20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to apply a six-factor checklist, and failure to apply it is reversible error.

Vernia v. Colvin · filed 2018-07-23(c)(2)

To make this determination, the ALJ must apply the checklist of six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308 (referring to the factors as a “required checklist”). Failure to apply the checklist is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, or explain its rejection by analyzing the six listed factors.

Kenner v. Colvin · filed 2018-07-31(c)(2)

The treating physician rule, as interpreted by the judges of this District, requires that an ALJ give controlling weight to the opinions of a treating physician, and if not, explain why those opinions were rejected by undertaking an analysis of the six factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires a sound explanation when an ALJ declines to give it controlling weight.

Rancatore v. Colvin · filed 2018-08-13(d)(2), (c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if supported by the medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). When an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must provide a sound explanation for the rejection. Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2010); see also 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 good reasons in its notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion.

Messina v. Comm'r of Soc. SEC. Admin. · filed 2018-09-05(c)(2)

Indeed, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) provides that “[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-09-27(c)(2)

Regulations in effect at the time Cook filed his claim required the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion if it was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally entitles a treating doctor's opinion to controlling weight when it is consistent with the record.

Hall v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-15(c)(2)

Under the rule, which (although now repealed) applies to Hall's claim based upon it being filed before March 27, 2017, a treating doctor's opinion generally is entitled to controlling weight if it is consistent with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Krupczyk v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-10-29(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff's claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician's opinion is entitled to "controlling weight" when it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]" ... Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician's opinion, he must "give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives to the] treating source's medical opinion."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and must give good reasons when declining controlling weight.

Amburgey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-11-07(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician if it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record . . . .’” ... “If the Commissioner determines that it will not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, it must provide ‘good reasons’ for its decision.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not violate the treating physician rule. Several of Dr. Potter’s opinions were contradicted by, or inconsistent with, substantial evidence in Plaintiff’s medical record—including some of his own previous findings. Further, the ALJ provided “good reasons” for discounting Dr. Potter’s opinions and explained how those reasons affected the weight given to his opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, but need not explicitly address every factor if the decision shows awareness and consideration of many of them.

Okor v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-28(c)

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.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Although the ALJ did not address every factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the Seventh Circuit has held that The ALJ need not do so when the “decision makes clear that he was aware of and considered many of the factors.” Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 Fed. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013) (unpublished decision).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion first to determine whether it merits controlling weight and then to explicitly analyze the listed factors when assigning weight.

Wolf v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-29(c)

The two step-process is clear: first, the ALJ must determine whether the opinion deserves controlling weight (which is decided by whether it is supported by the record); and second, the ALJ must discuss and analyze the checklist in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ further erred in her Step Two analysis. Step Two of the treating physician rule requires the ALJ to look to a list of factors to determine what weight to give an opinion. That list of factors includes the following: examining relationship, treatment relationship (length and nature of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, along with nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). It is clear that the ALJ did not explicitly consider the checklist factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). This Court takes the view that an explicit analysis of the checklist is required under the treating physician’s rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating physician's well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, but requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons when assigning it less weight.

Winder v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-29(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider the following factors if it decides to afford less than controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion: "(1) the frequent[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist." ... Failure to provide "good reasons" for not assigning the proper weight of a treating physician is grounds for remand. ... Essentially, the Plaintiff's objection is that the ALJ failed to robotically make a factor-by-factor determination when explaining his reasons for departing from Dr. Healy's opinions. But "[a]n 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.' " ... Because those reasons are apparent from his decision, the ALJ did not depart from the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Distefano v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(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] case record."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to provide good reasons when assigning a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight.

Sink v. Colvin · filed 2019-04-29(c)(2)

If the Commissioner decides to assign less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinions, she must always provide “good reasons” for that determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ramsook v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-15(c), (d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant's treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment as long as it “‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... While the ALJ need not expressly address each factor, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight accorded to the treating physician’s opinion. See Atwater v. Astrue, 512 Fed. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) (stating that the agency “will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion”); Zabala v. Astrue, 595 F.3d 402, 409 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The ALJ was required either to give [the treating physician’s] opinions controlling weight or to provide good reasons for discounting them.”). ... First, the ALJ provided good reasons for according only partial weight to the opinion of Dr. Gopal. The ALJ explained that he did not give Dr. Gopal’s opinion controlling weight because it was not entirely consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, including Dr. Gopal’s own findings. (R. 19-20.) ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in assigning partial weight to Dr. Gopal’s opinion in light of this conflicting evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh the opinion using the listed factors, including specialization.

