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) gives a well-supported treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the record and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fish Justice v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-09(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c),2 an ALJ will give “controlling weight” to “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)” if he finds that the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” The regulations require that an ALJ “give good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when assigning weight to a treating source's opinion after declining to give it controlling weight.

Becker v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-10(c)

Under the “treating physician rule,” an ALJ generally must give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source as to the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment, based on the ability of treating sources to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant's] medical impairment(s) . . . .” 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c). However, “the rule recognizes that the nature and extent of each treatment relationship may temper the weight an ALJ affords it, as may the supportability of the opinion and the specialization of the treating source.” ... “Where, as here, a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors set out in § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight, if any, to assign that opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Cohen-Aikens v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-13(d)(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, 362 F.3d at 32 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 409 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The ALJ was required either to give [the treating physician’s] opinions controlling weight or to provide good reasons for discounting them.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to accept 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 in the case record.

Trottier v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(c)(2)

Regulations in force at the time required an ALJ to accept the opinion of a treating physician “[i]f [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), 416.927(c)(2) (emphasis added). ... We conclude that the ALJ said enough to satisfy his obligation under the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hansche v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-15(c)(2)

When a medical opinion comes from a treating source, the ALJ must give it controlling weight if it is both “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . 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(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Cochran v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-16(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’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 case record.

Barbare v. Saul · filed 2020-06-18(c)(2)

If [the ALJ] find[s] that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [a claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) guides the weight given when it is not controlling.

Savoy v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-22(c)(2)-(6)

When a medical opinion is from a “treating source,” it is given 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 claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If a treating source’s medical opinion is not assigned controlling weight, however, in determining the weight to give the opinion, the ALJ should consider: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and its nature and extent; (2) the supportability of the opinion; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the source is a specialist; and (5) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. ... In accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), the ALJ provided an extensive review of Dr. Mathur’s reports and made explicit mention of why and how she discredited his opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require an ALJ to explicitly address each factor when weighing a treating-source medical opinion.

Carrick v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-22(c)(2)

At the outset, I note that the ALJ was not required to explicitly address each factor under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2). Thus, remand is not required on that issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) grants controlling weight only to a well-supported, consistent opinion from a treating source, and a treating source must be an acceptable medical source with an ongoing treatment relationship.

Hernandez v. Saul · filed 2020-06-22(c)(2)

This provision of the regulations is commonly referred to as the “treating physician rule” and states as follows: ... (2) Treatment relationship. Generally, we give more weight to medical opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. 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. ... We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source's medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (emphasis added); ... Licensed advanced practice nurses are not considered to be acceptable medical sources unless the application was filed on or after March 27, 2017. ... The applications in this case were filed on June 14, 2016. Therefore, CRNP Canal’s opinion is not, as a matter of law, entitled to controlling weight under the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's well-supported and record-consistent opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the opinion still receives deference and must be weighed under the regulatory factors with specific reasons.

Benson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-24(c)(2)

Social Security regulations require that, in determining disability, the opinions of treating physicians be given controlling weight when those opinions are well-supported by the medical evidence and are consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... What is absolutely necessary, though, is that the ALJ give good reasons—reasons that are “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers”—for the weight she ultimately assigns to the opinion. ... In sum, when properly rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must follow two distinct phases. First, the ALJ must find that the opinion is not supported by medical evidence and/or is not consistent with the record. Second, the ALJ must still give deference to the opinion and weigh it according to the factors listed above. Like all findings, an ALJ’s findings in these two phases must be supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Bellehsen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-24(d)(2)

“[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.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Among the factors that the ALJ must consider when deciding whether to give a treating physician’s opinion a certain weight are “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (internal quotations and alterations omitted). ... To be sure, the ALJ’s articulation for why he assigned “some weight” to Dr. Hertz’s opinions appears to fall below the standards set forth in the regulations and case law. He did not identify specific limitations that he found to be inconsistent with the medical evidence in the record and he largely failed to explicitly apply the Burgess factors discussed above. ... Nevertheless, the rest of the ALJ’s decision supplies a detailed examination of the record evidence, most of which supports the weight he afforded Dr. Hertz’s opinions. ... Thus, the assignment of “some” but not “great” weight to Dr. Hertz’s limitations opinions is not error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and explicitly consider specified factors when it does not.

Lamberty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-24(c)(2)

After determining the treating physician’s conclusions were not “well-supported” by the medical evidence, ALJ Grossman was required to explicitly consider the Burgess factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95–96. ... This failure constitutes procedural error on the part of ALJ Grossman. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96. However, after a thorough review of the record the Court is satisfied the treating physician rule was not traversed. See Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pender v. Saul · filed 2020-06-25(c)

The Court agrees that the ALJ’s failure to follow the treating physician rule requires remand. An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). ... The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion significant weight, and controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Degraff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-26(d)(2)

Under the so-called “treating physician rule,” the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight where it is supported by medical evidence in the record, and to controlling weight where it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Treating physician opinions, however, are not determinative and are granted controlling weight only when they are not inconsistent with other controlling evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002)).

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 not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Deno v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-29(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, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.”

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 techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-06(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... On balance, the court has no difficulty in determining that the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for failing to accord controlling weight to Dr. Fadness’s opinion and for further finding the treating physician rule was violated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to determine whether it is entitled to controlling weight and, if not, consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Dougan, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-07(c)(2)

Under Second Circuit precedent and the applicable Social Security Regulations, an ALJ must follow a two-step procedure in evaluating the medical opinion of a treating physician. See Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). First, the ALJ determines whether the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” Id. If these criteria are satisfied, then the opinion is “entitled to controlling weight.” Id. If not, then the ALJ proceeds to the second step, determining “how much weight, if any, to give” the opinion. Id. Specifically, at step two the ALJ must consider the following factors: “(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.” Id. at 95-96 (citing Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir.2013) (per curiam) (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir.2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)))). The ALJ must provide “good reasons” regarding the weight assigned to a treating physician’s medical opinion at both steps. Id. at 96. (citing 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) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, or provide good reasons for discounting it.

