20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

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

Chojnacki v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-05(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 medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight, consider specified evaluation factors, and explain the decision without necessarily reciting every factor.

Bradshaw v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-08(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, if it does not receive controlling weight, to evaluate specified treatment-relationship and opinion factors and explain the weight assigned with good reasons.

Herrmann v. Saul · filed 2019-11-12(c)

Even if the Court concluded that the ALJ articulated good reasons not to give controlling weight to Dr. Kraft’s opinions, the ALJ still erred by failing to address the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (requiring ALJ to determine the weight to give a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion by considering the treatment relationship’s length, nature, and extent, the consistency of the opinion, the support for the opinion, and the treater’s specialty).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rahni v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-14(c)(2)

Plaintiff fails to identify any “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” to support Dr. A’Bodjedi’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Trepanier v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 752 F. App’x 75, 77–78 (2d Cir. 2018) (summary order) (rejecting claimant’s argument that “ALJ improperly gave no weight to a statement by his treating physician” where the “statement was not accompanied by clinical findings designed to support his conclusory description.”). ... Given these and other similar treatment records, no violation of the treating physician rule occurred because the ALJ, in affording lesser weight to Dr. A’Bodjedi’s opinion, determined that the opinion was not otherwise supported by the objective findings in the record and was inconsistent with the treating physician’s own treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, and requires good reasons if the ALJ declines to give it controlling weight.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-15(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Santana v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-18(c)(2)

However, the ALJ must give “controlling weight” to a “medical opinion” from a claimant’s “treating source” if the treating source’s opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the administrative record, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404,1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... If an ALJ determines that a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding what weight to accord that opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of treatment; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) explanations the source provides for the opinion; (4) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(¢)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ need not recite each factor explicitly, provided the ALJ’s decision reflects substantive application of the regulation. ... However, an ALI’s failure to set forth “good reasons” for the weight accorded to a treating source opinion is a ground for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

MILLER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-11-20(c)(2)

Although a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), the ALJ gave “little weight” to the 2018 opinion of Miller’s treating physician, Dr. Amir Fayyazi. ... The ALJ provided substantial evidence to discount Dr. Fayyazi’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Franco v. Saul · filed 2019-11-21(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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) requires the ALJ to consider the relevant factors and determine the appropriate weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is not given controlling weight.

Romich v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-22(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(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 record.

Guzman v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-26(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(c)(2) entitles a treating physician’s opinion to controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Edler v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-26(c)(2)

But an ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are in the best positions to provide “detailed, longitudinal picture[s] of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 Fed. 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) applies only to a doctor's medical opinions about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment; a general statement about a symptom is not entitled to controlling weight or evaluation under the regulation's factors.

Kenealy, Monica v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-12-02(c)(2)

But the regulation Kenealy cites doesn’t apply to every statement that comes from a doctor; it applies only to medical opinions, which it defines as statements from medical sources “that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(a)(1). Bixler’s statement isn’t an opinion under this definition. He merely observes that Kenealy has experienced fatigue, a symptom that he warns is “subjective and difficult to quantify.” R. 366. He says nothing about the nature or severity of Kenealy’s fatigue, only discussing fatigue in general terms. And he doesn’t indicate how fatigue might specifically limit Kenealy. In short, there’s nothing to give controlling weight to in Bixler’s statement, so the ALJ didn’t err in declining to give it controlling weight and in assigning it little weight without considering it under § 404.1527’s factors.

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 substantial evidence.

Dooley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-04(c)(2)

If the ALJ decides not to give the opinion controlling weight, he is to weigh it applying the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). Supportability and consistency are two important factors to be considered in weighing medical opinions. In a nutshell, “[t]he regulations state that an ALJ must give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by ‘medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [,]’ and (2) it is ‘not inconsistent’ with substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion under the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Herrera v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-04(c)(2)

Indeed, the ALJ was required to apply the two-step treating physician rule to Dr. Nyase’s opinion. This requires, first, that the ALJ determine whether Dr. Nyase’s opinion was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and, second, whether it was “consistent with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ concludes that neither of these criteria are met, as the ALJ concluded here, the physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. Id. However, once the ALJ reaches this conclusion, the analysis is not over. Rather, the ALJ must then determine how much weight to give the opinion, utilizing the relevant factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. See Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1331. This requires the ALJ to “give good reasons” that are supported by the relevant factors, for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion. It is at this juncture where the ALJ erred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to determine the deference it deserves after considering the six listed factors.

Gonzales v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-05(c)

At the second step of the analysis of a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ “must determine what deference he will accord the opinion after considering the six deference factors listed” in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion, including when declining to give it controlling weight.

Cappuzzello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-09(c)

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the ALJ consulted the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.4527(c) and provided good reasons for rejecting Dr. Venkatram’s opinion. ... In sum, it is clear from the ALJ’s decision that she properly considered the regulatory factors and articulated good reasons for the weight given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Morris v. Saul · filed 2019-12-10(c)(2)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that this rule governs claims filed before March 27, 2017, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a) (2017)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when assigning weight, and does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Busby v. Saul · filed 2019-12-12(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.’” ... In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” ... However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported and consistent treating source opinion to receive controlling weight, requires good reasons for the weight assigned, and directs that greater support from relevant medical evidence warrants greater weight.

