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(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, including when declining to give it controlling weight.

Grabel v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(d)(2)

Reserving the ultimate issue of disability to the Commissioner relieves the [SSA] of having to credit a doctor’s finding of disability, but it does not exempt administrative decisionmakers from their obligation, under Schaal and § 404.1527(d)(2), to explain why a treating physician’s opinions are not being credited.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Swagler v. Saul · filed 2019-08-28(c)

When an ALJ refuses to assign a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, a number of factors must be considered to determine the appropriate weight to assign, including: (i) the frequency of the examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician's opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the SSA's attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(c)(2)

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). This is known as the “treating physician rule.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not give treating-physician-rule protections to nonacceptable medical sources, but an ALJ must still consider medical opinions using the regulation's factors.

Strickland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-30(c)(2)

The treating physician rule does not apply to nonacceptable medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2) & (f). ... The regulations require an ALJ to “consider” all the medical opinions in the record as well as “evaluate” them considering the factors of § 404.1527(c). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) & (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dziamalek v. Saul · filed 2019-09-03(c)(2)

When the ALJ gives controlling weight to a non-treating physician, and does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must “apply the factors listed” in SSA regulations, 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, 708 F.3d at 418.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Simley v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-09-03(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 ALJ must consider the following factors if it decides to afford less than controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion: “(1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of the treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion and to consider the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole.

Stump v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(c)(2), (c)(4)

Under the “treating physician rule,” the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for assigning less than controlling weight to a physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In determining the appropriate weight, the ALJ must consider, among other factors, “the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole.” Bowen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 478 F.3d 742, 747 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)).

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 in the case record, and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Fisher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-06(c)(2)

The ALJ discounted these opinions, in part, as “without substantial support from any objective clinical or diagnostic findings[.]” (Id.). But, as the magistrate judge explained in the R&R, “there were clinical and diagnostic findings[,]” including x-rays and exam notes, “to support Dr. Green’s opinions[.]” (Doc. 25 at 17). Accordingly, the ALJ violated the treating source rule. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Maneri v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-09(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 ALJ must consider the following factors if it decides to afford less than controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion: “(1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of the 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.” ... In the Second Circuit, the ALJ is required to “give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] gives [a claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the treating-physician rule to be applied to treating-source opinions, including by the Appeals Council, with controlling weight given when the opinion is well-supported and consistent with the record and good reasons provided for the weight assigned.

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

The need for explanation is heightened with respect to treating-source opinions due to the treating physician rule. That 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); 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 the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam); see also 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 opinion.”). The treating physician rule applies both to the ALJ and the Appeals Council.3 See Durrant v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-6781, 2018 WL 1417311, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2018) (collecting cases); Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-1107, 2019 WL 2441862, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. June 12, 2019) (same). Consequently, like the ALJ, the Appeals Council must provide an “explicit analysis” of the treating physician’s opinion and cannot reject it with boilerplate language. See Patrick M. v. Saul, No. 18-CV-290, 2019 WL 4071780, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2019) (Appeals Council violated treating physician rule when it stated only that treating-source opinion “does not show a reasonable probability that it would change the outcome of the decision”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion significant 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, and requires good reasons when the ALJ discounts it.

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight, but is not outcome determinative and only entitled to significant weight when “’well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Crowell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed.Appx. 34, 35 (2d Cir. Dec. 1, 2017) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008), and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Where, however, the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must set forth “good reasons” for doing so. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, relationship nature and extent, supportability, consistency, and source specialization.

Mason v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(d)(2)

When determining weight and articulating good reasons, the ALJ “must apply certain factors” to the opinion. Rabbers v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 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 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, or otherwise weigh it using specified treatment-relationship and evidentiary factors.

Whitfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(c)(2)

If the treating medical source’s opinion is not controlling, “the ALJ, in determining how much weight is appropriate, must consider a host of factors, including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the physician’s conclusions; the specialization of the physician; and any other relevant factors.” ... The ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dr. Reynolds’ opinions fail to recognize his status as Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist. This constitutes error because there is no indication in the ALJ’s decision that he weighed Dr. Reynolds’ April 2014 or June 2015 opinions under the legal criteria applicable under the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Narvaez v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-13(c)(2)

At both steps, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight he gives a treating source’s medical opinion. See Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Zabala, 595 F.3d at 409 (“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 properly assess a treating source’s medical opinion under the treating physician rule.

Lambert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-13(c)(2)

Dr. Parentis was a treating source and the ALJ failed to properly assess his opinion under 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) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions, gives controlling weight to a well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for assigning it less than controlling weight.

Randall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

The SSA regulations provide that “opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources” are “give[n] more weight” than other sources, and are even given “controlling weight” when the treating source’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. § 404.1527(c)(2). “[G]ood reasons” must be given for declining to afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 568 (2d Cir. 1993). ... Here, the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Aranda’s opinion. ... In sum, the ALJ has disregarded the opinion of a treating physician with a relevant lengthy doctor-patient treatment relationship without providing the necessary good reasons to award her views less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion significant weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and permits consideration of the provider's specialty.

Harcleroad v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(5), (d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight, but is not outcome determinative and only entitled to significant weight when “’well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Crowell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed.Appx. 34, 35 (2d Cir. Dec. 1, 2017) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008), and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Significantly, the ALJ is permitted to consider whether a medical opinion relates to the medical provider’s area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), and 416.927(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Santangelo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

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) (Mar. 27, 2017). Consequently, the ALJ was required to give Dr. Hom’s opinions controlling weight if they met the criteria above, or otherwise give a good explanation for not giving them controlling weight.

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.

Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Domyan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

This consistency further undermines the ALJ’s decision to award “little weight” to Dr. Chaudhary’s opinion. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (stating that “consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole” is a factor to consider where an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight); Phillips v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:16 CV 514, 2017 WL 951422, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2017) (stating that “[w]hen an ALJ determines a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must provide support to refute either the opinion’s objective basis or its consistency with other record evidence” and that “[c]onclusory statements in this regard, however, are not sufficient”) (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (providing that if the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight”); cf. Social Security Ruling 96-2p (“Even if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques, the treating source’s medical opinion also must be ‘not inconsistent’ with the other ‘substantial evidence’ in the individual’s case record.”). For all these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for discounting Dr. Chaudhary’s April 2015 opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Banks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

Where, as here, the opinion of the treating physician “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)), the opinion is entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ’s reasoning shows adherence to the rule.