O'Connor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-07(c)(2)

The treating physician rule instructs the 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 in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard but must give “good reasons” for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Zorich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-08(c)(2)

The rule requires an ALJ 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) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App’x 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Here the ALJ satisfied both steps. ... The foregoing establishes that, despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, the ALJ balanced the relevant regulatory factors, including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. ... In any event, the regulatory requirements do not mandate “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” ... At base, the ALJ properly applied the two-step analysis when considering the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, and Plaintiff has failed to show that the ALJ committed reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs the Commissioner 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 substantial evidence in the record.

(SS) Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-09(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence and to explain any lesser weight by applying the relevant factors.

Michael v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-09(c)(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). ... A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” of the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... If an ALJ decides not to give the treating source’s records controlling weight, then he must explicitly consider the four Burgess factors: “(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.” ... Should an ALJ assign less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion and fail to consider the above-mentioned factors, this is a procedural error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to explicitly examine or cite every treating-physician factor when the ALJ substantively references the factors and gives good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight.

Travo v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10

First, the Court rejects plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ was required to explicitly examine the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. As the Second Circuit Court of Appeals articulated in Cromwell, it is sufficient that the ALJ substantively reference the factors and provide good reason for assigning the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight. Crowell, 705 Fed. Appx. at 35. The ALJ did just so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s medical 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.

Goulbourne v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-13(c)(2)

“Rather, ‘a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)’ will be given ‘controlling weight’ if the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (describing this principle as the “treating physician” rule).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the substantial evidence in the record, and requires the ALJ to explicitly consider the relevant factors before assigning it less than controlling weight.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-14(c)(2)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). But an ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are in the best positions to provide “detailed, longitudinal picture[s] of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 F. App’x 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and[ ] (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotations and alterations omitted). These are the so-called “Burgess factors” from Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). “An ALJ’s failure to ‘explicitly’ apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight” to a treating source opinion “is a procedural error.” Id. at 96 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-15(c)(2)

To the extent that Dr. VanMeter’s belated medical source statement is unsupported by and/or inconsistent with the record evidence, including his own clinical findings, the Court concludes that, insofar as plaintiffs pro se pleading may be read as arguing that Dr. VanMeter’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight pursuant to the treating physician rule, that argument lacks force. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); id. § 416.927(c)(2); see also Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000) (stating that the “treating physician rule . . . mandates that the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.”

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 claimant’s record.

Banuelos v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-16(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 plaintiff’s] 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 physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Kies v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c)(2)

Pursuant to the rules applicable at the time of Plaintiff’s disability applications, if a treating physician’s opinion is well-supported and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, it is entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Spease v. Saul · filed 2020-07-01(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires 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.’” ... All in all, the ALJ sufficiently provided “good reasons” for weighing the opinions of the consultative physicians more heavily than the opinions of Spease’s treating physician and treating neurologist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires greater weight for treating-source opinions and controlling weight when such an opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, with the required treatment factors explicitly considered before less weight is assigned.

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

But an ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are in the best positions to provide “detailed, longitudinal picture[s] of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 F. App’x 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and[ ] (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... The ALJ thus failed to “explicitly” consider “the frequency, length, nature, and extent of [Dr. Rosenthal’s and Dr. Calabrese’s] treatment” or either physician’s specialty. See Greek, 802 F.3d at 375. ... In sum, the ALJ erred in giving only limited weight to the treating physicians’ opinions and failing to explicitly address the “Burgess factors.” See Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and requires controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the case record.

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

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

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.

Acero v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-22(c)(2)

Specifically, 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 plaintiff’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires explicit consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Handau v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-23(c)(2)

Because Dr. Spellmann is a treating physician, his opinion “as to the nature and severity of the impairment [must be] 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)]). Conversely, a “treating physician’s opinion does not get controlling weight when ‘other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion.’” Wright v. Barnhart, 473 F. Supp. 2d 488, 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999)). 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 remand. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96 (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5) requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons when determining its weight.

Arnold v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-24(c)(2)-(5)

The social security regulations require that an ALJ give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”9 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... The ALJ must give “good reasons” for not affording controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); ... Further, if the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s medical opinion is not deserving of controlling weight, the following factors must be considered to determine the appropriate weight to which the opinion is entitled: (1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the opinion’s support by medical evidence; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) the treating physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(5), 416.927(c)(2)-(5). ... Here, the ALJ appropriately considered these factors and the record, in determining the weight to give to the opinion of Dr. Somner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to provide good reasons and consider factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

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

Importantly, when the physician’s medical opinion is not granted controlling weight, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight given to the opinion. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). These reasons must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Id. (quoting SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5). When determining weight and articulating “good reasons”, the ALJ “must apply certain factors” to the opinion. Rabbers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 582 F.3d 647, 660 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). These factors include the length of treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. Id.

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 claimant’s record.

Scott v. Saul · filed 2020-07-27(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight and may be “controlling” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s reasons for discounting the treating opinions, which were contradicted by the non-examining State Agency doctor, are not specific and legitimate and supported by substantial evidence prior to February 1, 2017. For this period, the ALJ failed entirely to discuss the treating opinions, let alone explain why he rejected them in favor of the non-examining State Agency doctor’s opinion. [AR 19-21.] This was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider specified treating-source factors when deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Posey v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-27(c)(1)–(6)

In sum, the ALJ not only failed to reconcile conflicting evidence with regard to Plaintiff’s motor loss as documented by his treating physicians and discussed in the step-three analysis supra, but the ALJ failed to consider or discuss the treating-physician factors, i.e., the factors an ALJ is required to consider in deciding what weight to give the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, and to give good reasons when discounting it.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(c)(2)

The treating physician rule instructs the 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 in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard but must give “good reasons” for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion using the listed factors and give it controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence; a function-by-function assessment is not required.

