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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion only when objective medical evidence supports it and it is not inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

Lord v. SSA · filed 1998-06-14(d)(2)

Rather, the ALJ need only do so where objective medical evidence supports the treating physician's opinion and where the opinion is not inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

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

Section 404.1527 requires greater weight for treating-source opinions, controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Gonzalez v. Apfel · filed 1998-09-22(d)(2)

The regulations require that more weight be given to opinions from treating sources because those sources are more likely to have detailed knowledge and understanding of the medical impairment. ... If the opinion of the treating source regarding the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” contained in the record, the opinion will be given controlling weight. ... When the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner applies various factors to determine what weight the opinion should receive. ... These factors include: whether the source actually examined the claimant; the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations; the nature and extent of the treatment provided by the treating source including the kinds of examinations and tests performed or ordered by the treating source; the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant medical evidence such as medical signs or laboratory findings; whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and whether the treating source is giving an opinion in his area of specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Harrison Ex Rel. Harrison v. Apfel · filed 1999-08-03(d)(2)

It has long been recognized that the opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight in claims for Social Security disability, benefits if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... The Regulations state: "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.” 20 C.F.R. § 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). 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 source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Jones v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-20(d)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairments) 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Coyle v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-08(d)(2)

However, a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight only where it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cleveland v. Apfel · filed 2000-05-25(d)(2)

The regulations state that a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.... ” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In this case, the diagnosis of the treating physician, Dr. Small, indicates a disabling impairment but this diagnosis is not supported by objective medical evidence. Dr. Small finds plaintiff to be disabled but does not assess plaintiffs ability to work. He simply makes a conclusory finding that plaintiff is “disabled” without supporting this finding with objective medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Nemirovsky v. Apfel · filed 2000-06-22(d)(2)

That opinion 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.” 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 requires treating-source medical opinions to receive deference and be weighed using the regulatory factors even when they are not entitled to controlling weight.

Edlund v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-08-09

Even when not controlling, “treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed” using factors listed in the regulations. SSR 96-2p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; 20 C.F.R. § 416.927.

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 to apply specified factors when declining to do so.

Morillo v. Apfel · filed 2001-06-21

The “treating physician” rule requires the ALJ to accord more weight to the opinions of treating physicians if (1) the treating source’s opinion on the issue of the nature and severity of [the plaintiffs] impairment(s) 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. If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, he must apply several factors to determine what degree of weight should be assigned to the 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 when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Meinders v. Barnhart · filed 2002-04-17(d)(2)

The [social security] regulations provide that a treating physician’s opinion ... will be granted ‘controlling weight,’ provided the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’ ” ... Whether the weight accorded the treating physician’s opinion by the ALJ is great or small, the ALJ must give good reasons for that weighting. ... There is no allegation that Dr. Cavallin’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical ... diagnostic techniques” and it is not inconsistent with the opinions of the other physicians who have treated or examined Plaintiff. Finally, the ALJ did not provide good reasons for discounting Dr. Cavallin’s opinion. The doctor’s opinion, therefore, was entitled to controlling weight and is substantial evidence which detracts from the ALJ’s decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the Commissioner to weigh specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

KULAKOSKI v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-20(d)(2)

The “treating physician rule,” as it is known, “mandates that the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by the medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... If the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner applies various factors to decide how much weight to give the opinion. ... Those factors include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); ... When the Commissioner chooses not to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she or he must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it] gives [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” ... As such, the treating physician rule was observed and the ALJ gave proper weigh to Dr. Mortati’s findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dowdy v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-29(d)(2)

The “treating physician rule,” as it is known, “mandates that the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by the medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... Generally, we give more weight to opinions by your treating sources.... 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.

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 treating physician rule requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Perez v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-05(d)(2)

Furthermore, the ALJ properly gave controlling weight to Dr. Mancheno and Plaintiffs treating physicians at St. Barnabas Hospital under the “treating physician rule” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), which requires the ALJ to give controlling weight to a claimant’s treating physician if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

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 controlling weight for 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.

Soto v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-13(d)(2)

The regulations, applicable at the time of the ALJ’s decision, and which were first promulgated in 1991, state: "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." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Although these regulations have somewhat diluted the strength of the original rule, the ALJ must still give great deference to a treating physician's finding on disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment to receive controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Rodriguez v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-11(d)(2)

Pursuant to the treating physician’s rule, the opinions of Dr. Hauskenecht on the issues of the nature and severity of the impairments are given “controlling weight”, so long as 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence, and requires specified factors and good reasons when controlling weight is denied.

Balke v. Barnhart · filed 2002-08-31(d)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions by your treating sources.... 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. ... If the opinion of the treating-physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner applies various factors to decide how much weight to give the opinion. ... The factors include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); ... When the Commissioner chooses not to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she must “give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] gives [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”

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

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supporting findings, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Joseph v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-12(d)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical and laboratory findings; (4) the physician’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion and to give good reasons if the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Caserto v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-25(d)(2)

If the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must apply various factors to decide how much weight to give the opinion. ... 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 opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); ... When the Commissioner chooses not to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must “give good reasons in his notice of determination or decision for the weight he gives [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”

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

The regulation requires a treating physician's medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

O'DELL v. Barnhart · filed 2004-08-20(d)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician must be given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

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 who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, when deciding how much weight to assign it.

Rosato v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-22(d)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider various “factors” to determine how much weight to give the opinion, such as: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical and laboratory findings; (4) the physician’s .consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist.

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 regulation generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and requires controlling weight only when an opinion is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Hackett v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-24(d)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,” the Commissioner will generally give greater weight to the opinions of sources of information who have treated the claimant than of those who have not. Langley v. Barnhart , 373 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2). The initial step in evaluating the opinion of a treating source is to determine whether the opinion merits “controlling weight.” ... The analysis is sequential. The ALJ must first consider whether the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” S.S.R. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2 (quotation omitted). If the answer to this question is “no,” then the inquiry at this stage is complete. If the ALJ finds that the opinion is well-supported, he must then confirm that the opinion is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Id. In other words, if the opinion is deficient in either of these respects, then it is not entitled to controlling weight. Id. ... Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s decision to accord less than controlling weight to the referenced portion of Dr. Kimata’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) requires a disability decision to state specific, evidence-supported reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion.