Shear v. Saul · filed 2019-09-18(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Valle v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-18(c)(2)

Under the Social Security Act and its implementing regulations, if a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)(2). When an opinion does not garner controlling weight, the appropriate weight to be given to the opinion will be determined based upon the length of treatment, frequency of examinations, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, the specialization of the source, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported, record-consistent treating-physician opinion, and otherwise to defer to and weigh it using the listed factors while giving sufficiently specific reasons for the assigned weight.

James v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)-(6)

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). This is known as the “treating physician rule.” ... In order to receive controlling weight, treating physician opinions must be both supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record. If not, the opinions may not merit controlling weight but still must be given deference and weighed using the following six factors: ... However, not every factor is applicable in every case, nor must an ALJ always analyze all six factors. 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 opinions. ... 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 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s supported and consistent opinion about a claimant’s functional limitations, but not for a statement that addresses only the medical necessity of treatment.

Ramos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-19(a)(1), (c)(2)

Under the so-called “treating physician” rule, in general, the ALJ must 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). ... “[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (third brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Ramos does not identify a particular “opinion” provided by Dr. Cushner in the record; that is, Ramos does not point to a single statement from Dr. Cushner opining about Ramos’s “physical or mental restrictions” or discussing “what [he] can still do despite impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1); see Pl. Mem. at 23-24. ... As a result, the ALJ cannot be faulted for failing to give “controlling weight” to the statements contained in this letter since they do not speak to Ramos’s ability to work. Rather, the statements speak only to the medical necessity of knee surgery for Ramos.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while requiring reasons for assigning less weight.

Niedbalski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)

The treating physician rule provided that ... A treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... While an ALJ may give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he or she must “comprehensively set forth [his or her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Federline v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)

“The regulation promises that the ALJ ‘will always give good reasons in [the] decision for the weight’” assigned to a “‘treating source’s medical opinion.’” Brown, 873 F.3d at 256 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Herghelian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(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] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, if it does not, to apply the listed factors when deciding the opinion’s weight.

Lehner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)–(6)

The treating physician rule, applicable in this case, provides that the opinion of a treating physician on the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ applies the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) to determine the weight to give the opinion.

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 and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; a lack of recent treatment notes alone does not establish inconsistency.

Pike v. Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(d)(2)

But the lack of more recent treatment notes is not "substantial evidence in the case record" that is "inconsistent" with Dr. Richter's opinion. See Hensley v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (alteration omitted)). Dr. Richter's opinion was therefore entitled to controlling weight. Because the ALJ failed to "provide[] good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician's opinion," the Court will remand the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. Id. at 267 (internal quotations and citation omitted) (alteration added).

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

Franklin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(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. ... 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”). ... Based on this record, the ALJ has not given good reasons for giving Dr. Gunnell’s opinions little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight than a consultative or non-examining physician’s opinion because the treating physician can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairments.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)

Typically, a claimant’s treating physician opinion is given more weight than a consultative or non-examining physician’s opinion because the treating-physician is likely “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(d)(2)

The treating physician rule requires the ALJ to generally give greater deference to the opinions of treating physicians due to the fact that: ... Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (alteration sic). This deference, however, is only appropriate 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.” ... If the ALJ does not afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of relevant factors including; 1) the length of the treatment relationship; 2) the frequency of examination; 3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 4) supportability of the opinion based on the medical record; 5) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and 6) any specialization of the treating physician. ... The ALJ must “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(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions using factors including treatment history, consistency, supportability, and relevant specialty when no controlling treating-source opinion applies.

Wilkinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating source’s opinion to consider the specified factors and give good reasons, rather than rejecting it based essentially on one treatment note.

Owen v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ must both consider the factors and provide “good reasons” for the weight he or she ultimately affords the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... First, although an ALJ need not explicitly discuss every regulatory factor when considering opinion evidence, Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007), the ALJ may not essentially ignore those factors and rely upon a single treatment note’s failure to include functional limitations to reject a treating-physician opinion. Yet that is precisely what transpired here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, but permits less weight or rejection when conflicting evidence exists and reasons are clearly explained.

SNYDER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not fail to provide sufficient reasons for discounting the opinion of Dr. Roberts, nor did he substitute his own lay analysis for the judgment of Dr. Roberts in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in ultimately deciding to give Dr. Roberts’ opinion little weight in his analysis. (R 32).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a treating physician’s conclusory statement that a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical opinion entitled to controlling weight or evaluation under the regulation’s factors.

Dillion v. SSA · filed 2019-09-24(c)(2), (d)

Here, Dr. Francis’s concluded that Killion’s impairments were “of such nature so as to disable the claimant from engaging in substantial gainful activity.” [TR 27]. As the ALJ noted, [TR 28], this was not a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Such issues are reserved for the Commissioner. Id. Because these conclusory statements by Killion’s treating physician did not constitute “medical opinions,” they were not entitled to controlling weight nor was the ALJ required to analyze the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Consequently, Killion’s argument on this ground fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dentler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(c)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, we give more weight to 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”). ... 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. ... Based on this record, the ALJ gave good reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Konzen’s opinions.

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 supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Portal v. Saul · filed 2019-09-20(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, when 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the record.

Brooks, Krystal v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-09-25(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to controlling weight if it is consistent with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions more weight, but controlling weight only when they are well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Tomlinson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-25(c)(2)

Generally, the opinions of a treating source will be given more weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). To receive controlling weight, however, a treating physician’s opinion must be “. . . well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques . . .” and must not be “. . . inconsistent with the other substantial evidence . . .” in the record. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 42 (3d Cir. 2001). Moreover, the ALJ is not required to accept treating source opinions uncritically and may decline to assign significant weight to such an opinion when assigning such weight would conflict with the record. Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Indeed, while “[a]n ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, [he] may afford a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.” Id. (citing Newhouse v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 283, 286 (3d Cir.1985)).