Mondschein v. Saul · filed 2020-07-30(c), (d)(2)

The Court rejects plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ was required to explicitly examine the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. As the Second Circuit articulated in Cromwell, it is sufficient that the ALJ substantively reference the factors and provide good reason for assigning the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight. Crowell, 705 Fed. Appx. at 35. However, the ALJ violated the treating physician rule by failing to accord Dr. Benthien’s opinion controlling weight despite determining it was consistent with the record. When examining Dr. Benthien’s opinion, the ALJ noted that the opinion was generally consistent with the record. However, the ALJ assigned the opinion only partial weight because Dr. Benthien assessed plaintiff’s ability with an impairment score, rather than a full functional impairment assessment. (R. 23.) The treating physician rule makes clear that a treating physician must be accorded controlling weight so long as his or her opinion is consistent with substantial evidence in the record and well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The “failure to provide a ‘function-by-function assessment’ is not a basis for discounting a medical opinion.’” Doyle v. Berryhill, No. 5:16-cv-24, 2017 WL 2364312, at *6 (D. Vt. May 31, 2017). “Whether a medical opinion includes a ‘function-by-function’ assessment is not a factor in the analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). . . . The court concludes that the absence of responses to some questions in the medical source statement is not a good reason for discounting [a treating physician’s] opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons in its notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion.

Elling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(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) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, record-consistent treating-source opinion and good reasons when an ALJ gives it less than controlling weight.

Abram v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-31(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... For the following reasons, the Undersigned agrees with Plaintiff that, in again citing inconsistency with the record as a basis for discounting Dr. Sayegh’s opinion, the ALJ failed to meet the good reason standard. ... Further, referencing only improved musculoskeletal findings—while ignoring the findings referred to above—is not a good reason to discount a treating physician's opinion. ... The ALJ’s continued reliance on previously discredited reasoning and lack of explanation as to why Dr. Sayegh’s opinions were inconsistent with the record hinders meaningful review here. Absent the ability to undertake such review, the Undersigned is unable to conclude that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s contention of error be SUSTAINED.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Almanzar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-04(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence; if it is not entitled to controlling weight, the opinion must still be weighed using the regulatory factors, with good reasons for the assigned weight, and § 404.1527(c)(3) makes supportability relevant.

Leal v. Saul · filed 2020-08-06(c)(2), (c)(3)

For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. ... An opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight need not be rejected. Instead, the opinion is entitled to deference, and the ALJ must weigh it using several factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the claimant’s relationship with the treating physician; the frequency of examination; whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist. ... Moreover, the ALJ must always give “good reasons” to support the weight he ultimately assigns to the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons if the ALJ assigns it less weight.

Van Houter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-10(c)(2)

Thus, where the treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it will be afforded controlling weight. ... In the instant case, the ALJ failed to provide sufficient explanation for his rejection of Dr. Brown’s opinion that plaintiff would need to alternate sitting and standing.

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 the other substantial evidence in the record, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Mann v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-08-13(c)(2)

Social Security Regulations and case law state that a treating physician's opinion will be granted “controlling weight,” provided it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... An ALJ is required to give good reasons for the particular weight given to a treating physician's evaluation. ... Upon remand, the ALJ may still find Plaintiff not disabled, however a proper and complete analysis pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) must be performed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating source’s medical 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 adequate explanation when less weight is given.

Barnes v. Saul · filed 2020-08-13(c)(2)

The regulations provide that more weight is generally to be given to medical opinions from the claimant’s treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). This principle is often referred to as the treating physician rule. “Under the regulation’s treating physician rule, controlling weight is to be accorded to ‘a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)’ if that opinion ‘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 failed to explain why he gave less than controlling weight to Hoffman’s opinion that Plaintiff is unable to use his right hand for gross motor fine manipulation and frequent handling and fingering. The ALJ’s explanation for the weight afforded to Hoffman’s opinion concerns only Plaintiff’s anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder and the side effects of Plaintiff’s pain and anxiety medication. The ALJ does not provide any explanation for his decision to give less than controlling weight to Hoffman’s opinion that Plaintiff is unable to use his right hand for gross motor fine manipulation and frequent handling and fingering.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight, while excluding conclusions that a claimant is disabled or unable to work from medical opinions entitled to deference because those issues are reserved to the Commissioner.

Maddox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14(a)(1), (a)(2), (c)(2), (d)(1)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). “Opinions on some issues, such as [an opinion that a claimant is ‘disabled’” or ‘unable to work’], are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... This oversight does not, in and of itself, constitute a “procedural error,” see Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96, because none of these assessments were true “medical opinions” entitled to deference; rather, they concerned “issues reserved to the Commissioner,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), (d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to explain the reasons and analyze the regulatory factors.

Rodgers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-14(c)(2)–(6)

An ALJ also violates the good reasons rule by failing “to provide an analysis of the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)” when a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Schrader v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(c)(2)

Both the regulations and good sense require ALJs to give more weight to opinions from medical sources who have examined and have a treating relationship with the claimant. ... A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... An ALJ is free to discount the treating physician’s opinion, but he must provide “good reasons” to explain the weight given to the opinion and support these reasons with evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Garcia v. Saul · filed 2020-08-20(c)(2)

Under the relevant regulation, a treating doctor’s opinion 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, 871 F.3d at 675 (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source's opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Stewart v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-20(c)(2)

Rather, the court cannot find that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence where the ALJ, without providing sufficiently good reasons, relied more heavily on the opinions of a non-examining physician and a consultative examiner than the opinion of a treating physician, particularly where the applicable regulations required affording a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight as long as it was well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and was not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

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, requires good reasons for the weight assigned, and permits discounting it when the regulatory factors support doing so.

Hokic v. Saul · filed 2020-08-21(c)(2)

An ALJ is required to explain in his decision the weight given to any opinions from treating sources, non-treating sources, and non-examining sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). The Regulations require that more weight be given to the opinions of treating physicians than other sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Id.; see also Forehand v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 984, 986 (8th Cir. 2004). This is so because a treating physician has the best opportunity to observe and evaluate a claimant’s condition, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must look to various factors in determining what weight to accord that and any other medical opinion of record, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the physician provides support for her findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the physician’s findings, and the physician’s area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (e). Inconsistency with other substantial evidence alone is a sufficient basis upon which an ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion. Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2005). The Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Here, the ALJ properly formulated plaintiff’s RFC only after evaluating her credibility and discussing the relevant evidence, including her testimony, the medical evidence, including the opinions of Dr. Grewal, Dr. Akeson, and plaintiff’s other treating physicians, and her daily activities. After consideration of all this evidence, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff retained the capacity to perform light work, with modifications tailored to her credible limitations. In so doing, he did not substantially err. Plaintiff does not argue that the ALJ disregarded the opinion of Dr. Grewal. Instead, she argues that the ALJ failed to explain why he gave only “partial weight” to Dr. Grewal’s findings. Plaintiff’s argument ignores the fact that the ALJ concluded that “the severity of the claimant’s depression and anxiety, as set forth in Dr. Grewal’s Medical Source Statement, are not all supported by the record” only after detailing Dr. Grewal’s medical records as well as her mental RFC assessment in the immediately preceding paragraphs. (Tr. 18-19.) Those paragraphs make clear the inconsistency between Dr. Grewal’s treatment notes and the extreme limitations described in the RFC assessment. For that reason, the ALJ ascribed only “partial weight” to Dr. Grewal’s findings. The ALJ also assigned only “partial weight” to Dr. Akeson’s findings “due to additional records that were later provided.” (Tr. 19.) Because the ALJ’s reasons for discounting these opinions are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, I defer to that determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Montoya v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-24(c)(2)