Christy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-12(c)(2), (c)(3)

Two related rules govern how the ALJ was required to analyze Dr. LeMay’s opinion. ... The first is the “treating physician rule.” ... The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Closely associated is “the good reasons rule,” which requires an ALJ always to give “good reasons . . . for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source opinion.” ... In order to meet the “good reasons” standard, the ALJ’s determination “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.” ... More to the point, the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. LeMay’s opinion was consistent with regulations and has record support. ... For instance, the ALJ reasonably considered that no radiographic imaging supported Dr. LeMay’s opinion—even though Dr. LeMay stated that such evidence existed. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Grenauer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-13(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mosaquites v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-16(c)(2)

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

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 is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Scalia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-16(d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight but only when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to opinions from treating sources and requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the case record.

Annis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-17(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 Fed. 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(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2019-12-18(d)(2)

Under both the Commissioner’s Regulations and Fourth Circuit law, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight “if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2002).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires deference to a treating physician’s opinion and weighing it under the listed factors when it is not given controlling weight.

Brown v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-18(c)(2)(i)-(c)(6)

If a treating physician’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the opinion is still entitled to deference and it must be weighed using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(c)(6).

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, to weigh it under the regulatory factors while giving good reasons for the weight assigned.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-18(c)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source4 if the ALJ finds that the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)5; ... If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, he must determine the weight to give that opinion based upon a number of regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Although an ALJ must “consider” all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and must “apply” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including its subsections, through (c)(6) to determine the weight to give that opinion, he is not required to discuss every factor in his decision as long as he provides “good reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2019-12-20(c)(2)

As pertinent to the instant case, a treating source’s opinion as to the nature and severity of the impairments will be given controlling weight — when well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and when the opinion is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, apply the listed factors, give controlling weight if it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Acly-Blakeslee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-23(c), (c)(2), (c)(1)-(6)

In assessing a disability claim, an ALJ must consider and weigh the various medical opinions of record. The Commissioner’s regulations provide that “[r]egardless of its source, [the ALJ] will evaluate every medical opinion [she] receive[s].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The failure to do so is an error warranting remand. ... 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] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 106. An ALJ may give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but the ALJ 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). The ALJ is required to consider “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues” in determining how much weight to afford a treating physician’s opinion. Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Social Security Administration to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and to explain the reasons when it gives the opinion less weight.

Thiboult, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-26(c)(2)

The Social Security Administration 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); 416.927(c)(2). 3 If the treating physician’s opinion does not meet this standard, the Administration may discount it, but it is “required to explain the weight it gives to the opinions of a treating physician . . . Failure to provide ‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is a ground for remand.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while allowing consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency.

SEJECK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-27(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating source's opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Several factors may also be used to determine the weight given to a medical opinion including: the length of the treatment relationship; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability by the medical evidence; and consistency with the record as a whole. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Norris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-27(c)(2)

A treating source opinion must be given “controlling weight” if such opinion (1) “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; 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 source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must support giving it less weight with substantial evidence.

Rabache v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-30(c)(2)

If the opinion meets both criteria, the ALJ must give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight. Id. To give anything less than controlling weight, the ALJ must demonstrate with substantial evidence that the opinion (1) is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” or (2) is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Nieves v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-30(d)(2)

The SSA has mandated specific procedures an ALJ must follow when considering the weight to assign to a treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. “[T]he opinion of a [plaintiff]’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Coreno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-30(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 gives a treating physician’s opinion substantial and sometimes controlling weight; controlling weight applies when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

HOLLOWAY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-12-30(c)(2)

Applying the pre-2017 rules, the medical opinions of a treating physician “are entitled to substantial and at times even controlling weight.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527[(c)](2)). A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

TODD v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-12-30(c)(2)

In fact, the regulations provide that for claims, such as this one, filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion is to be given “controlling weight” so long as the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 43; Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Drake v. Saul · filed 2019-12-17(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) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to give good reasons and consider specified factors when assigning weight.

Litz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-17(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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and, if it is not controlling, to explain its weight using the listed factors and good reasons.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-02(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source medical opinion is given controlling weight unless it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Because the ALJ made only bare conclusory findings, rather than giving “good reasons” for his weight determinations based upon the factors outlined in the regulations as required, I cannot meaningfully review his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion that is not given controlling weight, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and familiarity with the Social Security program and case record.

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

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), when not assigning controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner should consider the length of the relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, how well-supported the opinion is by medical signs and laboratory findings, its consistency with the record as a whole, the treating source’s specialization, the source’s familiarity with the Social Security program and understanding of its evidentiary requirements, and the extent to which the source is familiar with other information in the case record relevant to the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence; §§ 404.1527(d)(1) and (d)(3) reserve disability determinations to the Commissioner and deny special significance to opinions on reserved issues, although the ALJ must explain the consideration given.