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.

Estrada v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-25(c)(2)

A medical source opinion is entitled to “controlling weight,” if the medical opinion “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(c)(2); see also Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119.

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 techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when the opinion is discounted.

Surrento v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(c)(2)

The treating physician doctrine requires opinions from treating physicians to be given controlling weight when the opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406; Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. ... Social Security regulations require the ALJ to give good reasons for discounting evidence of disability submitted by the treating physician(s). Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406; Vance, 2008 WL 162942, at *3. Those good reasons must be supported by evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to subsequent reviewers the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion, as well as the reasons for that weight. Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406-407. ... But even when a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine how much weight to assign to the opinion by applying specific factors set forth in the governing regulations. Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The court finds that, although the ALJ explicitly accorded “great weight as generally consistent with the ongoing clinical evidence” to the June 2017 opinion, the decision does not explain why the treating psychiatrist’s opinion was not given controlling weight. See Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931, 938 (6th Cir. 2011) (ALJ failed to properly apply the treating physician rule). The court is unable to determine how (or whether) the treating source rule was applied, and thus cannot give meaningful review of the ALJ’s application of the rule. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544-545; see also Cole, 661 F.3d at 938. Therefore, remand is required because the ALJ failed to apply the procedural requirements of the treating physician rule, which denotes a lack of substantial evidence supporting the decision’s treatment of the June 2017 opinion. See generally Rogers v. Commissioner, 486 F.3d 234, 243 (6th Cir. 2007); Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The treating physician rule requires good reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Hutchison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(d)(2)

Finally, Hutchison contends that the ALJ was required to specifically address all five factors outlined by Wilson. (ECF No. 20, PageID.1665.) Not so. The treating physician rule only requires “‘good reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion’—not an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir. 2011) (alterations omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Edwards v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)

In evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the treating source, and other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. ... Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for doing so. ... The Court finds the ALJ did not provide “good reasons” for assigning Dr. Doucette’s opinion “no weight.” ... In sum, the ALJ did not provide “good reasons” for assigning the 2017 opinion of Dr. Doucette no weight in determining Plaintiff’s RFC. ... Thus, remand is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion and consider the listed factors, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Westrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)-(6)

While the ALJ’s decision does not reflect an extensive analysis of the regulatory factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6), the regulations require only that an ALJ decision include “‘good reasons . . . for the weight give[n] [to the] treating source’s opinion’—not an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”

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.

McGrady v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(d)(2)

Specifically, “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.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... These are both factually correct and legally legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Brown’s opinion that R.S. had “marked” limitations in two domains.

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 other substantial evidence in the case record.

Buckmaster v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of (TWP2) · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)

If a medical source is considered a treating physician, an ALJ is required to give a treating source’s medical opinion “controlling weight” if: “(1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2))1; West v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 240 F. App’x 692, 696 (6th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, consistency, specialization, and supportability.

Schuh v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)-(6)

Since the ALJ decided not to afford Dr. Altschuler’s opinion controlling weight, she was required to analyze the factors under section 404.1527(c)(2). ... However, the ALJ failed to properly consider Dr. Altschuler’s medical assessment through the lens of all required factors, such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the consistency of Dr. Altschuler’s opinion, and Dr. Altschuler’s specialty. Specifically, the ALJ does not mention the physician’s specialization or examine the consistency of Dr. Altschler’s opinion with the record as a whole. Moreover, the ALJ does not explain how Dr. Altschuler’s assessment was unsupported by other medical testimony. ... Here, the Court concludes that the ALJ similarly committed a reversible error by failing to address all of the regulatory factors required in discounting a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much deference to give a treating physician’s opinion after declining to give it controlling weight, and to provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Zenner v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

Even if a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, however, the opinion is still entitled to deference and must be assessed under the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship; (2) the nature and extent of the relationship; (3) the degree to which the opinion was supported by relevant evidence; (4) the consistency between the opinion and record as a whole; (5) whether or not the doctor is a specialist; and (6) other factors that either do or do not support the doctor’s opinion. Wickliffe, 2017 WL 3149354 at *2 (citing Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300-1301 (10th Cir. 2003)); see also 20 CFR §§ 404.1527, 416.927. It is error for an ALJ not to consider those factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion. See Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001). An ALJ’s discussion of the factors is inadequate if the court would be left to speculate as to what specific evidence led the ALJ to his conclusion. See id. (citing Kepler v. Chater, 68 F.3d 387, 391 (10th Cir. 1995)). Ultimately, after consideration of the listed factors, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight ultimately assigned to the treating physician’s opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) requires an ALJ to address when a treating physician's opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Centrone v. Colvin · filed 2019-09-27(d)(4)

Applying the regulations and the legal principles referenced, it is the Court’s determination that the ALJ considered the treating physician's opinion and properly addressed where the treating physician’s opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Salinas v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bazan v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 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 consider specified factors when a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight and to provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Rivera v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

When the ALJ gives controlling weight to a non-treating physician, and does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must “apply the factors listed” in SSA regulations, 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.” ... After reviewing the record, I conclude that the ALJ gave good reasons for assigning partial weight to the DSS Report prepared by Dr. Spiro on November 14, 2016.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using treatment, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors.

Ryals v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)

With regard to a treating physician, the Regulations instruct ALJs how to properly weigh such a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Because treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s medical opinion is to be afforded 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. Id. When a treating physician's medical opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight it should be given by considering factors such as the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with the other evidence, and the specialization of the physician. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to recite every treating-physician factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation make clear that the treating-physician rule was applied.

Hoag v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise weigh it using specified factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Ort v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(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.” ... If the treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, “the ALJ, in determining how much weight is appropriate, must consider a host of factors, including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the physician’s conclusions; the specialization of the physician; and any other relevant factors.” ... The Regulations also require ALJs to provide “good reasons” for the weight placed upon a treating source’s opinions. ... In sum, the ALJ failed to provide good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting Dr. Bennett’s opinions and Dr. Sowald’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to decide whether it merits controlling weight based on support and consistency, and if not, weigh it using the listed regulatory factors and provide good reasons for discounting it.