An ALJ is not required to expressly analyze each of the six factors. Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258. However, “[u]nder the regulations, the agency rulings, and our case law, an ALJ must give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating [source’s] opinion.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (internal quotation and citations omitted); Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (effective March 27, 2017). The reasons must be “tied to the factors specified in the cited regulations” and must be “sufficiently specific.” Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (effective March 27, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating source’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires explicit consideration of treatment and evidentiary factors before assigning less-than-controlling weight.

Britt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27(c)(2)

But an ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are in the best positions to provide “detailed, longitudinal picture[s] of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 F. App’x 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and[ ] (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotations and alterations omitted). These are the so-called “Burgess factors” from Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). “An ALJ’s failure to ‘explicitly’ apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight” to a treating source opinion “is a procedural error.” Id. at 96 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). ... The ALJ failed to “explicitly” consider several of the Burgess factors before assigning “limited weight” to Dr. Zukas’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating source’s medical opinion, but the ALJ may properly decline to defer to an opinion prepared under a different workers’ compensation standard.

Franklin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-31(c)(2)

Under the so-called “treating physician” rule, the ALJ must generally give “more weight to medical opinions” from a claimant’s “treating source” — as defined in the regulations — when determining if the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Nevertheless, the ALJ did not run afoul of the treating-physician rule. Dr. Uhorchak would be considered a treating physician inasmuch as Franklin saw him many times. However, despite being asked, Dr. Uhorchak did not give a medical opinion regarding Franklin’s condition for purposes of assessing any disability for social security purposes. See R. 32. The only opinion from Dr. Uhorchak as to Franklin’s limitations addresses only Franklin’s shoulder injury and was assessed for workers’ compensation purposes. See R. 784. The ALJ acknowledged this opinion but disregarded it because the standard for workers’ compensation is different than for social security. See R. 22. The ALJ acted properly in doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when determining the weight to give a treating physician’s opinion after deciding that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Martin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-31(c)(2)-(6)

Once ALJ Martin determined Dr. Sherbondy’s July/August 2017 opinion was entitled to less than controlling weight, he was required to apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) to determine the extent to which the opinion was supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion, while § 404.1527(d) gives no special significance to opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work.

Rice v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-09-02(c)(2), (d)

If the ALJ chooses to disregard the opinion of a treating physician, he or she must “clearly articulate” the reasons for doing so. Id.; see also Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“good reasons” must always be given in the decision for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion). “[G]ood cause exists when the (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Id. Failure to articulate clearly the reasons for giving less weight to a treating physician’s opinion is reversible error. See Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. ... While medical source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as opinions about whether a person is “disabled” or “unable to work,” are not given any special significance, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), the ALJ’s decision to assign “little weight” to the opinion of Dr. Mason and Dr. Clark, plaintiff’s treating physicians between 2014- 2017, must be supported by good cause. ... The ALJ’s determination that Dr. Mason and Dr. Clark’s opinion that plaintiff was unable to work was inconsistent with their own medical records, and the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to their medical opinion, was supported by good cause.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding the weight of a medical opinion if a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Stebal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-28(c)

Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see generally Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931, 937 (6th Cir. 2011). While the ALJ is directed to consider such factors, the ALJ is not required to provide an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” in her decision. See Francis v. Commissioner, No. 09-6263, 2011 WL 915719, at *3 (6th Cir. March 16, 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, or explain the weight assigned and give good reasons.

Hogans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-11(d)(2)

First, the ALJ must decide whether a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. ... The ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment 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.’” ... If the ALJ decides the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. ... In deciding what weight to assign, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive factors: “(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.” ... 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the treating relationship and other listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion; subsection (f) requires an adequate explanation for rejecting a significantly more favorable opinion from an other source.

Decker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-11(c)(2), (f)

Under Second Circuit precedent and the applicable Social Security Regulations, an ALJ must follow a two-step procedure in evaluating the medical opinion of a treating physician. ... Specifically, at step two the ALJ must consider the following factors: “(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.” ... The ALJ must provide “good reasons” regarding the weight assigned to a treating physician’s medical opinion at both steps. ... Here, the ALJ erred in failing to adequately explain his reasons for the less than controlling weight given to the opinion of Dr. Lewis and created a gap in the record regarding the amount of time Plaintiff would be off task during a workday. ... However, an ALJ should adequately explain why he rejected an opinion from such a source if it is significantly more favorable to the plaintiff and may well “have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). ... Here, this Court finds that the ALJ’s conclusory rejection of Ms. Webster’s opinion is inadequate. ... Accordingly, this Court finds that remand is warranted for the ALJ to reconsider Dr. Lewis’ opinion in accordance with the treating physician rule and adequately explain his reasons for affording the opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Saunders v. Saul · filed 2020-09-14(c)(2)

The Regulations require that more weight be given to the opinions of treating physicians than other sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when the opinion receives less than controlling weight.

Catlin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-14(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source will be given controlling weight if it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... Here, the ALJ properly evaluated the treating opinions and provided more than conclusory reasons for her determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a two-step evaluation of a treating physician’s opinion: the ALJ must first determine whether it merits controlling weight based on supportability and consistency, then apply the regulatory factors if it does not.