Decorrevont v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-06(c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(3)

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), 416.927(c); see also Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). ... The Commissioner is “responsible for making the determination or decision about whether [a claimant] meet[s] the statutory definition of disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... Opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, including opinions that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work,” are not medical opinions as described under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). They are “administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.” Jd. The Commissioner does “not give any special significance to the source of an opinion” on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3); see also Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 511 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-5p, 1996 WL 362206 (July 2, 1996) (“even when offered by a treating source,” an opinion that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is “never [] entitled to controlling weight or given special significance.”)). ... However, the ALJ must still “explain the consideration given to the treating source’s opinion(s).” Bass, 499 F.3d at 511 (quoting SSR 96-5p).

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 the opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Bowler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-07(c)(2)

The regulations state: Generally, we give more weight to medical opinions from your treating sources . . . . If we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (emphasis supplied; second and third alterations in original).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned to that opinion.

Glover, Sr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08

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. 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)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when an ALJ gives it less weight.

Arcadi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08(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. 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

The applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), provides, in 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 record, we will give it controlling weight. [Emphasis added] ... Here, the ALJ explained that he gave little weight to Dr. Miner’s opinion because it was inconsistent with the diagnostic findings, imaging reports, and the many normal findings on exams. (Tr. 32).

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; an unsupported or inconsistent opinion may receive lesser weight.

Ferguson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-14(c)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), the ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a claimant’s treating physician when 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.” The ALJ may nevertheless give the treating physician’s opinion lesser weight when it is not supported by substantial evidence. ... Because Dr. Gagarin’s treating opinion was not consistent with the substantial evidence in the record, it was weighed by the ALJ, but not afforded controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician's supported, consistent opinion and explain the reasons and regulatory factors when assigning it less weight.

Linder v. Saul · filed 2020-01-14(c)(2)

In weighing Dr. Nasir’s opinion, the ALJ was bound by the “treating physician rule” that was in effect when Plaintiff filed his application. If a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of an individual’s impairments is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ will credit that opinion with “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). ... An ALJ must provide “good reasons” not to grant controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. See Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 503–04 (2d Cir. 1998). And, when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ should “comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned” to that opinion, considering the factors identified in the SSA regulations. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). These same factors are to be considered when evaluating other medical opinion evidence. For the reasons set forth below, ALJ Weiss failed to provide “good reasons” for not crediting Dr. Nasir’s opinion with controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

West v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-15(c)

The factors governing this second inquiry include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) how well the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area on which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. See id. at 1119 (quotation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

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

Schulte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-16(d)(2)

In reviewing an application for Social Security benefits, the ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight where the following two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) it is “not inconsistent” with substantial evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-16(d)(2)

The ALJ reasonably considered and discounted Drs. Spencer and Heyer’s opinions because they were inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. See Tilley, 394 F. App’x at 222, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“[A] treating physician’s opinion that is . . . ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,’ is not controlling.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion, give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and provide good reasons when assigning it less weight.

Rustemi v. Colvin · filed 2020-01-17(c)(2)

The Commissioner must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, “[r]egardless of its source,” when determining whether an individual is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The Commissioner will give the medical opinion of a treating source “controlling” weight if the Commissioner finds that the opinion as to the “nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (describing the principle as the “treating physician rule” (citations omitted)); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (“When . . . substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion, however, that opinion will not be deemed controlling.”). Importantly, the regulations set forth various “factors” that ALJs must consider in determining how to weigh medical opinions, including treating physician opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth his [or her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Failure to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion constitutes grounds for remand. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33 (“We do not hesitate to remand when the Commissioner has not provided ‘good reasons’ for the weight given to a treating physicians opinion and we will continue remanding when we encounter opinions from ALJ’s that do not comprehensively set forth 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 to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Keyes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-16(d)(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 [a claimant’s] case record.’” Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Williams v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-17(c)(2)

As noted previously, Dr. Heredia’s treating source medical opinions were entitled to controlling weight if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” of 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 well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, consider specified factors if declining to do so, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Beyers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-21(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, she 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). ... An ALJ is not required to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion where it is inconsistent with his own treatment records.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record to receive controlling weight, and requires an ALJ who discounts it to give good reasons based on specified factors.

Maluchnik v. Saul · filed 2020-01-23(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion like Dr. Schmid’s report is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. That involves assigning a specific weight to the report by considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 5 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see also Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 515 (7th Cir. 2009).

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 other substantial evidence, and to give good reasons when declining controlling weight.

Webb v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-24(c)(2)

The social security regulations require that an ALJ give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”10 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 269 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that “the ALJ is supposed to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent, or inconsistent, with other evidence in the record in deciding what weight to accord the opinion”). ... The ALJ must give “good reasons” for not affording controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Saul v. Astrue, No. 2:09–cv–1008, 2011 WL 1229781, at *2 (S.D.W.Va. March 28, 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Spellman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-24(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); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(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); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(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 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.

(SS) Shaban v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-27(c)(2)

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). ... Here, the ALJ considered the treatment relationship with Dr. Rubio, but found that his opinion was not consistent with the medical record as a whole. Further, the ALJ gave significant weight to Dr. Wagner’s opinion, finding it to be based on a through and well documented examination and because Dr. Wagner was board-certified in internal medicine. (AR 17-18.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ may assign it less weight based on contrary evidence and supporting explanations.

Eckenrode v. Saul · filed 2020-01-28(c)(2)

Moreover, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Scouten v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 722 F. App’x 288, 290 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Therefore, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to assign limited weight to Dr. Dermen’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to opinions from a claimant’s treating source when deciding disability.

