALJ’s decision was rendered,3 the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is entitled to controlling weight as long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... “An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” ... I am satisfied that a searching review of the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he complied with the substance of the treating physician rule in evaluating Paulus’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pfleuger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-05(d)(2)

Under this rule, an ALJ should give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a treating doctor, “so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to apply the treating-physician rule, giving a well-supported and consistent treating opinion controlling weight and considering specified factors when determining its weight.

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

The Second Circuit has long recognized the ‘treating physician rule’ set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “‘[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” ... In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian, 708 F.3d at 418). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to adequately explain the weight assigned.

Romero v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-11(c)(2)-(6)

Similarly, MJ McCarthy determined that the ALJ failed to properly apply the Treating Physician Rule nor gave adequate reasoning for not according proper weight to Plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Angela Smith. See 20 C.F.R.§§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6); Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015). The opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record, while considering the treatment relationship.

Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2)

However, the court finds that the ALJ’s decision fails to show he considered the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), 416.927(c)(2)(ii). ... This kind of information is potentially crucial to the outcome of the case because the regulations direct the ALJ to accord controlling weight to treating physicians’ medical opinions that are well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and that are not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 867 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Therefore, the ALJ’s assessment leaves too much to speculation and thus remand is warranted on this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while the opinion's weight otherwise depends on the listed factors and the ALJ must give good reasons.

McClintock v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2)

If a treating physician's opinion as to the nature and severity of impairment is: (1) well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given "controlling weight." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In making this determination, the appropriate weight to be given to a treating physician's opinion should be based on the length of treatment, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the opinion's consistency with the entire record, the specialization of the source, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must give "good reasons" for the weight given. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

DuCommun v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-10(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” ... For the foregoing reasons, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Gritzka’s sedentary work restriction opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion and requires good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Todt v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-10(c)(2)

Under the framework provided by the regulations, Dr. Lee’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight. Dr. Lee treated Plaintiff regularly between March and October 2017 and he was a specialist in the area in which he rendered his opinion. Moreover, contrary to the ALJ’s finding, Dr. Lee’s medical opinion was consistent with his treatment notes. Dr. Lee regularly noted Plaintiff’s headaches and, beginning in August 2017, her seizure-like events. Dr. Lee’s opinion was also consistent with those of Plaintiff’s psychiatrist and counselor, who both estimated that Plaintiff would miss more than four days of work per month and be off task at least twenty-five percent of the workday. The ALJ’s unsupported reference to inconsistency with the record as a whole fails to satisfy the regulations’ “require[ment] that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.” Nowling, 813 F.3d at 1123 (quoting Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(c)(4) favors opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Eagan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(c)(2), (c)(4)

In this case, the ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of Dr. Hulicka and explained his reasons for assigning said opinions little evidentiary weight. Tr. 595-60, 481, 483, 489. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). First, the ALJ properly found that Dr. Hulicka’s opinions were generally inconsistent with the treatment record. Tr. 590-91. 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 to that opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Valdez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-15(c)(2)-(6)

Even if the ALJ properly concluded that Dr. Romancik’s MSSP should not be accorded controlling weight, he did not appear to consider the factors required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining the proper weight to accord it. Although the ALJ wrote that he “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527,” the opinion does not appear to contain any actual consideration of the factors cited in the regulation. This falls short of the standard that an ALJ will “always give good reasons ... for the weight [accorded a] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Mitch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-15(c)(2)

Under the pertinent regulations in place at the time of Plaintiffs application, the treating physician rule “generally requires deference to the medical opinions of a [Plaintiff's] treating physician[.]". Hlallorn v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c}(2) (The opinion of a treating physician is to be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record{.]’).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally favors medical opinions from a claimant’s treating sources, while allowing an ALJ to give a treating opinion less weight when good reason exists, including lack of evidentiary support.

Claudio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-16(c)(2)

The disability determination process generally gives “more weight to medical opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). However, the ALJ is not always required to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians. ... Specifically, the ALJ may disregard the treating physician’s opinion when it is “not supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory techniques, or [is] otherwise unsupported by the evidence.” ... In sum, Plaintiff has failed to show that it was erroneous for the ALJ to assign little weight to Dr. Cruz’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the opinion’s weight is evaluated using the listed regulatory factors.