Magers v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(c)(2)

When evaluating a treating physician’s opinion under § 404.1527, “the ALJ must complete a sequential two-step inquiry, each step of which is analytically distinct.” Brownrigg v. Berryhill, 688 F. App’x 542, 548 (10th Cir. Apr. 19, 2017)5 (quoting Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011)). First, the ALJ must determine whether the medical opinion qualifies for “controlling weight.” Id. A treating physician’s medical opinion is given controlling weight if, on the issues of the nature and severity of the plaintiff’s impairments, the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2). If the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ’s analysis of the weight of that opinion is complete.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating medical source’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.

Perry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-16(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,” for disability benefits claims filed, like the instant claim, prior to March 27, 2017, an opinion from a treating medical source is entitled to controlling weight so long as the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Accordingly, a plain reading of the record supports the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Egnatchik’s opinion is not well-supported by other evidence in the record, but is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record such that it is not entitled to controlling weight based on the treating physician rule. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider supportability and consistency when deciding whether to extend controlling weight, and to account for the physician’s specialization and treating relationship when assigning the opinion’s overall weight.

Matthews v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-10(c)(2)

Although the Court agrees with the R&R’s recommendation for remand, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge misstated the treating physician rule. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see six factors listed infra Section I.A. ... However, the ALJ did explicitly consider two of the six factors—supportability and consistency—in declining to extend controlling weight to the treating source’s opinion. ... Therefore, the ALJ’s citations to contradictory evidence in the record are enough to decline to extend controlling weight to Dr. Gore’s treating source opinion. ... Under the regulations, if an ALJ declines to extend controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must still consider the opinion in the context of the physician’s specialization and treating relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ryion v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-17(c)(2)

Thus, where the treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it will be afforded controlling weight. White v. Saul, 414 F. Supp.3d 377, 383 (W.D.N.Y. 2019), quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ may afford less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it fails to meet this standard, but is required to provide good reasons for the weight assigned upon consideration of, 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 v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015). If the ALJ fails to provide a sufficient basis for discrediting the opinion of a treating physician, remand is required. Id.

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 and consistent with the record, or explicitly consider the treating-relationship factors before giving it less weight.

Bresett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-18(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that “[t]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment [be] 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.’” ... If an ALJ decides not to give the treating source controlling weight, then she must “‘explicitly consider’ the following, nonexclusive ‘Burgess factors’: (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.” ... As such, the ALJ was required to either assign Dr. Loinaz’s opinions controlling weight, or “explicitly consider” the Burgess factors. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ committed “procedural error.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kinney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. ... Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”). ... ALJ Grit’s decision did not articulate good reasons for rejecting Dr. Edgar’s opinions given on March 28, 2018.

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 is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-22(c)(2)

The ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment 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.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (“[T]he 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, [including] the opinions of other medical experts.”).

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 the other substantial evidence in the record.

Dukes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(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) requires an ALJ to explicitly consider the relevant treating-physician factors, though clear reasoning need not recite each factor slavishly.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2020-09-24(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 is required. ... The Second Circuit has made clear that ALJs “must explicitly consider” each of the relevant factors. Greek vy. Colvin, 802 F.3d at 375. ... The failure to even discuss Dr. Rosenthal’s role as a treating physician alone is a basis for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations in deciding the opinion’s weight.

Epstein v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(c)(1)–(6)

If the opinion of the treating physician is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply a number of factors in order to determine the opinion’s proper weight. ... These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination as well as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating source’s opinion; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the treating source is a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’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.

Forrette v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-29(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s) is entitled to controlling weight if it: (1) “is well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques;” and (2) “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulation’s listed factors.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-02(c)(2)

In weighing the opinions of medical sources, there is a hierarchy of medical opinions. An ALJ must give “controlling” weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record. . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Even if a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including 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 any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits little or no weight for good cause.

Monaghan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-05(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a patient’s impairments must be accorded controlling weight if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... A treating physician’s opinions are not conclusive and may be assigned little or no weight when good cause is shown. Id. at 456. Good cause exists when the treating physician’s opinions are so brief and conclusory that they lack persuasive weight, when they are not supported by medically acceptable techniques, or when the evidence supports a different conclusion. Id. ... Although Plaintiff points to records which support his argument, the record as a whole contains sufficient evidence demonstrating that the objective medical evidence does not support the limitations assigned by Dr. Blalack and Dr. Atwal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dempsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-13(c)(2)

At step two, “if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it” and must “explicitly consider” the four nonexclusive Burgess factors: (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. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96 (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Here, the ALJ failed to explicitly consider these factors.

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.

Dunscombe v. Saul · filed 2020-10-06(c)

A treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability when weighing the opinion.

Pfitzer v. Saul · filed 2020-10-20(c)(2)

“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” to determine how much weight to give the opinion. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-23(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”3 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but he must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons” for doing so. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) (the SSA “will always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion, but that requirement does not apply when the source is not treating.

Barker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-22(c)(2)

And because Dr. Bohinski is not a treating physician, the “good reasons” requirement in 20 C.R.F. § 404.1527(c)(2) is not implicated and the ALJ did not err by failing to apply the treating physician rule.

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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Carlin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-27(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to determine whether a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent opinion is entitled to controlling weight before considering supportability under subsection (c)(3).

Morrow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-27(c)(2), (c)(3)

How thoroughly the treating physician explains the basis for his or her opinion is not a relevant consideration at this stage of the analysis. Instead, “supportability” becomes a factor only the ALJ determines that the treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and (c)(3). The Court finds that the ALJ’s failure to conduct any “controlling weight” analysis with respect to Dr. Wheeler’s 2017 opinion is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while opinions not receiving controlling weight must still be weighed under the regulation’s factors.

Maxson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-29(c)(2)

The rule requires an ALJ 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) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... “Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927.”

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 is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it and give good reasons.

Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-30(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ considering the opinion of a claimant’s treating source first must decide “whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Despite his recognition that Dr. Volansky was Plaintiff's treating physician and had treated her one month after Dr. Swartz rendered his opinion and had reviewed the same x-rays, the ALJ failed to explicitly consider the Burgess factors in according her opinion little weight. This was reversible error. ... Because the ALJ’s decision neither treats Dr. Volansky’s opinions as controlling nor provides “good reasons” to accord them less than controlling weight, the treating physician rule was violated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight and, if it does not, to consider the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability.