Portwood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-10-13(d)(2)

There, the court stated that “pursuant to [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)], a decision denying benefits ‘must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’ ” ... Likewise, in this case, the ALJ’s reasons are not supported by the evidentiary record, and therefore there is an inadequate basis to reject the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs an ALJ to give more weight to treating-source opinions and controlling weight when they are well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Berrios-Velez v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-23(d)(2)

Generally, the ALJ gives “more weight to the opinions from the claimant’s treating physicians, because these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the .claimant’s medical impairments.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ will “give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... In the case at bar, the ALJ adequately explained his reasons for not giving controlling weight to Dr. Chen’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while subsection (e) reserves the ultimate disability determination to the ALJ.

Hodges v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-09(d)(2) and (e)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... However, it is the ALJ that is charged with determining the ultimate issue of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating physician's opinion when the record does not show that it was based on sympathy rather than professional judgment.

Foxman v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-28(d)(2)

Where, as in this case, there is no record evidence to suggest that sympathy rather than professional judgment informed a doctor’s opinion, the conclusion drawn by the ALJ is contrary to the treating physician rule, which presumes that more rather than less weight is properly accorded to the doctor who has most closely attended a claimant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s medical opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but once well-supported contradicting evidence is introduced, the opinion is no longer entitled to controlling weight.

Hofslien v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-03-01(d)(2)

The rule directs the administrative law judge to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Obviously if it is well supported and there is no contradictory evidence, there is no basis on which the administrative law judge, who is not a physician, could refuse to accept it. Equally obviously, once well-supported contradicting evidence is introduced, the treating physician’s evidence is no longer entitled to controlling-weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rivera v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-27(d)(2)

The ALJ is further required to explain and provide “good reasons” for the failure to credit a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (‘We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”). Failure to do so is a ground for remand. ... Since the regulations require that an ALJ give good reasons for rejecting the well-supported opinion of a claimant’s treating physician, and the ALJ did not do so here, his findings cannot be upheld because they are not supported by substantial evidence.

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).

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

Hill v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-18(d)(2)

As the regulations specify, a treating physician’s opinion alone is not dispositive of a disability determination: it may only be given controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence and when it is “well-supported” by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 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). 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 well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh listed factors and give good reasons for the reduced weight.

REHR v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-09(d)(2)

Social Security regulations require that an ALJ give “controlling weight” to the medical opinion of an applicant’s treating physician so long as 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(d)(2); ... The “treating physician rule” does not apply, however, when, as here, the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. ... When the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ “must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” ... Furthermore, when giving the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ must provide the claimant with good reasons for doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Richardson v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-06(d)(2)

Furthermore, the Commissioner’s regulations require that the ALJ “always give good reasons” in his decision for the weight he assigns to the opinions of treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise requires weighing specified factors.

Persico v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-06(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician 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.” ... When the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, a number of factors are used to determine what weight the opinion deserves, including (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the evidence in support of the opinion, (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, and (5) whether the opinion is from a specialist. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the opinions of Drs. Solis and Levine are entitled to substantial, if not controlling, weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons and consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Botta v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-13(d)(2)

The treating physician rule “mandates that the medical opinion of the claimant’s treating physician [be] given controlling weight if it is well supported by the medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... When the Commissioner chooses not to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the Commissioner must “give good reasons in his notice of determination or decision for the weight he gives [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” ... In his determination of the level of deference to give the treating physician, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); ... Failure to give good reasons is a ground for remand. ... The Court finds that the ALJ failed to give good reasons for his determination regarding the weight to be afforded to the opinion of Dr. Duca and Dr. Yentel and therefore violated the treating physician rule. Accordingly, remand is appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires greater weight for treating physicians’ opinions over a reviewing physician’s opinion when the treating opinions are supported by substantial evidence.

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-27(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the opinions of Drs. Alamo and Thomassen should have been given more weight than the reviewing opinion from Dr. Tzetzo because their opinions were supported by substantial other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an administrative law judge to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization when assigning weight to a treating source opinion.

Taylor v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-22(d)(2)-(6)

Moreover, we are satisfied that the ALJ relied on the relevant factors even if he did not specifically discuss them. See id. (explaining that explicit discussion of all the § 404.1527(d) factors is not a prerequisite to meaningful review).

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

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, and requires good reasons and consideration of specified factors when the opinion is discounted.

Morseman v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-22(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... When the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must consider several factors in deciding what weight to give to the opinion of the treating physician, including: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (5) other relevant factors. ... I find that the ALJ erred in failing to identify what weight he afforded Dr. Ci-lip’s medical opinion and failed to provide explanations, or “good reasons,” for apparently discounting Dr. Cilip’s medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight only when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and permits the opinion’s weight to be reduced based on factors including consistency.

Michels v. Astrue · filed 2008-10-30(d)(2), (d)(4)

Under the “treating physician” rule, “the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... The deference accorded to a treating physician’s opinion may, however, be reduced upon consideration of other factors, including the length and nature of the treating doctor’s relationship with the patient, the extent to which the medical evidence supports the doctor’s opinion, whether the doctor is a specialist, the consistency of the opinion with the rest of the medical record, and any other factors “which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii) and (d)(3)-(6). ... “Consistency” is a factor in deciding the weight accorded to any medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4). Given the inconsistencies here, the ALJ was free to discount Dr. Bogner’s opinions in favor of a broader view of the medical evidence, notwithstanding Bogner’s status as the “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) gives a treating source’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.

Burden v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-25(d)(2)

For the rule to apply, however, the treating physician’s opinion must be well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the Record.

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

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

Villella v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-24(d)(2)

For the rule to apply, however, the treating physician’s opinion must be well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the Record. ... In the present case, neither of the conditions for the application of the treating physician rule are met. ... Consequently, the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge did not commit an error of law in determining that, in this case, the treating physician rule does not require that controlling weight be given to Dr. Perlin’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 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, but the treating-physician rule does not apply when the physician did not treat the claimant during the relevant period.