Koerber v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-20(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2). ... If not afforded controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion is given weight according to a non-exhaustive list of enumerated factors, including (i) the frequency of examinations and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the physician’s opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the physician has a relevant specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) (2), 416.927(c)(2); see Clark, 143 F.3d at 118; Marquez v. Colvin, No. 12 CIV. 6819 PKC, 2013 WL 5568718, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2013). ... In rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ need not expressly enumerate each factor considered if the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the treating physician rule is clear. See, e.g., Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013). ... Estrella requires an ALJ to “explicitly consider” the regulatory factors at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5), 416.927(c)(1)-(5), described by the Court as the Burgess Factors, ... Thus, the ALJ’s analysis withstands the scrutiny prescribed by Estrella.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating physician's opinion significant weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons when the opinion is discounted.

Haney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-21(d)(2)

Plaintiff's disability application filed on March 3, 2015, is subject to the treating physician rule. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2017). Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight but only when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” Crowell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed. App’x. 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue (“Burgess”), 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). In instances where the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion however, the ALJ must set forth “good reasons” for doing so. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004)). The failure to provide good reasons for rejecting a treating physician opinion is grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and to consider the treatment relationship and other regulatory factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Kozomara v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-22(c)(2)

The ALJ must always give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. The ALJ must give reasons “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p. ... The ALJ did not appear to consider at least two of the factors that must be discussed when giving a treating source opinion less than controlling weight. ... Under 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), “[g]enerally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.” ... In short, although it is conceivable that Dr. Brandwein’s opinion could be found not to be controlling, the reasons cited by the ALJ do not suffice. ... In sum, the Commissioner should give further consideration to the opinion of the treating rheumatologist or explain in greater detail why the treating source’s opinion is not to be given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability when weighing the opinion.

BOWLES v. SAUL · filed 2020-04-22(c)(2), (c)(4)

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. ... However, so long as the ALJ “minimally articulates” her reasoning for discounting a treating source opinion, the Court must uphold the determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-physician opinion and consideration of specified factors, but does not require a slavish recitation when the ALJ’s reasoning shows the rule was followed.

McCall v. Saul · filed 2020-04-23(c)

The Second Circuit has long recognized the ‘treating physician rule’ set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rosa v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-23(d)(2)

Under this rule, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also Greek, 802 F.3d at 375. ... The ALJ here did not violate the treating physician rule; his determinations were based on substantial evidence, which were supported by treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

HARBISON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-24(c)(2)

For claims such as Harbison’s that were filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion should be given “controlling weight” provided that the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Here, the ALJ considered all of the relevant factors in determining how much weight to afford the medical opinions. ... Yet the ALJ concluded that Toshok “appears to overestimate the claimant’s limitations relative to lifting, sitting, standing, [and] walking as the record reveals essentially unremarkable physical examination and she reported significant relief with a spinal cord stimulator and Euflexxa injections.” (R. 28-29) Inconsistency with medical records is an appropriate reason for discounting opinion evidence. See Scouten v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 722 Fed. Appx. 288, 290 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing, 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, without requiring a formulaic recitation when the rule’s substance is addressed.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-22(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Krygier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-24(d)(2)

A treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... Additionally, “the Commissioner ‘will always give good reasons’” for the weight given to a treating source opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hicks, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-27(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments is given “controlling weight” so long as it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); Bonneau v. Astrue, No. 5:13-cv-26, 2014 WL 31301, at *5 (D. Vt. Jan. 3, 2014) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to explicitly consider the treatment, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization factors.

Demarkey v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-04(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) [now (c)(2)]). Only “acceptable medical sources” can provide medical opinions and are considered treating sources whose opinions are entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(a)(2), (c). When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” as happened here, he must “explicitly consider” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including ‘“(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”’ Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). Unless after “‘a searching review of the record’” the reviewing court is “assure[d] . . . that the ‘substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,’” the ALJ’s failure to apply these factors requires the remand. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96 (quoting Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004)). In this case, the ALJ failed to properly apply these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source opinion controlling weight unless it is unsupported by medical evidence or inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Pacl v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-04(c)(2)

The regulations governing Pacl’s claims required the Commissioner to assign controlling weight to treating source opinions unless they were not supported by medical evidence or were inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Saulnier v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2020-05-05(c)(2)

Social Security regulations require that an ALJ evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In deciding the weight to give most medical opinions, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the consistency of the opinion with the other record evidence, and the medical source’s specialty. See id. Under this framework, an ALJ must give the medical opinion of a treating source controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Here, the ALJ provided “good reasons” to depart from the treating physician rule and accord Dr. Salerni’s opinion little weight. ... These suffice as good reasons for giving Dr. Salerni’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Swosinski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(c)(2)

Because Dr. Bodensteiner’s opined handling and fingering limitations were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, the ALJ reasonably did not include them in the RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (explaining that a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight only 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”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise to assess its weight using specified factors.