Vildaver v. Saul · filed 2020-10-30(c)

An ALJ must give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Kaminski v. Berryhill, 894 F.3d 870, 874, 874 n.1 (7th Cir. 2018).10 Moreover, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight that it assigns a treating physician's opinion. Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093, 1101 (7th Cir. 2013). “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.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Riggs v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-02(d)(2)

Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, “[t]he regulations require that the ALJ ‘always give ... good reasons’ for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.” Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician's opinion to consider the specified treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

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

If the ALJ decides that the opinion of a treating physician is not entitled to controlling weight, she must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, she must “explicitly consider” factors such as: “(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.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 131 (2d Cir. 2008)); 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) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence; if controlling weight is not given, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Groves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-06(c)(2)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). If controlling weight is not assigned to the treating source’s opinion, the Administrative Law Judge must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) of this section in deciding how much weight to accord the treating source opinion and provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Wilson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-16(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion on issues of the nature and severity of the impairments will be given controlling weight when well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and when the opinion is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks adequate support or is inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires consideration of the factors in subsection (c) when assigning the opinion’s relative weight.

Caggiano v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-19(c)(2)

But, if a treating physician’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ need not give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in assigning its relative weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and directs the ALJ to give greater weight to opinions supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the record as a whole.

GLARDON v. SAUL · filed 2020-11-19(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

If the ALJ finds that "a treating source's medical opinion . . . is well-supported" and is "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence," it will be given "controlling weight." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). However, ALJs should give more weight to opinions that are supported by relevant evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), and that are "consistent with the record as a whole," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Sundsmo, Lance v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-11-20(c)(2)

The regulations expressly provide that an ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion where the opinion are inconsistent with “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) entitles a treating physician’s opinion to controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits rejection of a contradicted opinion for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

V.A. v. Saul · filed 2020-11-20(c)(2)

Because Dr. Long and Dr. Siemienczuk treated V.A., their opinions are entitled to controlling weight if they are “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion that is contradicted by other medical opinion evidence, however, by providing “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, while § 404.1527(d)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned when controlling weight is not given.

PLUMMER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-11-20(c)(2), (d)(2)

A “treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and … not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Gilson v. Colvin, No. 1:12-cv-376-GZS, 2013 WL 5674359, at *2 (D.Me. Oct. 17, 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)). ... Although the ALJ arguably misinterpreted portions of Dr. Kneebone’s records and could have commented more extensively on the opinions of the treating sources, by contrasting the opinions with portions of the medical records and the other medical opinions, the ALJ provided good reasons for affording little weight to the treating source statements. Vining v. Astrue, 720 F. Supp. 2d 126, 134 (D. Me. 2010) (ALJ not required to adopt treating source assessment “ as long as [the ALJ] supplied ‘good reasons’ for doing so (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2))).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating opinion, while § 404.1527(d)(3) gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

(SS) Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(c)(2), (d)(3)

“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] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Finally, Dr. Schaffner’s opinion that Plaintiff was not able to work is a determination reserved to the Commissioner. Opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as a statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work, are not entitled to any special significance. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Vann v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-23(c)

If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the appropriate weight: length and frequency of the treatment relationship; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the source’s level of specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... However, the ALJ considered the length and nature of the treatment relationship in his decision and found that Dr. Ghosh’s treatment records undermined the opinion expressed in the MSS. ... Upon review, the Court finds that the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Ghosh’s medical opinion and provided “good reasons” for assigning it little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) governs how an ALJ weighs and reconciles medical opinions; a supported, consistent treating-physician opinion receives controlling weight, but an ALJ may discount it for specified deficiencies and must give good reasons.

Lupo v. Saul · filed 2020-11-23(c)

The ALJ’s decision regarding the weight to be accorded to each medical opinion in the record and how to reconcile conflicting medical opinions is governed by the treating physician rule. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). According to the treating physician rule, if a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of an individual’s impairments is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ will credit that opinion with “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). However, an ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion when the opinion is conclusory, the physician fails to provide objective medical evidence to support his or her opinion, the opinion is inconsistent with the record, or the evidence otherwise supports a contrary finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ is required to give “good reasons” in support of his determination on the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. See Schaal, 134 F.3d at 503–04.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider specified factors and give comprehensive, good reasons if declining controlling weight.

Cusumano v. Saul · filed 2020-11-23

The treating physician rule “requires that the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician be accorded ‘controlling weight’ if it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563 (2d Cir. 1993). 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, 416.927. 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, 416.297. 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).

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 the record, but permits less weight when it is inconsistent and requires good reasons for that decision.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(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). 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), 416.927(c)(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, he must provide good reasons for doing so. Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source's well-supported, consistent medical opinion to receive controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when assigning it less weight.

Ruise v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source will be given controlling weight if it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)3. ... Although the ALJ did not explicitly discuss the Burgess factors, it is clear from her decision that she was aware of the factors and applied them to her assessment of the doctor’s opinions. The ALJ’s determination to afford Dr. Simmons'’s opinions less than controlling weight was proper and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and the opinion is otherwise weighed using the factors in paragraphs (c)(2)–(6).

(SS) Russo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-24(c)(2)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

Smith v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-25(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) (emphasis added).9 And if a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ looks to the factors in § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii). ... The Court disagrees that the ALJ gave Dr. Quan’s opinion less weight simply because Dr. Barrett’s opinion did not agree – instead, the ALJ cited “objective medical evidence” and referenced Ms. Smith’s muscle strength and tone. ... Consequently, the ALJ gave Dr. Quan’s two-year-old opinion partial weight because the degree of Ms. Smith’s restrictions was inconsistent with objective medical evidence (e.g., Dr. Quan’s June 22, 2017 physician notes).11 This Court finds the ALJ’s conclusion to provide partial weight is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Borrero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(d)(2)

To be sure, the ALJ was not required to accept these opinions without question. Even under the pre-March 27, 2017 regulation, the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is entitled to controlling weight only “so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (brackets omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives more weight to opinions from examining and treating sources, gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(c)(1)-(2)

The regulations require ALJs to give more weight to opinions from medical sources who have examined and have a treating relationship with the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) and (2). A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018). An ALJ is free to discount the treating physician’s opinion, but he must provide “good reasons” to explain the weight given to the opinion and support these reasons with evidence. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011).