Campbell v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-23(d)(2)

The treating physician rule is well established. “SSA regulations advise claimants that, ‘a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)’ will be given ‘controlling weight’ if the opinion is ‘well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.’ ” ... The rule applies equally to retrospective opinions. ... In the present case, however, the treating physician rules does not apply. Dr. Prewitt was not Campbell’s treating physician during the relevant period. ... Nonetheless, the fact that a subsequent treating physician, such as Dr. Prewitt, did not have that status at the time referenced in a retrospective opinion does not mean that the opinion is not entitled to significant weight. ... As a result, the ALJ and the Magistrate Judge did not commit an error of law in determining that, in this case, Dr. Prewitt’s retrospective opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

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.

Melvin v. Astrue · filed 2009-02-06(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician on the nature and severity of impairments is to be accorded controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

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 techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence, but does not require deference to an opinion inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rosa v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-23(d)(2)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Under this rule, the Commissioner is not required to give deference to the treating physician’s opinion where the treating physician “issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion, including when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Shrack v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-01(d)(2)

The regulations further provide that even if controlling weight is not given to the opinions of the treating physician, the ALJ may still assign some weight to those views, and must specifically explain the weight that is actually given to the 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 other substantial evidence in the case record.

Brickhouse v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-23(d)(2)

Among the legal standards governing an ALJ’s determination, the one most relevant to the present appeal is the treating physician rule, which requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if the physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ violated the treating physician rule.

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

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh every medical opinion using specified factors, and treating-source opinions receive substantial or controlling deference only when supported by objective medical evidence.

Poe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-08-18(b), (d)

Pursuant to the Social Security regulations, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion and consider the following non-exhaustive factors in deciding what weight to give each opinion: examining relationship, treatment relationship, the extent to which medical signs and laboratory findings support the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the doctor rendering the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). “Generally, the opinions of treating physicians are given substantial, if not controlling, deference.” Warner, 375 F.3d at 390 (citing King v. Heckler, 742 F.2d 968, 973 (6th Cir. 1984)). However, “[t]reating physicians’ opinions are only given such deference when supported by objective medical evidence.” Id.; Jones, 336 F.3d at 477. “If the treating physician’s opinion is not supported by objective medical evidence, the ALJ is entitled to discredit the opinion as long as he sets forth a reasoned basis for her [sic] rejection.” Jones, 336 F.3d at 477 (citing Shelman v. Heckler, 821 F.2d 316, 321 (6th Cir. 1987)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires an ALJ to give good reasons, based on the relevant factors, when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

Gunter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-01-15(d)(2)

These remarks fall far short of the ALJ’s duty to provide “good reasons” for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). As best we can determine, the ALJ refused to credit Dr. Nidus’s opinion because various non-examining doctors came to a different conclusion. The ALJ is, of course, entitled to credit the opinions of consulting physicians. However, while contradictions in the medical record are for the ALJ to resolve, Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128, they cannot be resolved arbitrarily, Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 106. Here, the ALJ’s incantatory repetition of the words “substantial evidence” gives us no indication at all of why he chose to credit the opinions of the consulting physicians over that of Dr. Nidus.

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 the ALJ to assess a treating source’s findings about the nature and severity of an impairment and explain why the opinion is rejected or what weight it receives.

Correale-Englehart v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-08(d)(2)

While the ultimate determination as to disability does rest within the discretion of the Commissioner, he is still required to assess the findings of a treating source when determining the “nature and severity” of a plaintiffs impairment and to explain why he is rejecting them or what weight was given to them. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lane v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-23(d)(2)

[a]n ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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.’ ... At the outset, the Court agrees that the ALJ did not properly apply the treating physician rule. As discussed above, when an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d), and must give “good reasons” for the decision. ... Such a cursory statement is insufficient.

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 not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Stanton v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-24(d)(2)

Because Dr. Lasda’s opinion was unsupported by objective clinical evidence and contradicted by his own records, the examination report of Dr. Ganesh, the report of a state agency disability analyst, and Stanton’s own account of her range of activities, the ALJ did not err in declining to accord it controlling weight. See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (observing that treating physician’s opinion “is not afforded controlling weight” where it is “not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts”); cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (according controlling weight to treating physician’s opinion if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in . . . case record”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ either to give a treating physician’s opinions controlling weight or to provide good reasons for discounting them.

Zabala v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-11(d)(2)

The ALJ was required either to give Scublinsky’s opinions controlling weight or to provide good reasons for discounting them.

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

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ may assign it lesser weight or reject it based on specified factors.

Bales v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-22(d)

So long as an “opinion is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record,” a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. ... But if either requirement is not met, the ALJ must decide whether to assign the opinion some lesser weight or reject it altogether based on the factors enumerated at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

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 who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Pereira v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-25(d)(2)

“When a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling’ weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... The Commissioner must then consider the above factors and make a determination as to the weight to be assigned to the opinion of the treating physician. ... “Failure to provide such good reasons for not [] crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is a ground for remand.” ... In the instant case, the ALJ failed to set forth a sufficient analysis. ... Finally, he failed to consider what weight to give to the treating sources’ opinions using the six factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(5). The ALJ’s failure to follow the treating physician rule is a failure to apply the proper legal standard and is grounds for reversal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hilsdorf v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-07-15(d)(2)

Under the “treating-physician rule,” the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician “regarding the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairments” will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record, and to evaluate consistency against the record as a whole.

Coldiron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-08-12(d)(2)

First, the rule does not instruct an ALJ to compare the consistency of treating and examining physicians’ opinions to each other. Instead, the rule instructs an ALJ to compare the consistency of a physician’s opinion to the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2); see also Hephner v. Matthews, 574 F.2d 359, 362 (6th Cir. 1978) (disability determination must be made on the basis of the record as a whole).

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

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors in weighing the opinion.