Patterson v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(c)

Under the “treating physician rule” that applies to Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ must assign a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Kaminski v. Berryhill, 894 F.3d 870, 874 (7th Cir. 2018). ... Moreover, even if a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight the opinion does merit by evaluating the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion; and the physician’s specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 263 (7th Cir. 2018). The ALJ did not address a number of these requisite factors including the extent, nature and length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examinations and the physician’s specialty. By failing to address these factors and by not confronting evidence noted above that could be supportive of Dr. Kamura’s findings, the ALJ has not built “an accurate and logical bridge” from the evidence to his conclusion and remand is warranted. Jeske, 955 F.3d at 587 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires deference to a treating physician’s opinion but permits withholding controlling weight when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Lucas v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-12(d)(2)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). ... “Although the treating physician rule generally requires deference to the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician, . . . the opinion of the treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where . . . the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record . . . .” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... Plaintiff has not identified any record evidence outside the four corners of the document to suggest that Dr. Bouali had adopted the Medical Source Statement. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s determinations that the Medical Source Statement did not come from an acceptable medical source, and that it was entitled to little weight in light of conflicting medical evidence in the record, were supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight and requires the ALJ to give good reasons and consider specified factors when assigning weight.

Dukich v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); see Minnick v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 929, 938 (7th Cir. 2015); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it so long as she provides an adequate explanation for doing so. Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739, and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and to give good, specific reasons and consider the regulatory factors when assigning it less weight.

Greis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-13(c)(2)-(6), (d)(2)

The treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2017), such as this one. ... A treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... Additionally, “the Commissioner ‘will always give good reasons’” for the weight given to a treating source opinion. ... While an ALJ may give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he or she must “comprehensively set forth [his or her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.” ... If the ALJ is not giving the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must determine how much weight, if any, to give it and explicitly consider the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and whether the physician is a specialist, ... The ALJ need not explicitly discuss all these factors so long as there are good reasons for the weight given, ... This is insufficient reason for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion. ... The ALJ nevertheless needed to consider the other factors before undervaluing the treating physician’s opinion. Remand is warranted here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed factors.

Schirmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-08(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to consider specified factors and give good reasons when controlling weight is not given.

Dechbery v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-18(c)(2)–(6)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ is bound to give “controlling weight” to “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s)” where that opinion is “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for whatever weight is assigned. ... In doing so, the ALJ is bound to 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 evidence that supports the treating physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and, if it is not controlling, to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Edwards v. Saul · filed 2020-05-20(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739, and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, although a clear analysis need not recite every factor slavishly.

Davis v. Saul · filed 2020-05-20(c)

The Second Circuit has long recognized the “treating physician rule” set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” ... However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is required. ... The ALJ acknowledged that both Ramasamy and Lee were treating providers, but the analysis does not provide the type of explicit consideration of the Greek factors that the Second Circuit requires. ... The decision does not provide the type of “good reasons” for assigning a treating doctor’s opinion less than controlling weight, which these cases require. ... For these reasons, the Court finds the ALJ’s analysis of the medical opinions and the resulting RFC are not supported by substantial evidence. Remand is, therefore, required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-20(c)(2)

“[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (third brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight; if the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the relevant factors and give good reasons, but need not expressly address each factor one by one.

Siefert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-20(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. See Tilley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 216, 222 (6th Cir. 2010) (indicating that, under Blakley and the good reason rule, an ALJ is not required to explicitly address all of the six factors within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for weighing medical opinion evidence within the written decision).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give it.

Peterson v. Saul · filed 2020-05-21(c)

The ALJ’s decisionis remanded, so that the ALJ can address each step of the treating physician rule. If the ALJ properly determines that Dr. Long’s opinions do not deserve controlling weight at Step One, then the ALJ must consider the checklist factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) at Step Two to determine what weight to give to the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions using factors including treatment history, consistency, supportability, and specialization, even when a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Hawes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-21(c)

In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, an ALJ must “evaluate all medical opinions” with regard to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor if the decision's rationale is apparent.