Cannon v. Saul · filed 2020-03-06(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must determine whether to give the treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight,” by evaluating if the opinion is both well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... A treating physician has greater familiarity with plaintiff’s conditions and circumstances, and therefore an ALJ may only discount a treating physician’s opinion based on “good reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... If the ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, she must evaluate certain checklist factors in order to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. ... Those factors include the following: examining relationship, treatment relationship (length and nature of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, along with nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion after considering the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Harvey v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-09(c)(2)

In evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the treating source, and other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for doing so. Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1013 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

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, which may be discounted when better evidence supports other assessments or the opinion is inconsistent or conclusory.

Fogerty v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-10(d)(2)

Under the applicable social security regulations,4 the opinion of a treating physician is “normally entitled to great weight.” Thomas v. Berryhill, 881 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2018). “However, the Commissioner may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence,” and the Commissioner “may also assign little weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is either internally inconsistent or conclusory.” Id. The regulations require that the ALJ give good reasons for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation. Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explicitly consider the relevant factors, although the error may be harmless after a searching review.

Hamilton v. Saul · filed 2020-03-10(c)(2)

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). This is known as the “treating physician rule.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). 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.” Id. at 95-96 (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F. 3d 117, 120 (2d Cir. 2008)). 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. Id. at 96. However, the error is harmless if a “searching review of the record . . . assures us that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Curry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(d)(2)

In particular, generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight, but is not outcome determinative and only entitled to controlling weight when “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Crowell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed.Appx. 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128, and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Where, however, the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must set forth “good reasons” for doing so. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004)). ... Accordingly, the ALJ adequately explained his reasons for nor affording controlling weight to Dr. Cywinski’s opinion and did not violate the treating physician rule, nor did the ALJ improperly substitute his own, lay opinion in arriving at the RFC assessment which, as discussed above, is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Beuter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(d)(2)

In particular, generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight, but is not outcome determinative and only entitled to controlling weight when “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Crowell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed.Appx. 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128, and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). According to the Burgess factors, the ALJ must first decide whether an opinion by a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128. Where, however, the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must set forth “good reasons” for doing so. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004)). The ALJ must “explicitly consider” the four Burgess factors, including “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (2) 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) (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129). Here, despite recognizing both Drs. Varon and Wittig as Plaintiff’s long-term treating physicians, with Dr. Varon being a cardiologist, AR at 949, the record establishes the ALJ, in granting the opinions of such physicians “little weight” despite being well-supported by the medical evidence in the record, AR at 949, violated the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh specified factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, and specialization.

Jorge v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-13(d)(2), (c)

The rule requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinic and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If an ALJ gives treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must weigh a set of factors to determine how much weight it should receive. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Among other things, the ALJ must consider: the length and nature of the treatment relationship, whether the medical opinion is supported by evidence, and whether the physician is a specialist. 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 a well-supported treating physician opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and to explain any lesser weight after considering the applicable factors.

Byrd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(d)(2)

A treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998) (discussing application of the treating physician rule). ... The sole factor applied by the ALJ [R. 25] was the consistency of Dr. Clarke’s opinion with the rest of the medical record. The ALJ did not address the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, the nature of the treatment relationship, or whether Dr. Clarke’s specialty is relevant to plaintiff’s claimed impairment, see Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (Docket No. 10, Pl. Memo. at 9). ... These errors (failing to consider the all the applicable factors for weighing a treating physician’s opinion and not following up on the gap in the record) require remand; plaintiff’s motion on this ground is granted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stedman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(d)(2)

Plaintiff's disability applications filed on May 28, 2014, are subject to the treating physician rule. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2017). Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight but only when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” Crowell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed. App’x. 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue (“Burgess”), 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). In instances where the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion however, the ALJ must set forth “good reasons” for doing so. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004) (“We do not hesitate to remand when the Commissioner has not provided ‘good reasons’ for the weight given to a treating physician[’s] opinion and we will continue remanding when we encounter opinions from ALJs that do not comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.”)). The failure to provide good reasons for rejecting a treating physician opinion is grounds for remand. Schall v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 503-05 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

McCrea v. Saul · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2)

If the ALJ finds a treating physician’s opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an administrative law judge to specify what weight a treating source’s opinion deserves.

Reinaas v. Saul · filed 2020-03-16(c)

She was also required to specify what weight Dr. Bodeau’s opinion did deserve. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not entitle a treating source’s opinion to controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Pearson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2)

“A treating soutce’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Scouten v. Commissioner Soc. Sec., 722 F. App’x 288, 290 (3d Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting 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 techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating physician’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s) is given controlling weight if it is both “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record . . . .” Where the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to the treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must explicitly consider the “Burgess factors” (e.g., frequency of treatment), and give good reasons for the weight she gives the treating physician’s opinion.

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 claimant’s case record.

Clancy v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned using the relevant evaluation factors and good reasons.

Hartloff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record”. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). ... “The ALJ must consider, inter alia, the ‘[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’; the “[n]ature 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 v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d), now (c)). ... Because these are the only reasons ALJ Georger gives to support his rejection of Dr. Kinkel’s opinion of plaintiff’s functional limitations, ALJ Georger’s analysis is incomplete. Accordingly, he has failed to provide “good reasons” for his rejection of that opinion. ... ALJ Georger has therefore failed to comply with the Commissioner’s own regulations, Second Circuit case law, and the Appeals Council’s direction to “evaluate the opinion evidence pursuant to the provisions of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927, and explain the weight given to such opinion evidence.” [5], pp. 535, 630.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Phomsoupha v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(c)(2)

Where 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, it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a treating physician’s opinion.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)1. ... Here, while the ALJ acknowledged Dr. Addams’s and Ms. Riner’s status as treating mental health providers throughout the relevant period, the ALJ did not explicitly mention the treating physician rule. Nonetheless, the ALJ set forth several “good reasons” for his decision to grant the opinion “little” weight. ... Notwithstanding the ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the treating physician rule factors, the Court finds that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” and that the ALJ gave “good reasons” for declining to give Dr. Addams’s opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good cause for rejecting it.