Mezzacappa v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-05(d)(2)

The “treating physician’s rule” is a series of regulations set forth by the Commissioner in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 detailing the weight to be accorded a treating physician’s opinion. Specifically, the Commissioner’s regulations provide that: ... 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. ... Further, the regulations specify that when controlling weight is not given a treating physician’s opinion (because it is not “well supported” by other medical evidence), the Court should consider the following factors in determining the weight to be given such an opinion: (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 report; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but the Commissioner need not defer to an opinion inconsistent with such evidence.

TRANTER v. Astrue · filed 2010-10-20(d)(2)

Tranter invokes the “treating physician rule,” which dictates that 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.... ” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Nonetheless, under this rule, the Commissioner is not required to give deference to the treating physician’s opinion where the treating physician “issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating source’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion, and to explain the reasons for giving it less weight.

Cornell v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-23(d)(2), (d)(3)

When a treating physician’s opinions are repudiated, the ALJ must provide reasons for the rejection. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Compliance with this requirement serves to assist a reviewing court in discerning the weight to be given to a treating physician’s opinions and, if rejected, the reasoning employed. ... In according less than controlling weight to Dr. Taylor’s opinion, the ALJ provided an explanation for doing so. ... The reasoning afforded for that rejection is proper; it is well-established that an opinion that is not based on clinical findings will not be accorded as much weight as an opinion that is well-supported. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3); ... The ALJ’s decision not to accord deference to Dr. Taylor’s opinion under the treating physician rule was therefore not improper and is supported by substantial evidence.

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 on the nature and severity of an impairment only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

POSKO v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-21(d)(2)

Contrary to Plaintiffs argument, treating physicians are not automatically entitled to controlling weight. Social Security regulations provide that a treating physician will be afforded controlling weight as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment, but only if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tarsia v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-07(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) is required to give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if the physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) calls for greater deference to treating physicians' opinions in Social Security proceedings, but the treating-physician rule does not apply to nursing-facility enforcement cases.

Golden Living Center-Frankfort v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 2011-08-31(d)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (requiring the ALJ give greater deference to the opinions of treating physicians in the social security context); see also Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007). This rule has no applicability to nursing facility enforcement cases. Indeed, it makes little sense to apply the treating physician rule in this context where the actions of the treating physician are at issue.

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

When a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider six listed factors in determining the proper weight to accord it.

Bailey v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-27(d)

Assuming that Dr. Plotz’s opinion constituted substantial evidence, the ALJ still failed to satisfy his duty to consider the six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) before completely rejecting Dr. Stein’s treating physician opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with the record generally receives controlling weight, and an ALJ who rejects it must provide a sound explanation and account for its value.

Jelinek v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-07(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with the record is generally entitled to “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010). An ALJ who chooses to reject a treating physician’s opinion must provide a sound explanation for the rejection. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). Jelinek argues, and we agree, that the ALJ did not explain satisfactorily in the written decision his rejection of Dr. Radzeviciene’s opinion. When an ALJ decides to favor another medical professional’s opinion over that of a treating physician, the ALJ must provide an account of what value the treating physician’s opinion merits. See Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ’s decision did not meet these requirements for rejecting Dr. Radzeviciene’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lamond v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-07(d)(2)

Lamond contends that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to the opinion of his treating physician, Dr. Douglas Wilson. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that treating physician’s opinion regarding impairment’s nature and severity is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record”); see also Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009). We are not persuaded. Here, the ALJ properly determined that Dr. Wilson’s disability opinion was unsupported or inconsistent with other record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Eslinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-02-27(d)(2)

According to the treating physician rule, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight as long as it 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(d)(2); see Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242 (explaining treating physician rule). Dr. Orlando is a treating physician because she “has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship” with Eslinger. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502 (defining “treating source”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable data and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to consider specified factors when assigning weight.

Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-19(d)(2)

Thus, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source if he or she finds the opinion well-supported by medically acceptable data and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... when a treating source’s opinion is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must apply certain factors: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, in deciding how much weight to give it.

Lowery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-23(d)(2)

Even if Dr. Rivera’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ should have still applied the relevant factors in determining how much weight to accord to the medical source opinions. It is well-established that when a treating source’s opinion is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must apply certain factors: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.” ... (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 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 other substantial evidence in the record.

Henry v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-10(d)(2)

Under the “treating physician’s rule,” the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion 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] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Garcia v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-16(d)(2)

Under the “treating physician’s rule,” the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion 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] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to apply specified factors and give good reasons before assigning a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Norman v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-25(d)(2)-(6)

Here, the ALJ gave the medical opinion of Dr. Beale, plaintiffs treating physician, less than controlling weight but did not apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. ■§ 404.1-527(d)(2)-(6). As noted by Judge Pitman, the ALJ discounted Dr. Beale’s opinion by stating that it could not “be afforded great weight,” but the ALJ did not explain why Dr. Beale’s opinion was not afforded great weight. The failure of the ALJ to provide “good reason” for not giving Dr. Beale’s opinions controlling weight, to mention, the .weight his opinions were given, and to apply the factors set forth in the regulations are sufficient grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion consistent with the other substantial evidence, while a later treating physician’s retrospective opinion may still receive significant weight.

Rogers v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-28(c)(2)

Pursuant to the treating physician rule, an ALJ is required to give “controlling weight” to the medical opinion of an applicant’s treating physician 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 record. ... Although Plaintiff argues that Dr. Fortner’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight under the treating physician rule, Magistrate Judge Smith correctly noted that the treating physician rule should not be applied here because Dr. Fortner was not Plaintiffs treating physician during the relevant time period. ... Accordingly, although a retrospective opinion by Dr. Fortner would not be entitled to controlling weight, it would be entitled to significant weight.

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 unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Bartrum v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-26(d)(2)

Under the “treating physician’s rule,” the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion 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] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to explain the reasons for assigning it lesser weight.