Salati v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-14(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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Montelli v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-16(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that “the opinion of a [plaintiff’s] treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) [now, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)]). When the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, “the ALJ must explicitly consider” a number of factors to determine the proper weight to assign, including “(1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and, (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)); see generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks adequate medical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Coatney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-16(c)(2)

An ALJ need not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or if it is 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 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight, while allowing the ALJ to disregard the source’s conclusion that the claimant is unable to work because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Putnam v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-05(c)(2)

In fact, the regulations demand that a medical opinion from a treating source be afforded “controlling weight” where 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). ... However, § 404.1527 does not give the ALJ any grounds for discrediting Dr. Miller’s medical opinions related to Putnam’s functional capacity. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 does not provide the ALJ with a proper ground to discredit opinions of Dr. Miller, other than his opinion that Putnam is unable to work due to her limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Trunk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-06(c)(2)

When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” as happened here, he must “explicitly consider” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including ‘“(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”’ Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a non-controlling treating-physician opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability.

Butcher v. Saul · filed 2020-02-06(c)

Applicable regulations require an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion by considering the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion. ... Specifically, she needed to consider the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including the consistency between Dr. Mitchell’s July 2017 opinion and the rest of the record. ... The court cannot decipher from the ALJ’s decision how, if at all, she considered all of the regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source’s opinion to give it controlling weight when warranted or explicitly consider the factors governing a decision to assign it less weight.

Watson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-05(c)(2)

The regulations define a “treating source” as an “acceptable medical source who provides [claimant], or has provided [claimant], with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527)(a)(2). Accordingly, though the ALJ’s decision does not explicitly reflect the fact that Dr. Davis qualifies as a treating physician, as a licensed psychologist who has treated Plaintiff continuously for over two years, the Court assumes that the ALJ considered Dr. Davis to be a treating physician. As such, the ALJ was required to either assign Dr. Davis’s opinion controlling weight, or “explicitly consider” the Burgess factors. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95–96.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence, requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when assigning weight, and applies the same factors to non-treating sources with examination replacing the treatment relationship.

Marbut v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-06(c)

The Second Circuit has long recognized the ‘treating physician rule’ set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “‘[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” ... In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” ... 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. ... The factors for considering opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, with the consideration of whether the source examined the claimant replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(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.

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

In weighing Dr. Green’s opinion, ALJ Chaykin was bound by the “treating physician rule” in effect when Plaintiff filed her application. If a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of an individual’s impairments is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, an ALJ 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 requires controlling weight for a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion and permits an opinion on whether a claimant meets a listing to be discounted because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Hicks v. SSA · filed 2020-02-12(c), (d)(2)-(3)

ALJ’s must give “controlling weight” to opinions from treating sources “[i]f [they] find that a treating source’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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ must provide “good reasons” for not giving a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. Id. ... Although Hicks’ treating physician, Dr. Twyman, signed an affidavit indicating that he believes the claimant meets Listing 11.09 (AR 611), his opinion is not entitled to any special significance because whether a claimant meets a listing is a matter reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(3).

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 not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Spaulding v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-07(c)(2)

Despite the presumptive weight given to the opinions of the treating physician, if those opinions are not “well-supported” or are inconsistent with other substantial evidence, then the opinions need not be given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider every medical opinion, but does not require explicitly reconciling every conflicting piece of medical testimony.

Morrisson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-19(c)

Although § 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider every medical opinion that he receives, he is “not required to explicitly . . . reconcile every conflicting shred of medical testimony . . .” Dean v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-6323 HBS, 2019 WL 3450971, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. July 31, 2019) (citing, inter alia, Miles v. Harris, 645 F.2d 122, 124 (2d Cir. 1981)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to explain the weight assigned.

Sherman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-19(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record|.]” 20 C.F.R, § 404,1527(c)(2), [I]f the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, it must explicitly consider the following, nonexclusive Burgess factors: (1) the frequen{cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Torres v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-20(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, while the listed factors guide the weight assigned to the opinion.

(SS) Cassidy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-21(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion may be discounted if not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... The ALJ also considered whether Dr. Kirby’s opinion was supported by the totality of the evidence and consistent with other evidence in the record. AR 23. Accordingly, the Court does not find reversible error.

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 the other substantial evidence in the record.

Ross v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-21(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(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating physician’s medical opinion, and § 404.1527(d)(1) does not permit the ALJ to disregard medical opinions merely because the letter also addresses whether the claimant is disabled.

Sekigawa v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-02(c)(2)-(6), (d)(1)

Although it is true that whether a claimant is “disabled” is an issue reserved for the Commissioner, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), merely because the August 1, 2017 letter also contains an opinion on that ultimate issue does not mean an ALJ can disregard the medical opinions that are included in the letter. ... “Even if a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted, the ALJ may not simply disregard it. The ALJ is required to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining how much weight to afford the treating physician’s medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sipcich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(d)(2)

Under the so-called “treating physician’s rule,” the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight where it is supported by medical evidence in the record, and entitled to controlling weight where it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Treating physician opinions, however, are not determinative and are granted controlling weight only when they are not inconsistent with other controlling evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 4040.1527(d); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002)). In the instant case, the ALJ’s determination to afford only some weight to the portion of Dr. Gullickson’s finding that Plaintiff was capable of sitting for 20 minutes, standing for five minutes, and walking for 10 minutes at one time without interruption for the entire workday is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Boren v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-02(c)(2)

If a treating physician's opinion as to the nature and severity of impairment is: (1) well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given "controlling weight." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors in weighing treating-source opinions, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Wright v. Saul · filed 2020-03-03(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires 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, while opinions not given controlling weight must still be weighed using the regulation's factors.