Deynes v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)

The opinions of a treating source are entitled to controlling weight when they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. Further, they cannot be rejected absent good cause for specific and legitimate reasons clearly articulated in the hearing decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ assigning less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion to explicitly apply the relevant Burgess factors.

Dorsey v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(c)

In Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95-98 (2d Cir. 2019), the Second Circuit held that an ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply all of the Burgess factors (20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c)) when assigning less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion is a procedural error. ... Here, the ALJ did not explicitly consider the frequency and length of the treating relationship, the nature and extent of the treating relationship, or Dr. Graham’s specialization in psychiatry. Therefore, the ALJ committed a legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally calls for great or controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is consistent with the other evidence, but permits reduced weight when the opinion is inconsistent, conclusory, or based on only a short treatment history.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)

In general, a treating physician’s opinion is to be given great weight, or even controlling weight, if consistent with the other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ does have the option to give a medical opinion lower weight, however, if it is not consistent with other evidence, is conclusory, or is from a doctor who has only a short history with the patent. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to defer to a treating-source opinion even when it is not given controlling weight and to weigh it using all six regulatory factors.

Sewell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-18(c)(1)-(6)

Even if the ALJ does not afford the treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ owes that opinion deference and must weigh that opinion using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

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 record.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(c)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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 other substantial evidence ... in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Vavra v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)

Generally, the opinion of the treating physician will not be afforded controlling weight when the treating physician issued opinions that were not consistent with those of other medical experts and is contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (“When other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion . . . that opinion will not be deemed controlling. And the less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require an ALJ to explain each weighing factor separately, but requires good reasons for assigning a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Reese v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)

The ALJ is not required to explain how he considered each of these factors, but must nonetheless give “good reasons” for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion using the listed factors when controlling weight is not given.

Fair v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)-(6)

The opinion of a treating physician on the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ applies the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) to determine the weight to give the opinion. ... However, the ALJ provided Dr. Barr’s opinion some weight based on the absence of objective medical findings as well as Dr. Barr’s apparent reliance on Ms. Fair’s subjective complaints.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bombard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

Medical opinions, regardless of the source, are evaluated by considering several factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Controlling weight will be given to a treating physician’s opinion that is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

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 not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons for the weight assigned.

Still v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight if it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... If a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the following factors in determining what weight to give the opinion: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Heimerl, Roman v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

As an initial matter, the rules that govern plaintiff’s claim provide that a treating source’s medical opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if, and only if, it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case.” § 404.1527(c). ... While an ALJ need only “minimally articulate” his reasons for assigning a particular weight to a medical opinion, Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008), he must still offer “good reasons” for discounting the medical opinion of a treating physician. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion special weight when it is supported by sufficient medical data and consistent with the record.

Ochoa v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

The weight given a treating physician’s opinion depends on whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and is consistent with other evidence in the record. 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 apply the regulatory factors when deciding what weight to give a treating source’s medical opinion.

Walker v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

The ALJ did not accord the opinion of Walker’s treating source, Dr. Dunkelman, controlling weight; rather, the ALJ gave Dr. Dunkelman little weight without providing any reason, let alone a good reason, for doing so, and without applying the factors required to be applied under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Court finds that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to apply the treating physician rule, as required by the Social Security Administration’s regulations, warranting remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

DePriest v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

An ALJ must “give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she gives to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2); ... The ALJ adequately explained his reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Myers’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons for the weight assigned.

Beagle v. SSA · filed 2020-03-24(c)(2)

... If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight then the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in deciding exactly how much weight is to be given to the opinion: length of the treatment relationship as well as the frequency of examinations, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the medical opinion, the consistency of the opinion and the degree of specialization of the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i-ii), (c)(3-6); Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 267 F. App'x 456, 460 (6th Cir. 2008); Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. The ALJ is required to give “good reasons” for not giving weight to opinions from the treating physician in a disability determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The purpose of this requirement is to “let claimants understand the disposition of their cases,” to “ensure[] that the ALJ applies the treating physician rule,” and to “permit[] meaningful review of the ALJ's application of the rule.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (citing Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5; Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 134 (2d Cir. 1999); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32-33 (2d Cir. 2004)); see also Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) classifies work restrictions from acceptable medical sources as medical opinions, and § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Napieralski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(a)(1), (c)(2)

As an initial matter, the Court views the work restrictions as medical opinions, which are defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (emphasis added). ... 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. ... Based on this record, the ALJ did not give good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Bohay’s work restrictions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors and comprehensively explain the weight assigned.

Gonzalez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-25(d)(2)

An ALJ who declines to accord “controlling” weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive. See Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Among those factors are: “(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, 708 F.3d at 418 (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129). After considering those factors, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (internal citations omitted). ... Applying those principles to the present case, I conclude that the ALJ provided good reasons for declining to assign Dr. Ahmed’s October 2015 and May 2016 statements controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and, when controlling weight is not given, consider specified factors in assigning weight and explain that assignment with good reasons.

Madera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2)–(6)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ is bound to give “controlling weight” to “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s)” where that opinion is “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); accord Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); Shaw, 221 F.3d at 134. ... When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for whatever weight she assigns. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32. In doing so, she is bound to consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence that supports the treating physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6); see also Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32; Shaw, 221 F.3d at 134. Where the ALJ does not appear to have taken into consideration these factors, the Court cannot find that the ALJ has given good reasons. ... In such circumstances, remand is appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight, requires consideration of specified factors if controlling weight is denied, and requires good reasons for the assigned weight.

Burdick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” ... Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2); ... Accordingly, the ALJ complied with the treating physician rule in evaluating the evidence offered by Dr. Lax and NP Millar, and her conclusions are well-supported by the record. Remand is not required on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and to consider specified factors when assigning the opinion’s weight.

Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)

The Treating Physician Rule provides that an A.L.J. must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if that opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In considering a treating physician’s opinion, an A.L.J. is required to consult the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, including (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, 362 F.3d at 32. ... The A.L.J.’s reason stated above is insufficient because, standing alone, it does not indicate that the A.L.J. actually considered the regulatory factors in assessing Dr. Hom’s opinion. Although the A.L.J. acknowledged that Dr. Hom was a treating source, her discussion does not indicate how this played into her decision to give “little” weight to the opinion, and the A.L.J.’s conclusory reasoning indicates only that she considered one factor—consistency—in rejecting the opinion. This reasoning was deficient.

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, otherwise, to weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(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. ... 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.

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 claimant’s record.

Perry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-27(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally calls for greater weight to be given to a treating physician’s opinion, subject to an adequately supported explanation for discounting it.

MacNeil v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

Typically, an ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). ... While a treating physician’s opinion is typically entitled to the highest level of deference, the ALJ articulated specifically why he did not consider her opinion. ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Pope’s opinion no weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Beamer v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, she must give “good reasons” for doing so. Reece v. Colvin, 834 F.3d 904, 909 (8th Cir. 2016); 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 well-supported, non-contradicted opinion controlling weight; if controlling weight is denied, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors and explain the assigned weight, but need not recite every factor when the reasoning is clear.

Argenti v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight if the opinion on 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.” ... “An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” ... The ALJ must set forth the reasons for the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion. ... The Second Circuit does not require “slavish recitation of each and every factor where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” ... Judge Moses, therefore, was correct in holding that the ALJ did not violate the treating physician rule where he “provided good reasons and an adequate roadmap for his analysis of the opinion evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion significant weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and an ALJ must give good reasons for discounting it.

Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(d)(2)

Plaintiff's disability application filed on February 18, 2015, is subject to the treating physician rule. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2017). Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight but only when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” Crowell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed. App’x. 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue (“Burgess”), 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). In instances where the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion however, the ALJ must set forth “good reasons” for doing so.

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 diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires consideration of specified factors when determining the opinion’s weight otherwise.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(b), (c)(2), (c)(4)

A treating source’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight if it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). If a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the following factors in determining what weight to give the opinion: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s supported and consistent opinion controlling weight and to provide good reasons when declining to do so.

Hernandez v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, when 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), 416.927(c)(2); see 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), 416.927(c). An ALJ must provide “good reasons” not to grant controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. See Schaal, 134 F.3d at 503–04. ... ALJ Berkowtiz did not comprehensively set forth the reasons why Dr. Snyderman’s opinions were only entitled to little weight compared to the great weight granted to the opinion from Dr. Herman. ... This raises concerns that ALJ Berkowitz did not consider the entirety of the record in assigning weight to Dr. Snyderman’s opinions, and that he may have “cherry picked” the evidence that supported the RFC determination while ignoring the evidence that did not (or in the very least, makes it clear that he did not adequately reconcile conflicting evidence). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b); Annabi v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-9057, 2018 WL 1609271, at *16–19 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2018) (remanding in part because the ALJ cherry picked evidence that supported the RFC while ignoring evidence that did not).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while allowing less weight or rejection when conflicting evidence exists and reasons are clearly explained.

NIXON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

Thus, a treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” ... “If, however, the treating physician's opinion conflicts with other medical evidence, then the ALJ is free to give that opinion less than controlling weight or even reject it, so long as the ALJ clearly explains [his or] her reasons and makes a clear record.” ... In the present case, the Court finds that the ALJ provided a sufficient explanation of his reasons for giving the opinions of Dr. Boyle, Dr. Bass, and Dr. Tran less than controlling weight in his analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Elliott v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

Ifthe ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must then balance the following factors to determine what weight to give it: “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 specialization of the treating source.” ... When determining the weight to give the opinion of a treating physician, ALJs need not explicitly mention in their decisions every factor under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... However, the regulations require the ALJ to give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Those good reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” S.S.R. 96–2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *5 (1996). This procedural safeguard “ensures that the ALJ applies the treating physician rule and permits meaningful review of the ALJ’s application of the rule.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. ... In short, the record demonstrates that the ALJ evaluated Dr. Barwise’s opinion and gave sufficient reasons for the weight afforded to it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, but the ALJ need not discuss each factor in the written decision; controlling weight applies when the opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

(SS) Raymond Richard Prine Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-02(c)(2), (d)(2)-(6)

However, the regulations do not state that the ALJ must discuss the factors in the opinion, but that the ALJ must consider the factors. A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment where 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). ... “In that event, the ALJ is instructed by § 404.1527(d)(2) to consider the factors listed in § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) in determining what weight to accord the opinion of the treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who gives less than controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Alvarez v. Colvin · filed 2019-10-03(d)(2)

Lastly, based upon a review of the administrative record, the Court is unable to decipher whether the ALJ, in determining to accord Dr. Najara assessment less weight, considered such factors as: (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 treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Thus, it is the Court’s determination that upon de novo review of the administrative record, the Court finds that the ALJ conclusion fails to be supported by substantial evidence and that he misapplied the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bomberry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-04(d)(2)

The treating physician rule provided that A treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... Additionally, “the Commissioner ‘will always give good reasons’” for the weight given to a treating source opinion. ... While an ALJ may give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he or she must “comprehensively set forth [his or her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who gives less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Gipp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-04(d)(2)

An ALJ who declines to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider: (i) the frequency of examination and length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the SSA’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.

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-source opinion, including when the opinion receives less than controlling weight.

Chatman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-04(d)(2)

The treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2017), such as this one. ... A treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998) (discussing application of the treating physician rule). Additionally, “the Commissioner ‘will always give good reasons’” for the weight given to a treating source opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)). While an ALJ may give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he or she must “comprehensively set forth [his or her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33.

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 clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

To compel acceptance as controlling weight, the treating physician’s opinion has to be well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (emphasis added) (see Docket No. 16, Def. Memo. at 15).