Cheryl Minor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-01-24(d)(2)

Our previous discussion foreshadows our further conclusion that the ALJ violated the treating physician rule. The agency promises claimants that it will give more weight to the opinions of treating sources than to non-treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The opinions of treating physicians carry more weight because they likely provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture” of the claimant’s medical impairment(s) that cannot be obtained from objective medical findings alone or from reports of consultants’ examinations. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. An ALJ must give a treating source opinion concerning the nature and severity of the 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 record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406. ... If the ALJ decides not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ may not reject the opinion, but must apply other factors to determine what weight to give the opinion, such as “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source[.]” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (citing § 404.1527(d)(2)). If benefits are denied, the ALJ must give “specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (July 2, 1996); Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242 (citing Rule 96-2p for the proposition that all cases carry a rebuttable presumption that a treating physician’s opinion “is entitled to great deference, its non-controlling status notwithstanding”).

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 record.

Weather v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-27(d)(2)

Under the “treating physician’s rule,” the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion 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] record.”

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

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

Campbell v. Barnhart · filed 2001-11-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion that an individual is disabled is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence....

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 a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, or provide good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Kane v. Astrue · filed 2013-04-26(c)(2)

The ALJ’s plainly erroneous description of Dr. Albert’s conclusion and consequent failure to consider or give controlling weight to Dr. Albert’s actual opinion — or provide “good reasons” for not doing so, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) — constituted plain error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight.

Pierce v. Astrue · filed 2013-05-17(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule” instructs the ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician, as long as the opinion is well-supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent with the other 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) requires controlling weight for an acceptable medical source’s well-supported opinion when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but does not bind an ALJ to give great weight to a nurse practitioner’s opinion because a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source.

Hartman v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-19(d)(2)

First, the answer to this question does not invoke the treating source rule under which acceptable medical sources are to be accorded controlling weight if their opinions are well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-2p. A nurse practitioner is not considered to be an “acceptable medical source” but rather falls within the category of “other sources” as defined by 20 C.F.R. 404.1513(d) and 416.913(d). ... ALJ Jacobs consequently was not bound to give great weight to the medical source statement of psychiatric nurse practitioner Ward, but could have chosen to give Ward’s assessment more weight if the ALJ concluded that it was supported by substantial evidence in the form of the medical records under review. ALJ Jacobs did not conclude so for good reasons in the Court’s view.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors in weighing it.

DiPalma v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-28(d)(2)-(6)

The “treating physician’s rule” is a series of regulations set forth by the Commissioner in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 detailing the weight to be accorded a treating physician’s opinion. Specifically, the Commissioner’s regulations provide that: ... 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. ... Further, the regulations specify that when controlling weight is not given a treating physician’s opinion (because it is not “well supported” by other medical evidence), the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the weight to be given such an opinion: (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 report; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Harris v. Astrue · filed 2013-04-03(d)(2)

Additionally, “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, such as the opinions of other medical records.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Barbour v. Astrue · filed 2013-06-21(d)(2)

If an ALJ refuses to give controlling weight, he must consider certain factors in deciding how much weight to give, including “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the [SSA]’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Monroe v. Colvin · filed 2013-07-18(d)(2)

Nevertheless, a treating physician’s opinion is to be given controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other evidence of record.

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.

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

Under the treating physician rule, an opinion from a medical professional who regularly treats the claimant must be given controlling weight if “(1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques;’ and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Espinosa v. Astrue · filed 2013-08-22(c)(2)

In such a case, the treating physician’s opinion is “binding” on the ALJ, who has no choice but to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. See Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that when “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 [plaintiff’s] case record, [SSA] will give it controlling weight”). Thus, the Court did not “usurp[] the Commissioner’s role as the fact-finder in this case” by concluding that Dr. Miller’s testimony was entitled to controlling weight, as defendant suggests (Mot. at 5); the Court merely determined that Dr. Miller’s testimony was supported by substantial evidence, a conclusion that requires the ALJ to give his opinion controlling weight.

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 to apply specified factors when determining the weight of that opinion.

Dickey-Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-09-30(c)(2)

Title 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 specifies how an ALJ must evaluate medical opinion evidence. ... An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to the opinions of a treating source 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. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Thus, examining the ALJ’s choice to only give less than significant weight to Dr. Clague’s medical source statement, and his assessment of Dickey-Williams’ residual function capacity therein, the Court concludes that the ALJ had substantial evidence to give the source statement the weight she did; and that even if the ALJ did not fully comply with § 404.1527, it is harmless error because the Court was capable of engaging in meaningful appellate review of her decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight, while the ALJ must weigh it under specified factors if it is not controlling.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-10-15(c)(2)

Under the pertinent regulations, more weight is generally given to the opinion of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). As long as the treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,” it will be given controlling weight. Id. If the ALJ chooses not to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he or she must determine what weight to give it by looking at various factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability of the opinion; its consistency with the record as a whole; the specialization of the physician or doctor rendering the opinion; and other factors that support or contradict the opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). ... The regulations, however, do not require that such an opinion be given any special significance. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). ... We find the ALJ’s explanations as to why he placed greater weight on Johnson’s non-treating physician to be adequate and supported by the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source's well-supported opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment to receive controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Yates v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-08(c)(2)

Where “a treating source’s opinion of 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” the record, it will be given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Doucette v. Astrue · filed 2013-09-25(c)(2)

An ALJ will generally give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if the ALJ finds that the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight and requires the decision-maker to give good reasons when denying controlling weight.

Miller v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2013-12-30(c)(2)

If the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must apply various factors to decide how much weight to give the opinion. ... “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(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors, including specialization, consistency, and supportability.

Menefee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-02-03(d)(2)

As further discussed below, the ALJ provided good reasons for discounting Dr. Hernandez’s opinions by using factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), including specialization of treating source, consistency of the opinion with the record, and supportability of the opinion. Therefore, the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Hernandez’s opinions did not violate the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(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, and otherwise to give good reasons and consider the regulatory factors in assigning weight.