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 evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, and to explain the weight assigned.

Carvalho v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-01(c)

In determining whether to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, factors to be considered by the ALJ include: (1) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In addition, the ALJ must articulate her reasons for assigning the weight she gives to a treating physician’s opinion. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). An ALJ’s failure to apply the treating physician rule factors and to give good reasons for declining to grant controlling weight is reversible error. Id., 177 F.3d 128 at 134.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lathrop, Wendy v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-12-03(c)(2)

With respect to a treating physician opinion, an ALJ is required to give the opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c)(2) (applicable to claims filed before March 27, 20171); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must give good reasons for the weight that he assigns a treating physician’s opinion.

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; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulation’s factors.

Huichan, Debra v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-12-03(c)(2)

Under the applicable regulations, a treating source’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight provided 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)(1). In this case, the ALJ correctly noted that “the objective exam findings and limited conservative treatment” did not support Dr. Swedlund’s proposed limitations, and further identified various and specific inconsistences between Dr. Swedlund’s opinion and the other evidence in the record. (AR 25-26.) Thus, he reasonably concluded that Dr. Swedlund’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’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.

Lizcano v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-04(c)(2)

Rather, ‘a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)’ will be given ‘controlling weight’ if the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

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 and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider the regulation’s listed factors only after determining that controlling weight will not be given.

Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-07(c)(2)

Generally, a treater’s opinion must be given “controlling weight” if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... Even if a treater’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinions, consistency of the opinions with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” ... The ALJ’s analysis is deficient because it is unclear whether or not the ALJ conducted a controlling weight determination. ... In addition, the specific reasons noted by the ALJ demonstrate consideration of only the “specialization” and “treatment relationship” factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, factors considered “only after only after the ALJ has determined that a treating-source opinion will not be given controlling weight.” ... While, ultimately, the evidence of record may support a non-disability finding for the closed period at issue here, the ALJ’s failure to conduct a controlling weight analysis when analyzing Dr. Hussein’s treating opinion nevertheless warrants reversal of the non-disability finding at this time.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician’s opinion, while § 404.1527(c) permits reduced weight when the ALJ considers the listed factors and minimally explains the decision; § 404.1527(c)(4) identifies inconsistency with the record as a relevant factor.

Deloney v. Saul · filed 2020-12-10(c)(2), (c), (c)(4)

At the time Deloney filed her application, a treating physician’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight if well supported by medical findings and consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). But we will defer to an ALJ’s decision to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight if the ALJ considers the factors listed under § 404.1527(c) and minimally articulates his reasoning. Winsted v. Berryhill, 923 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 416 (7th Cir. 2008)). ... The ALJ adequately explained why he discounted the treater’s letter for being inconsistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

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 diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Castillo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-10(c)(2)

The opinions of “treating sources” are generally entitled to more weight than those of other sources.23 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... A treating source’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is both “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, non-inconsistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, requires consideration of the listed weighing factors without requiring express discussion of every factor, and gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Brewer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-10(c)(2), (d)(2), (e)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(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). ... Although the ALJ will consider opinions of treating physicians “on the nature and severity of your impairment(s),” opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are generally not entitled to special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e); Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 511 (6th Cir. 2007).

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 unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires consideration of all listed factors if controlling weight is denied.

Arakas v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2020-12-14(c)(2)–(6)

Accordingly, the treating physician rule requires that ALJs give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if that opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... Rather, the opinion must be given controlling weight unless it is based on medically unacceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques or is contradicted by the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Coffman, 829 F.2d at 517. Therefore, the ALJ applied an incorrect legal standard, contravening both agency policy and Fourth Circuit law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Olmo v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-14(d)(2)

Generally, 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. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s determination to give less weight to Dr. Krishna’s opinion as inconsistent with other evidence in the record was proper.

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 not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Kurutza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-16(c)(2)

Pursuant to the treating physician rule, an ALJ considering the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician must decide “whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, and to give good reasons when assigning it less weight.

Gonzalez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-16(c)(2)

“The 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 (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.” Id.at 96 (quoting Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2))). ... In this case, the ALJ failed to follow these procedures.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sidney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-18(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.” ... The basis for the treating physician rule, as relevant here, is the “continuity of treatment he provides and the doctor/patient relationship he develops.” ... This does not occur when a physician meets with a patient only once. ... The ALJ, who referred to neither Dr. Enker nor Dr. DiMaio as treating physicians, correctly refrained from bestowing that designation upon them. Dr. Enker’s P.A. examined the Plaintiff once prior to filling out the October 2 Form, and Dr. DiMaio examined the Plaintiff personally once. In neither case did these physicians build a relationship with the Plaintiff significant or continuous enough to merit the treating physician rule’s application.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to use the listed factors and give good reasons when denying controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion, to consider medical-source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, and to evaluate nonmedical opinions using the same factors as medical opinions when applicable.

Kelley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-22(c)(2), (d), (f)(1)

When we do not give the treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the medical opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If an ALJ decides a treating physician opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he or she must determine how much weight, if any, to give it using the “nonexclusive Burgess factors: (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.” ... This was in error because although the ALJ is not bound by that opinion, he must at least consider it. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (requiring the Commissioner to “consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as whether your impairment(s) meets or equals the requirements of any impairment(s) in the Listing[.]”); ... her opinion was nevertheless entitled to consideration using the same factors used to evaluate the opinion of a treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) (“we will consider [non-medical] opinions using the same factors” as used to analyze medical opinions but “not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case because the evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source depends on the particular facts in each case.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but allows less weight based on the treatment relationship.

Baker v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-12-22(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion should receive controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... However, an ALJ may assign less weight to a treating source’s opinion based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship with the claimant. Id. ... The ALJ articulated adequate reasons for discounting the two treating source opinions. I do not overturn these credibility determinations.

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.

Harshbarger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-15(d)(2)

Under the longstanding “treating physician rule,” the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of an impairment is given “controlling weight” only 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) (alteration in original) (emphases added) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Of note, the treating physician rule does not apply to disability applications filed on or after March 27, 2017. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 FR 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819 (Jan. 18, 2017). But Plaintiff’s applications were filed before that date (on November 14, 2014), and thus the rule applies.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to apply the treating-source rule when evaluating an opinion signed by a treating physician.