Schulz v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-23(c)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and if it is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case.” ... If the ALJ does not give the treating physician opinion controlling weight, the ALJ cannot simply disregard it, but must proceed to the second step and determine what specific weight it should be given. To accomplish this, the ALJ must look to a list of factors to determine what weight to give an opinion. ... The list of factors includes the following: examining relationship, treatment relationship (length and nature of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, along with nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 CFR 404.1527(c).

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 case record.

Estrella v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-29(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. “[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well‐supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (third brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) provides that an ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Barnes v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-03(c)(2)

An ALJ will give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)–(3) does not require controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion on matters reserved to the Commissioner, including residual functional capacity or ability to work.

Desantis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-05(d)(2)–(3)

However, an ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion on matters reserved to the Commissioner, such as conclusions regarding a claimant’s RFC or ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the SSA to explain why it gives a treating physician’s medical opinion less than controlling weight.

Barbera v. Barnhart · filed 2005-10-04(d)(2)

The ALJ failed to explain why he declined to give controlling weight to the opinion of Barbera’s treating physician. For this reason, we VACATE the judgment of the district court, and REMAND to the district court with instructions to remand to the Social Security Administration’s Office of Hearings and Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than to examining-source opinions and recognizes that treating physicians' ongoing relationships give them a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

James LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CHATER · filed 1996-04-09(d)(1), (d)(2)

While this would be a reason to give less weight to Dr. Taylor's opinion than to the opinion of a treating physician, it is not a reason to give preference to the opinion of a doctor who has never examined the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... Indeed, the treating physician's opinion as to the combined impact of the claimant's limitations--both physical and mental--is entitled to special weight. As the Commissioner's own regulations recognize, treating physicians like Dr. Kho bring a "unique perspective to the medical evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jerry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2000-04-03(d)(2)

Under the regulations, the opinion of a treating medical source is controlling, provided that the treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes treating, examining, and non-examining medical sources and gives their opinions decreasing weight in that order.

Taylor v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-08

The agency regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of accepted medical sources: (1) sources who have treated the claimant; (2) sources who have examined the claimant; and (3) sources who have neither examined nor treated the claimant, but express their opinion based upon a review of the claimant’s medical records. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. A treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a non-examining reviewing or consulting physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to opinions from treating and examining sources than to opinions from non-treating and non-examining sources.

McGinnis v. Astrue · filed 2010-05-04(d)(1), (d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician is generally accorded greater weight by the ALJ than an opinion from a non-treating physician. ... Generally, the Commissioner gives more weight to the opinions of examining sources than to those of non-examining sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally favors medical opinions from treating and examining sources, but permits crediting a non-treating, non-examining opinion when it is well supported, consistent with the record, and grounded in relevant specialization.

Billie J. Woods v. Berryhill · filed 2018-04-26(c)

In general, an ALJ should accord “more weight to medical 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).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); id. § 404.1527(c)(1) (stating the same presumption for examining sources). An ALJ may, however, credit the opinion of a non-treating, non-examining source where that opinion has sufficient indicia of “supportability in the form of a high-quality explanation for the opinion and a significant amount of substantiating evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; and specialization in the subject matter of the opinion.” Brown, 873 F.3d at 268; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) requires an ALJ to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence when rejecting a treating or examining doctor's contradicted opinion.

(SS) Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(d)(3)

“If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)). ... For the above stated reasons, the ALJ did not err in assigning reduced weight to Dr. Fabella’s opined limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than examining-source opinions and greater weight to examining-source opinions than nonexamining-source opinions.

Sandoval v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(c)(1)

In general, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to more weight than an examining physician’s opinion and an examining physician’s opinion is entitled to more weight than a nonexamining physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a medical opinion as a judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment and what the claimant can still do, while a qualifying treating-source opinion receives controlling weight under subsection (c); treatment records that contain no such opinion need not be assigned weight.