Gentry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-02-04(d)(2)

As to the RFC or medical condition, an ALJ may only choose not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if she gives “good reasons . . . for the weight give[n],” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (now in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)), and if those reasons are “supported by the evidence in the case record, and [are] sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight,” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996). If the ALJ decides not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ may not reject the opinion, but must apply other factors to determine what weight to give the opinion, such as “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source[.]” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (citing § 404.1527(d)(2), now in § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-03-19(c)(2)

In addition, for the reasons just stated, the Court also agrees with Plaintiffs argument that ALJ Lombardo failed to give appropriate weight to the medical opinions of her treating physicians, Drs. Cole, Tambrini, and Watson, and thus violated the “good reasons” rule applicable to treaters. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Thus, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source if the ALJ finds the treater’s opinion well-supported by medically acceptable evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... Closely associated with the treating physician rule is the “good reasons rule,” which “require[s] the ALJ to always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source’s opinion.” ... “Those good reasons must be ‘supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’ ” ... When the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s assessment, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-03-20(d)(2)

Thus, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source if the ALJ finds the treater’s opinion well-supported by medically acceptable evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... When the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s assessment, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” ... The ALJ’s failure to adequately explain the reasons for the weight given a treating physician’s opinion “denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the conclusion of the ALJ may be justified based upon the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating physician's opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, and otherwise requires evaluation under specified factors.

Warren v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-24(d)(2)

A medical opinion by a treating physician about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including any resulting mental or physical restrictions, is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is well-supported by objective medical evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir.2011) (“[Treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight only if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.”) If a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it still must be evaluated using the same factors relevant to weighing other medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors governing the weight of that opinion.

Box v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-14(c)(2)-(6)

“An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. Among those factors are: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions because they provide a detailed longitudinal view of a claimant’s impairment, but an ALJ may discount such an opinion for good cause, including when it is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own records.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-03-28(d)(2)

The law is clear that the testimony of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. ... Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultive examinations or brief hospitalizations. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “The ALJ must articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” ... The Court finds the requisite “good cause” in this record and is convinced by the ALJ’s rationale for declining to afford Dr. Sidhom’s opinion substantial weight as the doctor’s opinions were either concluso-ry or inconsistent with his own medical records.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Englehardt v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-21(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion should 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 claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If it is not, the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. Id. Dr. Benjamin’s opinion is not supported by objective clinical findings, and thus it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 favors a treating physician’s opinion over the opinions of non-treating physicians when the Social Security Administration evaluates medical evidence.

Mongelluzzo v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-23

By rule, the Social Security Administration favors the opinion of a treating physician over non-treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stanley ex rel. D.M.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-03-31(d)(2)

The treating physician rule does not require giving Dr. Kore’s assessment controlling weight here, because it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, including the opinion of state agency medical consultant R. Mo-hanty, M.D., and medical expert Sharon Grand, Ph.D., both of whom concluded that D.M.S. had a less than marked limitation in the domain of attending and completing tasks.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless the opinion is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Hooke v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-16(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is generally given controlling weight, unless the opinion is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hall v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-11(d)(2)

An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider.various “factors” to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Among those factors are: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... An ALJ does not have to explicitly walk through these factors, so long as the Court can “conclude that the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule ... and provide[d] ‘good reasons’ for the weight she gives to the treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons when assigning the opinion less weight based on the regulatory factors.

Hagan v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-26(c)(2)

A treatment provider’s opinion is entitled to 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. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the amount of weight to give the opinion based on factors that include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the source provided evidence in support of the medical opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5)' whether the source is a specialist in the area in which the source renders the opinion; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(vi). The ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight he ultimately assigns to a treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Based on the factors outlined in the treating physician rule, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in assigning “little weight” to Dr. Li’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion.

Kessler v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-17(c)(2)

The Commissioner must, however, always provide “good reasons” for the weight, if any, he gives to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using the specified treatment-relationship, examination, support, consistency, and specialization factors.

Wilferth v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-01(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the factors considered by the ALJ include: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless the opinion is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic findings and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Hyer v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-28(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight under the regulations unless it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic findings and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for refusing to give a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight and for the weight actually assigned when it is not controlling.

Fiedler v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-30(c)(2)

However, “the Commissioner must set forth ‘good reasons’ for refusing to accord the opinions of a treating physician controlling weight.” ... “She must also give ‘good reasons’ for the weight actually given to those opinions if they are not considered controlling.” ... Here, as noted above, the Plaintiff contends that the ALJ did not adequately justify give discounting portions of the opinion of Dr. Ruggiero, her treating physician. The Court agrees. ... While genuine conflicts in medical evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve, when an ALJ accepts portions of a treating physician’s opinions, and reject others, it must set forth his or her reasons for doing so. Here, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to adequately do so. For this reason, the Court remands this matter to the ALJ to either accord substantial weight to all of Dr. Ruggiero’s opinion or more fully explain his reasons for not doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, but permits less weight when the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record.

Piatt v. Colvin · filed 2015-01-22(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule” requires the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician regarding “the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) ... [if it] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Court finds that these reasons provide substantial evidence for the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Mehl-Madrona’s opinion was not fully supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons.

Shilo v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-01-28(d)(2)

According to the treating physician rule, “[a]n ALJ must give the opinion of a treating [physician] controlling weight if he finds the opinion ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). If the ALJ decides not to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering factors such as: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406. Furthermore, the ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight” given to the treating physician’s opinion. Id. Such “good reasons” must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Id. at 406-07 (quoting Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996). This process enables the claimant to understand the reasons underlying the disposition of his case and permits meaningful appellate review. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. Agencies are bound to follow their own regulations, and we will not hesitate to remand a Commissioner’s opinion that fails to articulate “good reasons” for not crediting the opinion of a treating physician. Id. at 545.

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 consider the specified factors in determining the weight it deserves and provide good reasons for that decision.

Morgan v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-18(c)(2)

... the “treating physician rule” directs the ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinion of the treating physician so long as it is consistent with the other substantial evidence, Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion[,] . . . [including:] (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “We do not hesitate to remand when the Commissioner has not provided ‘good reasons’ for the weight given to a treating physician[’]s opinion.” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the substantial evidence in the record.