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

A treating source opinion must be given “controlling weight” if such opinion (1) “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Indeed, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion and requires evidence-supported, sufficiently specific reasons when an ALJ discounts that opinion.

Busshart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(c)(2)

An ALJ’s evaluation of record medical opinions in determining a claimant’s RFC is governed by the treating physician rule. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). According to the rule, if a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of an individual’s impairments is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ will accord the opinion “controlling weight.” ... In discounting the opinion of a treating physician, an ALJ shall provide “good reasons” in support of the determination. 20 C.F.R. 416.1527(c)(2); ... This Court finds the ALJ’s reasoning is insufficient to satisfy the good reasons rule, where “good reasons must be supported by the evidence and be sufficiently specific.” ... Here, the ALJ fails to identify any portion of Dr. MacLean’s opinions or Plaintiff’s medical record in support of her determination. Accordingly, this Court finds remand is warranted for the ALJ to comprehensively set forth her reasons for according “little weight” to Dr. MacLean’s medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to decide whether a treating-source opinion is entitled to controlling weight before applying the regulatory factors for weighing that opinion.

Fluhart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-21(c)(2)

Instead, the ALJ improperly reduced the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by the Regulations into solely consideration of the factors—specifically, the “supportability” and “consistency” factors. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(1)-(6). This constitutes error because the “supportability” and “consistency” factors, along with the others listed in the Regulations, “are properly applied only after the ALJ has determined that a treating-source opinion will not be given controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion to consider specified factors in deciding how much weight the opinion deserves.

Robles v. Colvin · filed 2020-02-24(c)(2)

If the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight the opinion is due: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion was from a specialist; and (v) any other factors 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) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and to consider specified factors when determining the weight otherwise due.

Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-25(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Holtman v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-26(c)(2)

Generally, a treating-source opinion must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires substantial or considerable weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless good cause supports giving it less weight, and § 404.1527(d) does not permit an ALJ to reject functional limitations merely because the ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-21(c)(2), (d)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. ... The Court agrees, and thus finds that the ALJ’s statement that “the issues of whether the claimant is ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ are reserved to the Commissioner” is an insufficient explanation for rejecting Dr. Hill’s Opinion. ... The Court declines to accept the premise that an ALJ may conclude that a functional limitation within a treating physician’s opinion is equivalent to a determination of disability and then reject the treating physician’s opinion because determinations of disability are reserved to the Commissioner. ... Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ’s conclusory statement that Dr. Hill’s Opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole precludes proper review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) provides that a doctor's opinion that a claimant is disabled is not given special significance because that determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Salerno v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-24(d)(3)

A doctor’s opinion that a claimant is “disabled” is not given special significance because that determination is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3); see Micheli v. Astrue, 501 F. App'x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2012) (finding that a treating physician’s statement that claimant is disabled cannot be determinative).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Strauch v. Saul · filed 2020-10-29(c)

The Social Security regulations make clear that the Commissioner “will evaluate every medical opinion [he] receive[s].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Courts have consistently held it to be error when the ALJ fails to evaluate an opinion in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, and § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion; rejecting it requires more than a perfunctory explanation.

Lockerby v. Saul · filed 2020-01-30(b), (c)(2)

In evaluating relevant evidence, the ALJ must “always consider the medical opinions in [a] case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). And where the ALJ receives a medical opinion from a treating physician, the ALJ must give that opinion “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.” Lewis, 858 F.3d at 867 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)). When the ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion, they must provide more than a “perfunctory” explanation for doing so. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh treating-source opinions under the regulatory factors and prohibits subjecting them to more rigorous scrutiny than non-treating and nonexamining opinions.

Tajkowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-30(c)

By crediting Dr. Torello’s opinions without weighing them under any regulator factor, and by not recognizing the rebuttable presumption applicable to Dr. Godwin’s opinions, the ALJ erred by subjecting Dr. Godwin’s treating-source opinions more rigorous scrutiny than he applied to Dr. Torello’s opinions. “A more rigorous scrutiny of the treating-source opinion than the nontreating and nonexamining opinions is precisely the inverse of the analysis that the regulation requires.” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 379 (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c); Soc. Sec. R. 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pilarski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-04(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record.

Davis v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-31(d)

Finally, the Court need not decide which of these doctors, if any, is a “treating source.” Evaluating all of the medical evidence under the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) would result in giving more weight to Dr. Ringler’s evaluations, because (1) he examined Davis, (2) he treated Davis on more than one occasion and, therefore, was in a better position than the other doctors to develop a longitudinal picture of Davis’ condition, and (3) his evaluation is supported by a medical evaluation of Davis’ exertion capabilities.