Hope v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-17(a)(2), (c)

Under the Social Security Act and its implementing regulations, if a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)(2). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as one “that reflects[s] judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” Therefore, the ALJ was not required to accord Dr. Baljepally’s treatment records any weight, because they did not provide an “opinion” within the meaning of the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the weight given to a non-examining source's opinion depend on its supporting explanation and consideration of the pertinent evidence, including opinions from treating and examining sources.

Irwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-18(c)(3)

The weight afforded the opinions of non-examining sources “depend[s] on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). The ALJ evaluates “the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources.” Id. ... The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Peterson’s opinions based on the absence of support in and inconsistency with the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to an examining source than to a non-examining source, although a non-examining opinion may be credited when it is consistent with other independent record evidence and the ALJ gives specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Kong v. Colvin · filed 2024-12-10(c)(1)

Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a source that examined a claimant, such as Dr. Harrison and Dr. Branting, than that of a non-examining source, like Dr. Elmi. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). However, a non-examining source’s opinion can “constitute substantial evidence when it is consistent with other independent evidence in the record.” Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). “In order to discount the opinion of an examining physician in favor of the opinion of a nonexamining medical advisor, the ALJ must set forth specific, legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1466 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the ALJ set forth specific and legitimate reasons for crediting Dr. Elmi’s opinion over Dr. Harrison and Dr. Branting’s opinions. The ALJ detailed how Dr. Elmi’s opinion was more consistent with the record than Dr. Harrison and Dr. Branting’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) leaves the use and consideration of medical expert testimony to the ALJ's discretion.

Dominguez v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-18(f)(2)(iii)

Contrary to Dominguez’s assertion, the ALJ was not required to obtain medical expert testimony to determine whether his alcohol use was disabling; the use and consideration of medical expert testimony is solely within the discretion of the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1526, 404.1527(f)(2)(iii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) permits, but does not require, an administrative law judge to ask for and consider a medical advisor’s opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment or whether it equals a listed impairment.

Coleman v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-05-24(f)(2)

The language of the regulations applicable to an ALJ's use of medical advisors is permissive, not mandatory: "[ALJ]s may ask for and consider the opinions of medical advisors on the nature and severity of your impairment(s) and whether your impairment(s) equals the requirements of any listed impairment...." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the relevant evidence supporting a medical opinion and the source's explanation for it relevant to the weight assigned to that opinion.

Vigil v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-28(c)(3)

The ALJ’s finding that Dr. Summerlin’s restrictions on standing and walking were inconsistent with his own examination findings is a good reason for giving that medical opinion only moderate weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (stating that “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that opinion [and t]he better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) directs that medical opinions receive more weight when supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and consistent with the medical record as a whole.

Smallidge v. SSA · filed 2014-02-28(c)(3)-(4)

And, the ALJ supportably explained his decision to afford greater weight to Dr. Fairley’s opinions than those of Mr. Cubeddu. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) (stating that the more weight will be afforded to opinions that are supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, as well as those opinions that are consistent with the medical record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) directs that the weight given to a nonexamining physician's opinion depends on the degree to which the physician provides supporting explanations.

Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-06-18(d)(3)

The weight afforded a non-examining physician’s testimony depends "on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). The Mental Residual Functional Capacity Assessment ("MRFCA") form completed by Drs. Harman and Harrison contains no supporting explanation whatsoever for their opinion that "with continued [treatment]" Ryan could complete a regular workweek. That was simply their bare conclusion after checking a series of boxes on the MRFCA form, a conclusion that does not outweigh the remaining evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) permits an ALJ to give little weight to a medical opinion that is not supported by objective findings.

Miller v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-07-12(d)(3)

The ALJ is entitled to give little weight to an opinion which is not supported by objective findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3) and 416.927(d)(3) (1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(d)(3), an ALJ may give little weight to a medical opinion that is not supported by objective findings.

Miller v. Chater, Commissioner · filed 1996-07-12(d)(3)

The ALJ is entitled to give little weight to an opinion which is not supported by objective findings. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3) and 416.927(d)(3) (1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) directs the adjudicator to give more weight to a medical opinion when the medical source supports it with relevant evidence.