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 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Lindsey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, “[a]n ALJ must 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.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Court agrees that more explanation by the ALJ is needed before the Court is able to determine whether the ALJ’s conclusions are consistent with the record evidence. ... This infirmity is not cured by the ALJ’s discussion of the evidence earlier in his decision because there, too, the ALJ did not sufficiently detail the evidence of record and explain any conclusions he may have reached that could logically be linked to support his explanation of the weight he gave to Dr. Tone’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the relevant listed factors and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Menendez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-02(d)(2)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source medical opinion to be evaluated using specified regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, rather than its consistency with an already-formulated RFC.

Leo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)(1)-(6)

Neither a “narrative” constructed by the ALJ nor an RFC assessment are mentioned as proper factors to be considered when evaluating a treating source opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Novotny v. Saul · filed 2019-10-08(c)(2)

In evaluating a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, the ALJ must determine whether that 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”; if the opinion is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, the ALJ must give it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Nowling v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1110, 1122 (8th Cir. 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and, if it does not qualify, to defer to and weigh it using the regulatory factors, giving good reasons for the assigned weight.

Mares v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-09(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) (2012). ... In order to receive controlling weight, treating physician opinions must be both supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record. If not, the opinions may not merit controlling weight but still must be given deference and weighed using the following six factors: ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... 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 he ultimately assigns to the opinions. ... 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with the record’s other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight and requires good reasons for discounting it; a procedural violation may be harmless when the decision otherwise meets the rule’s purpose.

Potts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-10(c)(2)

Although ALJ Hall’s decision did not make an explicit finding on the question of controlling weight, it sets forth a finding that Dr. Brey’s opinion is not consistent with the record as a whole (Tr. 115-116, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)). Thus, ALJ Hall provided a sufficient reason for concluding Dr. Brey’s opinion did not meet the second prong of the “controlling weight” test. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Further, she gave “good reasons” for her conclusion (Id.). Although ALJ Hall did not state how much weight she accorded to Dr. Brey’s opinion, her RFC findings indicate it received no weight (Tr. 15-16, compare Finding No. 5 with Tr. 1127-28). Additionally, it is reasonably clear that ALJ Hall excepted Dr. Brey’s opinion from her comment about generally giving greater weight to opinions from treating and examining sources (Id.). Thus, ALJ Hall’s violation of the procedural requirements in § 404.1527(c)(2) are deemed harmless error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Testa v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-16(c)(2)

The treating physician rule provides that a treating source’s opinion on the nature or severity of a claimant’s impairments will be given controlling weight when it is well-supported by, and not inconsistent with, other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ must consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive. See Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015); Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008). Those factors include “(1) the frequently, 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); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). After considering these factors, the ALJ is required to “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004). In so doing, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight allotted. Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129. While an ALJ’s failure to provide good reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion is grounds for remand, Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33, the ALJ is not required to “slavish[ly] recite[]each and every factor where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the record and requires an ALJ to give good, comprehensive reasons when discounting it.

Kruder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-16(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.” 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) gives a well-supported and record-consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Altaweel v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-17(c)(2)

If the opinion of a treating source is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the opinion is given “controlling weight.” Id. Even if the ALJ finds that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he may not simply reject it. SSR 96-2p. Rather, if the ALJ finds that a treating source opinion does not meet the standard for controlling weight, he must evaluate the opinion’s weight by considering a variety of factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the claimant and physician’s treatment relationship; the degree to which the opinion is supported by the evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the doctor is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence controlling weight and requires sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned; its procedural goal may be satisfied implicitly.

Kerr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-17(c)(2), (d)(2)

An ALJ must give treating-source opinions “controlling weight” if the opinion is 1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and 2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Court disagrees. Although the ALJ has not complied with the “letter” of the regulation, he has complied with its “goal” by “implicitly provid[ing] sufficient reasons” for the weight given to the treating physicians’ opinions. ... Thus, the treating physicians’ opinion that she is disabled is indirectly attacked by the ALJ’s discussion of Kerr’s activities of daily living, especially her ability to take care of her family, and the objective evidence in her case, including diagnostic scans and physical examination results.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons and consider supportability, consistency, and other relevant factors when assigning less weight.

Thaxton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-18(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6)

Although ALJ Foster’s decision did not make an explicit finding on the question of controlling weight, it does set forth a finding that Dr. Veeravalli’s opinion is not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4)). Thus, she provided a sufficient reason for concluding that Dr. Veeravalli’s opinion did not meet the second prong of the “controlling weight” test. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Further, ALJ Foster gave “good reasons” for her conclusion. After implicitly concluding that Dr. Veeravalli’s opinion is not entitled to “controlling weight,” ALJ Foster expressly addressed the question of how much weight it should receive. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, ALJ Foster provided “good reasons” why she believed that Dr. Veeravalli’s medical opinion should be afforded “little weight.” Her “good reasons” indicate she appropriately considered supportability, consistency, and other factors such as Plaintiff's activities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6) and 416.927(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mullin v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-18(d)(2)

An ALJ must give a “treating physician’s” opinion controlling weight as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

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 in the record.

Detterline v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-21(c)(2)

Social Security’s regulations provide that the opinion of a treating source, like Dr. Achufusi, should be granted “controlling weight” unless that opinion is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ provide no rationale, let alone a logical and accurate one, which explained why the opinion that Plaintiff could only lift up to five pounds was inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

White v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-22(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 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 give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but must “comprehensively set forth [his or her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); 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 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 and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing it under enumerated factors.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-23(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), 416.927(c)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). If the ALJ gives the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must provide good reasons for doing so. Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998). ... If not afforded controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion is given weight according to a non-exhaustive list of enumerated factors, including (i) the frequency of examinations and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the physician’s opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the physician has a relevant specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) (2), 416.927(c)(2); see Clark, 143 F.3d at 118; Marquez v. Colvin, No. 12 CIV. 6819 PKC, 2013 WL 5568718, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally favors treating-source opinions and gives controlling weight to a well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if controlling weight is denied, section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified weighing factors.