Wells v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-24(c)(2)

Treating physicians “may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations.... ” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The “treating physician rule” requires the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician regarding “the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) ... [if it] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Nascimento v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-12(c)(2)-(6)

For example, the ALJ fails to explicitly consider several factors such as the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship between Dr. Murukutla and Plaintiff, and he fails to consider the consistency of Dr. Murukutla’s opinion with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Henningsen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2015-06-08(c)(2)

Social Security Regulations provide that a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s symptoms 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 [claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires the hearing officer to explain the weight assigned if controlling weight is denied.

Clayton v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-14(c)(2)

As stated above, a treating .physician’s opinion ought be treated as controlling except when it is inconsistent with the record; if a hearing officer declines to give such an opinion controlling weight, she must explicitly state the reasons for the weight she ultimately does give the treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Scholtisek v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-22(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule” requires the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician regarding “the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) ... [if it] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight 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.

Miller v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-13(c)(2)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), if the treating physician’s opinion is: (1) well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial évidence in the case record, it is entitled to controlling weight, period.

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 techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to consider regulatory factors when declining to do so.

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-07-21(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule” requires the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician regarding “the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) ... [if it] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in' [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to-the medical opinion of a treáting physician must consider various “factors” to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Among those factors are: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Here, -ALJ Pitts determined that Dr. Lax’s opinion was unsupported by the doctor’s own objective findings and was inconsistent with the relatively conservative treatment of Plaintiffs physical complaints. (Tr. 15). This finding was made in accordance with the applicable legal standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Browne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-16(c)(2)

An ALJ must accord “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s medical opinion as to the náture and severity of a claimant’s impairments 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) requires an ALJ to explain why a treating physician’s opinion was not given controlling weight.

Dilworth v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-01(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain her reasons for not doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, with supportability and consistency relevant to the weighing decision.

Perry v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-08(c)(2)-(3)

Defendant agrees that a treating physician’s opinion may be entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. (Memorandum to Affirm at 16); see 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(1) (explaining the weight given to doctors who have a treatment relationship with a claimant). See also 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2)&(3) (providing that supportability and consistency with the record as a whole are relevant factors in weighing an opinion). ... Here, the undersigned agrees with the Defendant. ... Accordingly, in light of the ALJ’s extensive examination of the record as a whole and Dr. Jackson’s records and opinions specifically, and his justified challenges to the credibility and process of Dr. Jackson, the undersigned rejects the Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to evaluate Dr. Jackson’s opinions properly.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires adjudicators to consider six factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion and to give good reasons for that weight.

Vega v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-02(d)(2)

Hearing officers must consider all six factors, Bazile v. Apfel, 113 F.Supp.2d 181, 188 (D.Mass.2000), and “give good reasons ... for the weight [given to a] treating source’s opinion,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Laracuente v. Colvin · filed 2016-07-26(c)(2)—(6)

The “treating physician’s rule” is a series of regulations set forth by the Commissioner in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 detailing the weight to be accorded a treating physician’s .opinion. Specifically, the Commissioner’s regulations provide that: ... 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. ... Further, the regulations specify that when controlling weight is not given a treating physician’s opinion (because it is not “well-supported” by other medical evidence), the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the weight to be given such an opinion: (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 report; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Piscope v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-23(c)(2)

“[IJnextricably linked to the duty to develop the record,” Lacava, 2012 WL 6621731, at *13, is the so-called “treating physician rule,” under which an ALJ must give “more weight to opinions” of a claimant’s treating physician when determining if the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The rule directs the agency to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s medical opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight given to that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require an ALJ to defer to a treating physician's response that concludes whether a claimant is disabled rather than opining on the nature and severity of the claimant's impairment.

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-15(c)(2)

Putting aside the fact that there is no medical record from Dr. Sun indicating any diagnosis of a neck impairment, the ALJ was not required to defer to Dr. Sun’s response to the latter question because it did not opine on the “nature and severity of [Brooks’s] impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the SSA to give a treating physician's well-supported, non-inconsistent medical opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for any lesser weight.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-23(c)(2)

Under the so-called “treating physician rule,” an ALJ generally must give “more weight to opinions” of a claimant’s treating physician when determining if the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). An ALJ must accord “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s medical opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight given to that opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32-33 (2d Cir.2004) (citing Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir.1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The regulations make clear that the SSA “will always give good reasons ... for the weight [they] give [a claimant’s] treating source’s opinion,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The decision does not discuss either Dr. Gerami or Dr. Patel’s new medical opinions, let alone give “good reasons” for rejecting such opinions, as is required by the treating physician rule. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32-33. The agency’s failure to provide this explanation was legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, while considering specified factors when assigning weight.

Nusraty v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-29(c)(2)

However, a treating physician’s opinion as to the “nature and severity” of a plaintiffs impairments will be given “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the plaintiffs] case record.” ... An ALJ must consider a number of factors to determine how much weight to assign to a treating physician’s opinion, specifically: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating source's opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and to give good, record-based reasons when declining to do so.

Smith v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-02(c)(2)

In making a disability determination, an ALJ must generally give “controlling weight” to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician or psychiatrist as to the nature and severity of his patient’s physical and/or mental impairments if 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). ... Rather, it is obligatory that an ALJ who does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s professional opinion must plainly articulate good, record-based reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hooper v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-05(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight, provided the opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Crum v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-02(c)(2)

When an ALJ considers an individual’s claim for disability, she generally must give the opinion of that individual’s treating physician “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). But she must do so only if 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.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions more weight and requires controlling weight when an opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; if controlling weight is unwarranted, the adjudicator must consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Rorick v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-23(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, a treating source’s opinion is “[generally” given “more weight” because treating sources “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Such opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [a claimant’s] case record.” Id. When controlling weight is deemed unwarranted, a hearing officer must consider: ... Id. Moreover, the hearing officer must “give good reasons” for the determination as to how much weight was given. Id. ... Under these circumstances, it was proper for the hearing officer to assign no weight to Dr. Denzien’s opinion. That the hearing officer did not explicitly consider each and every regulatory factor in her explanation of Dr. Denzien’s opinion does not call for reversal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for the weight assigned when it is not controlling.