Vance v. SSA · filed 1997-06-18(d)(3)

on horizontal reaching was not supported by objective (or subjec­ tive) evidence. Id. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion when the source supports it with relevant evidence and a better explanation.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-03-04(d)(3)

In evaluating the medical opinions, the ALJ properly considered whether the doctors presented relevant clinical evidence to support their opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”). ... The ALJ set forth a reasoned basis for rejecting the opinions of Turner’s treating physicians by identifying the foregoing areas where medical evidence was lacking as well as by analyzing the work restrictions imposed by Drs. Engel and Kelly. Thus, the greater weight that the ALJ accorded to the non-treating physician, Dr. Watson, was permissible.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) makes the supportability of a medical opinion depend on the medical signs and laboratory findings supporting it and the explanation accompanying it.

Kennedy v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-28(d)(3)

Finally, Dr. Steele’s 2005 evaluation is not supported by “medical signs and laboratory findings” or accompanied by an “explanation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). On this record, we cannot conclude that the ALJ “traversed” the “substance of the treating physician rule” here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) requires a medical opinion to be well-supported by medical evidence to receive substantial or controlling weight.

Martise v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-06(d)(3)

In addition, as the Commissioner correctly states, the Regulations and Eighth Circuit precedent clearly require that a medical opinion be well-supported by medical evidence to be entitled to substantial or controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3); Hacker, 459 F.3d [at] 937.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) gives more weight to medical opinions supported by objective medical evidence.

Schmidt v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2012-02-24(d)(3)

First, Dr. Pandelidis’s DPW opinion consisted largely of checked boxes on a standard DPW form. ... As the ALJ noted, the DPW form was completed in order to obtain public assistance and did not provide any clinical findings to support Dr. Pandelidis’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3) (explaining more weight is given to opinions that include objective medical evidence). ... Thus, medical evidence in the record contradicts Dr. Pandelidis’s opinion, and we find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to reject Dr. Pandelidis’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) provides that a medical opinion receives more weight when it is supported by more medical evidence.

Ashcraft v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-09-12(c)(3)

Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) states that the more medical evidence there is to support a medical opinion, the more weight it will be given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion when it is supported by more medical evidence.

Greathouse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-10-10(c)(3)

Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) states that the more medical evidence there is to support a medical opinion, the more weight it will be given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to consider how much relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, supports a medical opinion when deciding how much weight to give it.

COLLINS v. SAUL · filed 2019-08-21(c)(3)

In weighing opinion evidence, an ALJ is to consider, inter alia, the “supportability” of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, and by better explanations.

Gilbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) supports rejecting a treating physician’s opinion when the opinion is largely unsupported by relevant medical evidence.

Kimbell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-04(c)(3)

Dr. Gentry’s opinion is largely unsupported and inconsistent with the rest of the record. Such a reason is sufficient to reject a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion that lacks supporting evidence.

Miller v. Saul · filed 2020-01-06(d)(3)

An ALJ is entitled to discount a medical opinion that provides little evidence in support of its conclusion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3); 416.927(d)(3); see also Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 515 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[A]n ALJ is required to determine the weight a nontreating physician’s opinion deserves by examining how well [the physician] supported and explained his opinion.”). The ALJ gave Ovadal’s opinion less weight because she failed to cite supporting evidence and because it was inconsistent with other evidence in the record. The ALJ identified sufficient reasons to discount this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, and by better explanations.

Salinas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)(3)

As a result, they are of limited utility toward understanding Petitioner’s true (in)ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it is not supported by relevant evidence, including functional limitations.

Reese v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-19(c)(3)

Yet, the ALJ may discount an opinion on the basis that it is not supported by relevant evidence, such as functional limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion when the source presents more relevant supporting evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-22(c)(3)

“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) assigns the ALJ responsibility to assess how well a physician's opinion is supported by relevant evidence, including specific findings.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-07(c)(3)

The question of whether a physician’s opinion is supported by specific findings is not a medical judgment, it is a task that the regulations consign to the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence”); cf. Castellano, 26 F.3d at 1029 (ALJ properly rejected medical opinion for lack of objective evidence); see also Block v. Astrue, 506 F. App’x 764, 768 (10th Cir. 2012) (ALJ was permitted to reject consultative examiner’s opinion for lack of supporting objective evidence where the physical “examination revealed [the claimant] was stiff and sore in the neck, tender to palpation, and his shoulder range of motion was decreased”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) favors giving greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and better explanations, making vagueness a valid reason to discount a treating source’s opinion.