Hashmat v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-24(c)(2), (c)

The Regulations generally require that the ALJ give more weight 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). ... 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 his findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the physician’s findings, and the physician’s area of specialty. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... These reasons are consistent with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and the opinion and administrative record contain substantial support for each of these findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

SAMOL v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-10-24(c)(2)

for claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as this one, the regulations provide that a treating physician’s opinion be given controlling weight provided that the opinion is well-supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Lyons v. Berryhill, Civ. No. 18-1106, 2019 WL 4094701, at * 1 n. 1 (Aug. 29, 2019), citing, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) and Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s well-supported opinion on the nature or severity of a claimant’s impairments to receive controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Miller v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-25(c)(2)

The treating physician rule provides that a treating source’s opinion on the nature or severity of a claimant’s impairments will be given controlling weight when it is well-supported by, and not inconsistent with, other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless the ALJ articulates good reasons for declining to do so.

Persons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-25(d)(2)

Not only was the ALJ required to address them, she was required to give them controlling weight unless she articulated good reasons for not doing so. Scott, 647 F.3d at 739; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Having failed to acknowledge these opinions at all, the ALJ’s decision did not adequately explain why the ALJ discounted the opinions of this treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors and explain the weight assigned when a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Devito v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-25(c)

The Second Circuit has long recognized the ‘treating physician rule’ set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). “‘[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008)). However, there are situations where the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, in which case 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 at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). However, “[w]here an ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the Regulations is clear, she is not required to explicitly go through each and every factor of the Regulation.” Blinkovitch v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2017 WL 782979, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 782901 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2017) (citing Atwater v. Astrue, 512 Fed. Appx. 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013)). After considering these factors, “the ALJ must ‘comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.’” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d at 129).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Bennett v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-27(c)(2)

When an ALJ decides not to give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ should consider the following factors—the length and frequency of the examining relationship, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion to evaluate it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Badescu v. Saul · filed 2019-10-28(c)(2)-(6)

When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must then evaluate the opinion by following the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6). These factors include: length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other factors.

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 consistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Rondina v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-28(c)(2)

The regulation states as follows in pertinent part: “If we find that a treating source’s 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, 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 opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Lyons v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-29(d)(2)

Under the SSA’s treating physician rule, “a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s condition is entitled to ‘controlling weight’ if it is: [1] ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [2] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’” Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If a treating source’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, then the ALJ should consider the following factors to determine what weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinions are supported by relevant medical evidence or explanation; (4) whether the opinions are consistent with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the treating source with respect to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors that may be significant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). ALJs do not have to recite each factor in their decisions, but they must “always give good reasons” for the weight they assign to a treating source’s opinion. See Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir.1998); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Failure to do so is grounds for remand. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require a detailed analysis of a treating physician’s opinion when medical evidence from treating or examining physicians contradicts it.

Stallings v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-30(d)(2)

The regulations require that examining physician’s opinions must be considered. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). If there is no reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant’s treating doctor, the ALJ may only reject the opinion of a treating physician if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physicians’ views under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Id. ... Here, the ALJ cited medical evidence from examining or treating doctors that contradicted parts of the opinions of treating Doctor Campbell and he weighted the doctor’s opinions accordingly. Tr. 221-31; see Kneeland, 850 F.3d at 760. Therefore, no detailed analysis under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) was required. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; the ALJ must apply this two-step analysis when evaluating the opinion.

Yanni v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-30(c)(2)

In determining disability, Social Security regulations require that 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). ... An ALJ must follow a two-step analysis when evaluating and weighing opinions from treating sources. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300-01. First, the ALJ must decide whether the treating source’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the answer to the first inquiry is in the affirmative, the ALJ then determines whether the physician’s opinion is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Id. In cases where both criteria are satisfied, the treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise evaluate it using specified factors.

Wolder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-30(c)(2)-(6)

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 opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the treating source’s expertise when weighing any medical opinion.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2019-10-22(c)(2)-(6)

When weighing any medical opinion, treating or otherwise, the Regulations require that the ALJ consider the following factors: length of treatment relationship; frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; relevant evidence used to support the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the entire record; and the expertise and specialized knowledge of the treating source.

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 supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to determine its specific weight using six factors.

Turner v. Saul · filed 2019-11-01(c)(2)

Under the rule, an opinion from a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by medical findings and consistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2); Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 514 (7th Cir. 2009). If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must then, in the second step of the analysis, determine what specific weight, if any, the opinion should be given. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). In making this determination, the ALJ must apply the checklist of six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2010). The checklist of factors are (1) the length of treatment and the frequency of examination; (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)(2). The larger principle embodied in the rule is that, all things being equal, a treating physician’s opinion deserves deference. ... The ALJ did not acknowledge or analyze the two steps of the rule, nor did the ALJ mention the six checklist factors. ... In sum, if the ALJ had explicitly applied the checklist, she may have reached a different result, but more importantly, she at least would have been forced to provide a more thorough explanation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, but permits less weight when the opinion is inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires consideration of the treatment relationship and other listed factors.

Vasquez v. Colvin · filed 2019-11-01(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,” the medical opinion of a treating source regarding the “nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairments” shall be accorded “controlling weight” where 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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Moreover, even if Dr. Gomez did qualify as a treating physician, I find that the ALJ set forth sufficient reasons to justify his decision to assign Dr. Gomez’s opinion only “limited persuasive weight.” (R. 45.) ... Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff had long been a patient at the Bowen Center but concluded that Dr. Gomez’s opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole and also noted additional factors that undermined Dr. Gomez’s opinion. (R. 45–46.) ... I find these reasons sufficient to support the ALJ’s decision to afford less than controlling weight to Dr. Gomez’s opinion. ... I therefore conclude that, even assuming that Dr. Gomez qualified as a treating physician, the ALJ did not violate the treating physician rule in his assessment of Dr. Gomez’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider listed factors when deciding what weight to give an opinion that is not controlling.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-04(c)(2), (d)(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 other substantial evidence in [the record].”’ Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion to consider specified treatment, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-04(c)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must consider the following factors to determine how much weight to give the opinion of a treating source: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ji) 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.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating-source opinion that lacks support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Langenkamp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-04(c)(2)

It is true that a treating source opinion need not be given “controlling weight” if it is not supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Morrisett v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-05(c)(2)

An ALJ will give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence. Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 2013); House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).