Poole v. Saul · filed 2020-05-22(c)(2)-(6)

To reiterate, the Regulations require that an ALJ consider certain factors when weighing medical opinion evidence from a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). The ALJ, however, is not required to explicitly discuss each factor, provided that her decision and the evidence of record allows the Court to glean the ALJ’s rationale.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hamm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-22(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule" “requires the ALJ to give ‘controlling weight’ to the opinion of a claimant's treating physician regarding ‘the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) . . . {if it] is well-supported by medicaily acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Piatt v. Colvin, 80 F.Supp.3d 480, 491 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). “Even where a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to ‘controlling weight,’ it is generally entitled to ‘more weight’ than the opinions of non-treating and non-examining sources.” Hamm v. Colvin, No. 16CV936(DF), 2017 WL 1322203, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stockschlaeder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-22(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule” “requires the ALJ to give ‘controlling weight’ to the opinion of a claimant's treating physician regarding ‘the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) . . . [if it] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) treats the length of a treating relationship as a factor in evaluating a medical opinion, and a short relationship does not by itself prevent the source from being treated as a treating physician when the contact is for ongoing treatment.

Catherine I. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(c)

Dr. Gay is a treating source in that her contact with Plaintiff is for the purpose of ongoing medical treatment, and not just to provide an opinion based on an examination. The short length of Dr. Gay’s treating relationship with Plaintiff is a factor to be considered in evaluating her opinion. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c). I do not endorse the Commissioner’s argument that, because the treating relationship had just begun, Dr. Gay is not a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion significant weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons when an ALJ discounts it.

Blaze v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-27(d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight but only when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... In instances where the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion however, the ALJ must set forth “good reasons” for doing so. ... The failure to provide good reasons for rejecting a treating physician opinion is grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to give specific good reasons for the weight assigned when it is not controlling.

Brown v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-05-28(d)(2)

The rule instructs that an “ALJ ‘must’ give a treating source opinion controlling weight if the treating source opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and is ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... The ALJ must give “good reasons” regarding its weighing of the treating physician’s opinion, that is, reasons supported by the record and “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... Measured against this backdrop, the ALJ’s decision passes muster.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons when declining controlling weight.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-28(d)(2)

Under this “treating physician rule,” the “opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, however, “SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive.” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3)–(6)). Specifically, “to override the opinion of the treating physician, … the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and, (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). ... “After considering the above factors, the ALJ must ‘comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (alteration in original) (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33). ... In this case, ALJ Solomon violated the treating physician rule by failing to give controlling weight to the opinions of Drs. Patel, Navarro, and Osoba, all of whom opined that Brown had functional limitations which would preclude even sedentary work. (Tr. 529–33, 536–39, and 565–70). The ALJ failed to explicitly consider the factors set forth in Selian and failed to provide “good reasons” for giving the treating physicians’ opinions little or partial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mata v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-29(c)(2)

The "treating physician rule" “requires the ALJ to give ‘controlling weight’ to the opinion of a claimant's treating physician regarding ‘the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) . . . [if it] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Piait v. Colvin, 80 F.Supp.3d 480, 491 (W.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who denies controlling weight to a treating-source opinion to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned, although the ALJ need not recite each factor if the decision substantively applies the regulation.

Piris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-21(c)(2)

If an ALJ determines that a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding what weight to accord that opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of treatment; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) explanations the source provides for the opinion; (4) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ need not recite each factor explicitly, provided the ALJ’s decision reflects substantive application of the regulation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a physician as a treating source only when the physician has an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant, requiring both duration and frequency.

Palan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(a)(2)

A “treating source” is defined as the claimant’s “own acceptable medical source who provides [the claimant], or has provided [the claimant], with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with you.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). “This requires a relationship of both duration and frequency.” ... The Court agrees with defendant that Dr. Corboy cannot be considered a “treating source” under the regulations. ... Thus, Dr. Corboy was not a treating physician under the regulations and the ALJ was not required to go through the two-step analysis required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ discounts a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must give good reasons and consider supporting evidence and the length of the treatment relationship.

Lawson v. Saul · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

When an ALJ discounts a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Some of the ALJ’s reasons were good. The ALJ reasoned that the record lacked an examination from Dr. Castellanos supporting his opinions. The ALJ also noted that Lawson started treating with Dr. Castellanos only recently—the questionnaire was completed five months after their relationship began. These were good reasons. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”); id. at (c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bullock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(d)(2)

The treating physician rule provides that “the opinion of a [plaintiff]’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ evaluating a treating source's opinion to give greater weight based on a longer treatment relationship and, generally, to give more weight to a specialist's opinion within the specialist's area.