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

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

Fuller v. Shalala · filed 1995-09-15(d)(2)

more weight is accorded a treating physician’s opinion than a consulting physician’s opinion as long as the treating physician’s opinion is supported by medical evidence and is not inconsistent with substantial other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record; otherwise, the adjudicator must give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Frank v. Chater · filed 1996-05-01(d)(2)

The Secretary must give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in ... [the] case record.” ... On remand, the ALJ must consider Dr. Cohen’s analysis or provide good reasons for the weight the ALJ accords to it.

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 techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Saviano v. Chater · filed 1997-03-05(d)(2)

Evaluation of physicians’ testimony is governed by the “treating physician rule.” As specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), the rule provides that the treating physician’s opinion as to the claimant’s disability is controlling if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, an is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Even if the treating physician’s opinion is retrospective, it will be binding unless contradicted by other medical evidence or by “overwhelmingly compelling” non-medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Filocomo v. Chater · filed 1996-11-07(d)(2)

The Secretary’s regulations provide that a treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

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

Geracitano v. Callahan · filed 1997-10-01(d)

Evaluation of physicians’ testimony is governed by the “treating physician rule.” As specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d), the rule provides that the treating physician’s opinion as to the claimant’s disability is controlling if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... On the other hand, the ALJ had a responsibility to seek clarifying information from Dr. Comerford, who the plaintiff identified as a longstanding treating physician.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight and to give the opinion appropriate weight.

Carey v. Apfel · filed 1998-05-21(d)(2)

The ALJ did not give Dr. Devanny’s opinion controlling weight, but he went on to actually review the factors mentioned in the regulations before rejecting his opinion. ... Dr. Devanny’s opinion that Carey can no longer work in any capacity should have been accorded some weight according to the factors outlined by the regulations.

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

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

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

Here, as Judge Roberts correctly found, the ALJ did not give a good reason to afford Dr. Folk’s exertional limitations opinion no weight. As a medical doctor, Dr. Folk’s exertional limitations opinion was entitled to some weight even though it was on a subject outside of Dr. Folk’s expertise. Even if, as Judge Roberts found and I agree, the record supports affording Dr. Folk’s exertional limitations opinion no weight when considering all of the Section 404.1527 factors, the ALJ did not conduct that analysis and state her conclusions as the reason for affording Dr. Folk’s opinion no weight. Accordingly, the Court sustains claimant’s objection to that portion of Judge Roberts’ R&R.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. "[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 v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008)] (third brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, [the ALJ] must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2))). At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) limits controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Poltz v. Saul · filed 2020-01-13(d)(2)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). The ALJ must clearly state the legal rules that he applies and the weight that he accords the evidence considered. ... “Although the treating physician rule generally requires deference to the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician, . . . the opinion of the treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where . . . the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record . . . .” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kelly v. Social Security · filed 2019-12-16(d)(2)

“The regulations also specify that the Commissioner ‘will always give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] give[s] [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.’” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (alterations in original). ... It is clear to the Court that the ALJ considered the above-mentioned factors in weighing the opinions offered by Dr. Coleman, and gave good reasons for declining to give them controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion for controlling weight and give good reasons for the weight assigned when it is not controlling.

Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-13(c)(2)

Further, even if the ALJ was entitled to give Dr. Mora-McLaughlin’s opinion less than controlling weight, he was required to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the prior regulations, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

Under the treating physician rule that was applicable at the time the ALJ’s decision was rendered,3 the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is entitled to controlling weight as long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). ... I am satisfied that a searching review of the ALJ’s decision demonstrates that he complied with the substance of the treating physician rule. ... Accordingly, I find that the ALJ’s decision as a whole demonstrates that he complied with the substance of the treating physician rule. The ALJ acted within his discretion in finding that Dr. Nickolova’s opinion was not supported by her own treatment notes, the record more generally, or Hill’s activities of daily living. Therefore, remand is not warranted on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

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.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. “An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the[se] . . . factors when assigning weight at step two is a procedural error.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). However, such error is harmless if “a searching review of the record” confirms “that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” Id. (quotations omitted). 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); see also Harris v. Colvin, 149 F. Supp. 3d 435, 441 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (“A corollary to the treating physician rule is the so-called ‘good reasons rule,’ which is based on the regulations specifying that ‘the Commissioner “will always give good reasons”’ for the weight given to a treating source opinion.” (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32)). “Those good reasons must be supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific . . . .” Harris, 149 F. Supp. 3d at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Second Circuit “[does] not hesitate to remand when the Commissioner’s decision has not provided ‘good reasons’ for the weight given to a [treating physician’s] opinion and [it] will continue remanding when [it] encounter[s] opinions from [ALJs] that do not comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33. In this case, the ALJ gave the April 2014 opinion from Dr. Kalakada partial weight. (Dkt. 6-2 at 37). The ALJ found that the opinion was “consistent with physical examinations at the time [Plaintiff] fractured her ankle,” but that “it is somewhat vague and the limitations opined are temporary, as they were expected to last no more than six months.” (Id.). The ALJ further noted that “there is no evidence Dr. Kalakada specializes in the fields of orthopedics.” (Id.). The Court has reviewed Dr. Kalakada’s April 2014 opinion and finds it consistent with the ALJ’s description, and that the ALJ provided good reasons for giving the opinion partial weight. The Court further finds that the ALJ complied with the treating physician rule, having noted that Dr. Kalakada was Plaintiff’s primary care physician and that he did not specialize in orthopedics and having further considered the consistency of his opinions with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion to give good reasons and consider the specified treatment, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