Morin v. SSA · filed 2014-01-23(c)(2)

In reliance upon his characterization of Dr. Lerner as a countersigner of Diaz's opinion rather than a co-author, and his determination "that [Diaz] is not an acceptable medical source within the meaning of the Social Security Act," Tr. 12, the ALJ ... mentioned, but did not apply, the so-called treating-source rule, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2), to the Diaz/Lerner opinion. ... Consequently, the ALJ erred by failing to apply the treating-source rule to that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons, supported by the record and sufficiently specific, for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Hatmaker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-08-07(c)(2)

The agency’s regulations require the ALJ to provide “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “These reasons must be ‘supported by the evidence in the ease record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’ ”

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

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

Jones v. Shalala · filed 1995-09-29(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, more weight is accorded a treating physician’s opinion than a consulting physician’s opinion as long as the treating physician’s opinion is supported by medical evidence and is not inconsistent with substantial other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Longshore v. Chater · filed 1996-07-26(d)(2)

As the treating physician, Dr. Emery’s opinion is accorded controlling weight so long as it is well-supported by medical evidence and is not inconsistent with substantial other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits the Commissioner to reject treating physicians' opinions when substantial evidence in the record supports doing so.

Toles v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-09-26(d)(2)

Under either the "treating physician rule," established by this Circuit in cases such as Schisler v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 43, 47 (2d Cir.1988), or the regulation subsequently adopted by the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), substantial evidence exists in the record to allow the Commissioner to reject the opinions of Toles's treating physicians and to find that she was not disabled.

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

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons when controlling weight is denied.

Sinclair v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-22(d)(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)). When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” she must “apply 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.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Once the ALJ has considered these factors, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.”). “A failure by the Commissioner to provide ‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a treating physician is a ground for remand.” Hanes v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., No. 11-CV-1991 (JFB), 2012 WL 4060759, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2012) (citing Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mendoza v. Saul · filed 2019-07-29(c)

The treating-physician rule directs the ALJ to “consider all” of the following factors in weighing “any medical opinion”: (1) the length of treatment; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the medical opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the physician’s degree of specialization; and (6) other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Pellot v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-31(c)(2)

The “treating physician” rule requires that the ALJ give “‘a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairment “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.”* ... When the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” ... The failure to give “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion constitutes a ground for remand.

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 techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explain any lesser weight.

Dorta v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2019-08-02(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, provided the opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment “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). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to Ortiz’s treating physicians. ... Accordingly, the Court directs the ALJ on remand to assign specific weight to each of the opinions of Ortiz’s treating physicians and provide “good reasons” for the weight accorded to each opinion if it is assigned less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to determine the opinion's weight, consider the relevant factors, and provide good reasons for that weight.

Avila v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-05(d)(2)

When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion, he or she must determine how much weight to give to the opinion. ... An ALJ need not enumerate these factors in his or her decision. ... The Commissioner, however, “must provide good reasons for the weight she gives to the treating source’s opinion.”

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 techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Sharp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-13(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.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); ... Here, while it may have been appropriate to give considerable weight to one portion of Dr. Gardner’s opinion and less weight to another, Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 1989), the ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for doing so.

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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Flaherty v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-08(c)(2)

According to the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician 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.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (alterations omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and the source’s specialization, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Maltz v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2)-(6)

The Second Circuit does not, however, require a “slavish recitation of each and every factor [of 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c), 416.927(c)] where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” ... “Thus, for the reasons stated, the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Shoup’s opinion. ... Thus, for the reasons stated, the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Rosenthal’s opinion. ... Accordingly, remand is appropriate because the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for discounting the opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians, based on what appears to be his fundamental misunderstanding of KLS.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) entitles a treating physician’s medical opinion to controlling weight when it is well supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Pugh v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2)

A “treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

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 weigh it using the listed factors and explain the weight assigned with good reasons.

Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19(c)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine how much weight the opinion should receive based on several factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... The Commissioner is required to give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... As an initial matter, the ALJ erred by failing to “‘explicitly consider’ .. . the frequency, length, nature, and extent of [Dr. Wright’s] treatment” when assigning weight to his opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions more weight, requires controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

CHAYU v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-08-19(c)(2)

The regulations do not support Chayu’s contention that a treating physician’s opinion should be “controlling,” but rather, that it generally be afforded more weight than that of a non-treating physician. Further, the regulations state that a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight when it “is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. The ALJ appropriately found that Dr. Sokol’s opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record and thus was not required by the regulations to give the opinion controlling weight. Further, the ALJ provided “good reasons” for why he did not give Dr. Sokol’s opinion controlling weight. Id.; see (Tr. 30–31.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for rejecting a treating physician's opinion and reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner.

Sedorus v. Saul · filed 2019-08-20(d)(2)

When a treating physician’s opinions are disregarded, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... Moreover, the ALJ did not err in rejecting the opinion that Plaintiff was completely disabled because that decision is reserved to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight and to consider specified factors when assigning weight if controlling weight is not given.

Spikes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-22(c)(2)-(6)

At Step Four, an ALJ must weigh every medical opinion that the Social Security Administration receives. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, unless the ALJ articulates good reasons for discrediting that opinion. ... If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must determine the weight it is due by considering the length and frequency of treatment, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the treating physician is a specialist. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). Nothing in the regulations requires the ALJ to explain how he considered each of the factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Nevertheless, the ALJ must provide an explanation “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the [ALJ] gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... Based on the foregoing, the ALJ properly found that Dr. Kemp’s treatment notes did not reflect the severe limitations that she expressed in her opinion questionnaire response. The ALJ considered Dr. Kemp’s opinion in compliance with the regulations and provided good reasons for his decision that her opinion was entitled to limited weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must provide good reasons and consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Wagner, Karl v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-08-23(d)(2)-(6)

“An ALJ who does not give controlling weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician must offer ‘good reasons’ for declining to do so.” ... The factors considered when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight include “[l]ength of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; “nature and extent of the treating relationship”; supportability; consistency; specialization; and “[o]ther factors . . . which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) (2010).