Denver v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)(i), (c)(5)

Both these factors are among those that the ALJ must give express consideration to in order to justify overriding the opinion of a treating physician. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”); id. § 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 medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”). Furthermore, by considering—and rejecting—these opinions together, the ALJ failed to give any weight to the fact that these opinions are consistent with other medical evidence in the record because they are consistent with one another. ... This failure to “consider the required factors[] constitutes legal error.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the treating-physician rule, an ALJ must give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight or provide good reasons for discounting it.

Dolson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s application was filed before March 2017, the decision of the ALJ must comply with the Treating Physician Rule. Under the Treating Physician Rule, “[t]he ALJ [is] required either to give [the treating physician’s] opinions controlling weight or to provide good reasons for discounting them.” Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 409 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527([c])(2) ).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ransom v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while requiring good reasons when the opinion receives less weight.

Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). If the ALJ gives the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, she must provide good reasons for doing so. Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998); Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008). ... This lack of supportability and consistency are all good reasons for discounting Dr. Reichert’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (opinions that are inconsistent with other evidence may be given less weight); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (describing the requirements for controlling weight)); id. at § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) (opinions that are not well-supported by objective medical examination findings, lack explanation for the basis of the limitations they include, and are inconsistent with other evidence of record may be given less weight); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (deference to treating source’s opinion was not required where treating physician issued opinions that were not consistent with his own treatment notes and other substantial evidence in the record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s well-supported medical opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight.

Thibou v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-02(c)(2)

If we find that a treating source's medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... It therefore is clear to the Court that none of the medical evidence cited by the ALJ in support of his assertion that Howarth’s opinion was “inconsistent with the medical evidence” actually supports that assertion. Accordingly, the Court is left only to speculate on what else (if anything) the ALJ legitimately believed to be inconsistent with Howarth’s opinion. ... Especially given that the administrative record is over 3,000 pages long (see ECF Nos. 10, 11), and in the absence of any specific and legitimate examples of “inconsistency,” the Court cannot meaningfully review whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reasoning in this respect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and gives no controlling weight to an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work, an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Whittaker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-02(c), (d)

If the ALJ decides that the treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The factors that the ALJ “must consider” include: (i) The frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Failure to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion is a ground for remand. Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Fontanez v. Colvin, No. 16-CV-01300, 2017 WL 4334127, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2017) (the ALJ’s “failure to provide ‘good reasons’ for not crediting a treating source’s opinion is ground for remand”) (internal citations omitted). ... Although the ALJ was required to explain her reasoning, she was not required to give controlling weight to Dr. Seldes’ opinion that the plaintiff was unable to work because the issue of whether a plaintiff is disabled is “reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); see id. (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”); see also Galgano v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-4409, 2020 WL 2198176, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2020) (“[T]he ALJ was correct to afford ‘no significant weight [to a doctor’s opinion] that the claimant is disabled and unable to work as the ultimate question of disability is reserved to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.’”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial record evidence, and otherwise to give good reasons after considering specified factors.

Lucus v. Saul · filed 2020-06-03(c)(2)–(6)

Under the relevant regulations,2 an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Walker v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 911 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2018). If the ALJ decides that the opinion does not deserve controlling weight, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for this decision and must consider: the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, record support for the opinion, the opinion’s consistency, the extent to which the opinion is connected with the physician’s specialization, and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

BURKE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-06-04(c)(2)

This appears to satisfy the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), which states that the ALJ will give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” The ALJ found that Dr. Shah’s opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record, as permitted by the Regulation, and therefore properly decided not to give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a supported, noninconsistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and treats an opinion translating clinical signs and symptoms into functional restrictions as a medical source opinion.

Lewis v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-05(a)(2), (d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Because Dr. Schaben is a treating physician, the question is whether these are “specific and legitimate” reasons to discredit Dr. Schaben’s opinion. Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198. ... Dr. Schaben first described Plaintiff’s clinical signs and symptoms and then translated them into what Plaintiff “[could] still do despite impairments(s) and [her] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2) (defining medical source opinion). ... Thus, the ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons and erred by rejecting Dr. Schaben’s medical source opinion.