Hopkins v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-18(c)(2)–(6)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must give “good reasons” for whatever weight is assigned. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32. In doing so, the ALJ is bound to consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence that supports the treating physician's opinion; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant. 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-30(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the 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 the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Gaskin v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-13(d)(2)

The treating physician rule makes clear that a treating physician must be accorded controlling weight so long as his or her opinion is consistent with substantial evidence in the record and well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks adequate clinical support or conflicts with substantial record evidence, but requires good reasons and consideration of specified factors if the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Lewis v. Saul · filed 2020-08-18(c)(2)

The D.C. Circuit has adopted what is known as the “physician rule,” which states that a “treating physician’s report is ‘binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.’” ... An ALJ may reject or discount a treating physician’s opinion if such opinion is (1) not “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” or (2) “inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ should provide “good reasons” for the weight given and should consider a number of specific factors, such as the length and extent of the treating relationship, the “[s]upportability” of the medical opinion, the “[c]onsistency” with the record, and the doctor’s specialization. Id. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Morgan v. Saul · filed 2020-09-23(c)(2)

If the ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion, she should give “good reasons” for doing so. Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 2007); 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ did not give good reasons here.

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-19(c)(2)

The treating physician rule states that the opinion of a treating physician should be “given more weight than other reports and . . . will be controlling if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’” Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires good reasons for the weight assigned to it.

Woods v. Saul · filed 2020-10-16(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Smith v. Saul · filed 2021-01-04(c)(2)

An ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). While the Commissioner has attempted to provide such good reasons for the partial weight given to Dr. Johnson’s opinion, Eighth Circuit precedent clearly establishes that the blanket statement provided by the ALJ is not sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight and to explain the weight assigned with sufficiently specific reasons.

Seberig v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-29(c)(2)

The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... To meet the “good reasons” standard, the ALJ’s determination “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight and requires the ALJ to give good reasons when it does not.

Zatarain v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-03(c)(2)

If a treating physician's opinion as to the nature and severity of impairment is: (1) well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given "controlling weight." ... When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must give "good reasons" for the weight given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the opinion’s consistency and support, and the physician’s specialty.

Ratkovich v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c)

Here, the Court does not believe the ALJ articulated “good reasons” for not giving controlling weight to Dr. Giese’s opinions. Even if there were sound reasons for refusing to give this opinion controlling weight, the ALJ still erred by assigning it little weight without considering relevant regulatory factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (i.e., length, nature, and extent of treatment relationship; opinion’s consistency with other evidence; explanatory support for the opinion; and any specialty of the treating physician).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, requires specific good reasons when less weight is assigned, and directs the ALJ to consider specified factors.

Dunlap v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-24(c)(2)

The treating physician rule “generally requires deference to the medical opinions of a [plaintiff's] treating physician[.]”. Hallorn v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) (The opinion of a treating physician is to be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record[.]’). To that end, the Social Security Regulations require the Commissioner to “always give good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source opinion. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32; quoting 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, the reasons must be specific and supported by evidence in the record. Marth v. Colvin, 6:15-cv-0643, 2016 WL 3514126, *6 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016); accord Blake v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009). 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; (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.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). “When other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion...that opinion will not be deemed controlling...[aJnd the less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given.” Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999); accord 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(4). Here, the ALJ complied with the treating physician rule by providing good reasons for affording little weight to Dr. Ambrus’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dewert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(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), 416.927(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.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... An ALJ 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), 416.927(c)(2); see also Harris v. Colvin, 149 F. Supp. 3d 435, 441 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (“A corollary to the treating physician rule is the so-called ‘good reasons rule,’ which is based on the regulations specifying that ‘the Commissioner “will always give good reasons”’ for the weight given to a treating source opinion.” (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32)). “Those good reasons must be supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific[.]” Harris, 149 F. Supp. 3d at 441 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the SSA to give good reasons in its notice or decision for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, but the requirement applies only when the medical source was a treating physician when the opinion was offered.

Barker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-06(c)(2)

Because Bohinski was not Barker’s treating physician, the Court need not, and does not, consider the Commissioner’s alternative argument that the ALJ gave good reasons for giving less than controlling weight to Bohinski’s opinions. ... The “good reasons” requirement would only apply if Bohinski had been Barker’s treating physician at the time Bohinski offered the opinions in question, which he was not. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (‘We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

McDonald v. Saul · filed 2022-06-07(c)(2)

The ALJ affords 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 other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); see Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010). If a treating physician’s opinion is being discounted, the ALJ “must give good reasons” for doing so. 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 source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Battaglia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-08(c)(2)

Under the regulations applicable when Mrs. Battaglia first filed her claim, treating source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ must give good reasons for the weight afforded to a claimant’s treating source’s medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s failure to articulate her reasoning in full regarding these findings deprives the Court of the ability to conduct a meaningful review of the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Warren’s opinion. As such, I find the claim must be remanded for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when proper medical testing supports it and it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Stone v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-20(c)(2)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, when the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. Id. ... Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to give good, sufficiently specific reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion so later reviewers can discern the weight assigned and the reasons for it.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-27(c)(2)

Where the opinions of a treating physician are rejected, the Commissioner must provide “good reasons” that “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.” § 404.1527(c)(2); 96-2P, 1996 WL 374188 at *5. The ALJ plainly failed to meet this standard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it conflicts with other substantial evidence, but requires consideration of the regulatory factors and good reasons for the weight assigned.