Anderson v. Colvin · filed 2016-12-21(d)(2)

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. When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion. ... The regulations also contain a clear procedural requirement that the ALJ must give “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, specific enough “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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (July 2, 1996). ... Failure to follow the procedural requirement denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the ALJ’s conclusion may otherwise be justified on the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Brown v. Colvin · filed 2016-12-22(c)

Under the Treating Physician Rule, a treating physician’s opinion “regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000). 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. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ingrassia v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-06(c)(2)

Relevant here, “[t]he regulations say that a treating physician’s report is generally given more weight than other reports and that a treating physician’s opinion will be controlling if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in'[the] record.’ ”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally directs the SSA to give more weight to treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed longitudinal picture of the claimant's impairment and a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

Gallagher v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-22(c)(2)

Generally, [the SSA] give[s] more weight to opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors and give good reasons when determining the weight of a treating physician's opinion.

Mauro King v. Berryhill · filed 2017-04-14(d)(2)

The Commissioner should consider the following factors and give “good reasons” to determine the weight accorded to a treating physician’s opinion: ... Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 503-04 (2d Cir. 1998); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2); 416.927(d)(2)). ... Accordingly, the “good reasons” cited by the Commissioner for affording Dr. Khanna’s opinion no weight are based on erroneous conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to show that it considered a treating source’s opinion and to thoroughly explain and support any decision not to give it controlling weight.

White v. Colvin · filed 2017-06-23(c)

Once a medical source has been identified as a treating source, the regulations require, at a minimum, that the ALJ make some determination that a reviewing court could consider as indicia that the ALJ considered the opinions of a claimant’s treating source in accordance with § 404.1527(c), and any decision not to accord those opinions controlling weight is thoroughly explained and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight 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.

Craig v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-11-22(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, provided the opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give more weight, and potentially controlling weight, to a treating source’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with the record.

Trancynger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-09-05(c)(2)

In general, the ALJ must give “more weight to medical opinions” from a claimant’s treating sources when determining -if the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... An ALJ must accord “controlling weight” to a treating source’s medical opinion as -to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments- 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] ease record.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments when the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the record.

Lim v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-22(c)

For these reasons, the opinion of a treating physician must be given controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, so long as the opinion “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.”

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.

Jacob v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-30(c)(2)

This Court applies the “treating physician rule[,]” which establishes that a treating physician’s report is “binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.” Contreras v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 15CV1277TSCDAR, 2017 WL 943900, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2017); Settles v. Colvin, 121 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2015); Espinosa v. Colvin, 953 F. Supp. 2d 25, 32 (D.D.C. 2013); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2) (stating that when “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 [plaintiff’s] case record, [SSA] will give it controlling weight”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Laferrera ex rel. M.J.S. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-03-31(d)(2)

Social Security regulations require that the ALJ give “controlling weight” to the medical opinion of an applicant’s treating physician so long as the opinion 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Morin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-04-13(d)(2)

give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s condition 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (language moved to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) on March 26, 2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a treating source who has treated the claimant longer and more often and has developed a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

Geer v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-23(e)(2)(i)

First, the ALJ was clearly correct to cite the fact that Dr. Partain did not have an extensive treatment relationship with Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion. When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the source’s opinion more weight than we would .give it if it were from a nontreating source.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh the listed factors, need not discuss each factor individually, and must give good reasons for discounting the opinion.

Krick v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-16(c)

Such an opinion is entitled to controlling weight where it is “‘well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantia l evidence in [the] record.’” ... If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must evaluate it based on the length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examinations, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the support for the opinion in the medical evidence, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician. ... “When an ALJ discounts a treating [source’s] opinion, he should give good reasons for doing so.” ... However, though ALJ Garelick was required to consider all the factors listed in the applicable regulation, he was not required to discuss each of them. ... Here, the Court concludes that the ALJ satisfied the requirement to give good reasons for discounting Dr. Nolan’s opinion by discussing the inconsistencies in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; otherwise the ALJ must weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fooks v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-17(d)(2)

If the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply various factors to decide how much weight to give the opinion. ... 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 opinion; (iii) the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. ... When the ALJ chooses not to give the treating physician's opinion controlling weight, he must "give good reasons in his notice of determination or decision for the weight [he] gives [the claimant's] treating source's opinion."

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, if it does not receive controlling weight, to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Ridge v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-30(d)(2)

If the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply various factors to decide how much weight to give the opinion. ... When the ALJ chooses not to give the treating physician's opinion controlling weight, he must "give good reasons in his notice of determination or decision for the weight [he] gives [the claimant's] treating source's opinion." ... A failure by the ALJ to provide "good reasons" for not crediting the opinion of a treating physician is a ground for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to assess its value using specified factors.

Scheie v. Colvin · filed 2018-04-02(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight if it is “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011). An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of a treating physician. See Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2011). If an ALJ denies a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she is still required to determine what value it merits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011). In assigning that value, the ALJ must “consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.”6 Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to apply the regulatory checklist in determining the weight it deserves.

Okubo v. Colvin · filed 2018-05-09(c)(2)

The “treating physician” rule “directs the administrative law judge to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.’” Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375, 376 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). ... The ALJ did not explicitly engage in this two-step analysis. ... However, the ALJ failed to analyze the record evidence through this checklist or provide a “sound explanation for the rejection” of Dr. Maguluri’s recommendation. Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Miracolo v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-26(d)(2)

When the ALJ chooses not to give the treating physician's opinion controlling weight, he must "give good reasons in his notice of determination or decision for the weight [he] gives [the claimant's] treating source's 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 medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Stephens v. Berryhill · filed 2018-04-24(d)(2)

"A treating physician's opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits an ALJ to discount an opinion contradicted by the record.

Anselm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-06-11(c)(2)

Ordinarily, the “opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. However, the ALJ may set aside an opinion of a treating physician that is contradicted by the weight of other record evidence. Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Cohen v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 643 F. App’x 51, 53 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order) (opinion of a treating physician is “not absolute”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Walsh v. Colvin · filed 2018-07-09(c)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must also “offer good reasons for discounting” the opinion of a treating physician. Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted); Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. And even if a treater’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740; Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. See id.