Busshart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-29(c)(2)

Nevertheless, even when a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(I), (2)(ii), (3)–(6). ... The failure to provide “ ‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is a ground for remand.” ... Given these controlling legal principles, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s determination to discount the opinions of Drs. Peer and Maclean on the basis of the lack of support for those opinions in the record and the inconsistencies which existed with their own findings and the other record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(c)(2), an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must consider the regulatory factors and comprehensively explain good reasons for the weight assigned.

Cunningham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-06(c)(2)

Nevertheless, even when a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(I), (2)(ii), (3)–(6). ... “After considering the above factors, the ALJ must ‘comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.’ ” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (alteration in original) (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33). The failure to provide “ ‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is a ground for remand.” Id. at 129–30 [citation omitted]. ... Nothing in the ALJ’s decision indicates that he followed the required regulatory framework, nor did articulate his reasoning with sufficient specificity to satisfy the “good reasons” requirement in effect at the time Plaintiff filed her application for benefits.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the pertinent regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Yanni v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-07-29(c)(2)

Second, “even if Dr. [Whalen’s] opinion is not entitled to controlling weight,” ALJ Lindsay was required to “consider the pertinent factors and give good reasons for the weight [s]he ultimately assign[ed] the opinion.” ... In addition to supportability and consistency, the pertinent factors are the length of the treating relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treating relationship, and the treating physician’s specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... There is no evidence in ALJ Lindsay’s Decision that she considered these factors at all, as she does not reference Dr. Whalen’s specialty, the fact that he treated Yanni from December 2004 through June 2018, or the treatments he administered. (AR 2760–2761.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)'s good-reasons requirement applies to treating-source opinions, not opinions from consultative examiners.

Branham v. SSA · filed 2025-02-26(c)(2)

Indeed, while an ALJ must provide “good reasons” when explaining the weight that has been given to treating providers’ opinions, Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242, this requirement does not extend to an ALJ’s consideration of a consultative medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus, because Dr. McGuire was not a treating physician, [see R. 31 at pg. 11 (recognizing that Dr. McGuire is not a treating physician)], ALJ Eiler did not have to provide “good reasons” for explaining the lack of weight given to her medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Foust · filed 2025-11-17(c)(2)

Under the so called “treating physician rule,” the opinion of a treating source is afforded controlling weight where well-supported by objective medical evidence and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 316 (3d Cir. 2000). ... Where a conflict exists between a treating source and another medical source, an ALJ accept, reject, or weigh each opinion, so long as “good reasons” are provided for doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). It is the duty of the ALJ to explain the rationale for the weight afforded. ... Because the ALJ based his decision to afford little weight to Dr. Wilson, a treating physician, upon his own law interpretation of medical records and only a single medical opinion, which, we cannot say was contradictory to Dr. Wilson’s assessed limitations given the unresolved conflict contained therein, we are unable to say that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Wilson’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to give good reasons and adequately consider the regulatory factors governing the opinion’s weight.

Perez · filed 2026-03-03(c)(2)

This rule entitles a treating physician's opinion controlling weight if the opinion is both well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Brown, 845 F.3d at 252 (7th Cir. 2016); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2019). “When controlling weight is not given, an ALJ must offer ‘good reasons’ for doing so, after having considered: (1) whether the physician examined the claimant, (2) whether the physician treated the claimant, and if so, the duration of overall treatment and the thoroughness and frequency of examinations, (3) whether other medical evidence supports the physician's opinion, (4) whether the physician's opinion is consistent with the record, and (5) whether the opinion relates to the physician's specialty.” Brown, 845 F.3d at 252; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the ALJ did not adequately discuss the factors that must be analyzed to determine the proper weight to be afforded to Dr. Evans’s opinion. This error was not harmless. ... Because the ALJ misapplied the treating physician rule when she evaluated Dr. Evans's opinion respecting plaintiff's permanent lifting and carrying restrictions, this case must be remanded for further proceedings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record receives controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must explain the weight given with good reasons, though the ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor.

Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-17(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinions that he or she receives in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... 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). ... Furthermore, an ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the ALJ’s] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s characterizations, the ALJ pointed to specific record evidence in support of her decision to reject Dr. Naum’s opinion. In so doing, she satisfied the “good reason” requirement of the treating physician rule. ... Taking all of the above into account, the Undersigned finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to assign no weight to Dr. Naum’s opinion. ... The ALJ followed the proper analysis and adhered to the treating physician rule, providing “good reasons” for assigning less than controlling weight to Dr. Naum’s opinion.

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

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

Shiver v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-02(d)(2)

The determination of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).