Katila v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-04(c)(3)

Vagueness is a valid reason to discount a treating source’s opinion. See id. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“Supportability. The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) identifies the amount of supporting medical evidence and the quality of the explanation as factors affecting the weight given to a medical opinion.

Bielawski, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)(3)

It is appropriate to afford less weight to an opinion that is not thoroughly explained or supported by objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(3) (explaining that the degree of weight given to a medical opinion is affected by the amount of medical evidence and the quality of the explanation supporting the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs that a medical opinion supported by more relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, receives more weight.

Caldwell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-22(c)

Instead, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the 2014 questionnaire was not entitled to controlling weight based on the lack of contemporaneous treatment notes and clinical findings by Dr. Martin. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527( c) and 416.927(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when the source provides a better explanation for it.

Kirkland v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)(3)

As for the ALJ’s second reason, a finding that a physician’s opinion is too vague to be useful in making a disability determination can serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight the Social Security Administration will give that opinion); see Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that statement that the plaintiff would have “decreased concentration skills” was too vague to be useful in the disability determination).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, and by a better explanation.

Sideris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)(3)

“[s]upportability” is one of the factors specifically set forth in the regulations used to evaluate opinion evidence, and states that “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider how much relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supports a medical opinion when assigning it weight.

Ellvinger v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-27(c)(3)

An ALJ must consider the “supportability” of a medical source’s findings—that is, the degree to which the medical source “presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings”—when assigning weight to his opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.920(c)(3). Although an ALJ does not need to discuss every piece of evidence she relied upon, the record must show that she actually considered all of the evidence. See Clifton, 79 F.3d at 1009. But here, as previously noted, the ALJ appears to have altogether ignored the results of the mental status examination and cognitive testing administered by Dr. Padilla (cf. AR at 759), which on their face appear to be consistent with his findings concerning Plaintiff’s limitations (see, e.g., id. at 20-29). On this record, the Court cannot say that the ALJ adequately considered the supportability vel non of Dr. Padilla’s opinion, meaning that her weighting of that opinion did not following the relevant legal standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to find a medical opinion less persuasive when it is inadequately supported by the record as a whole, but the ALJ may not selectively rely only on evidence favoring that conclusion.

Fisher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-16(c)(3)

An ALJ need not accept an opinion which is inadequately supported “by the record as a whole.” See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). But it is error for an ALJ to selectively focus on evidence that tends to suggest a plaintiff is not disabled. See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) supports giving less weight to a medical opinion when relevant objective evidence, such as functional testing or blood tests, does not support its limitations.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2021-01-11(c)(3)

The ALJ determined that this opinion was only entitled to partial weight because there was no evidence of functional testing to support these limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ explained that Dr. Mourtada was entitled to only light weight because despite admitting to not having full records, Dr. Mourtada did not base his assessment on any functional testing or blood tests to confirm heavy metal poisoning (Tr. 17). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs the ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion when the medical source presents more relevant supporting evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Rada v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(c)(3)

See Steven A. v. Saul, 2021 WL 275492, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021) (doctor sufficiently referenced medically acceptable objective findings in opinion by relying on her own observations during several sessions over two years); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). Thus, this reason for discounting Dr. Shishodia’s opinion was specific, legitimate, and supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) provides that the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner, so a medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not bind the ALJ.

Symonds v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-31(e)

Absent “good cause” to the contrary, the ALJ must give substantial weight to the opinion, diagnosis, and medical evidence of a treating physician. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1159. ... Moreover, the ultimate issue of disability is left to the determination of the Commissioner; and a statement by a medical source that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not binding on the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) provides that a medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not determine disability.

Blankenship v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-08-26(d)(1)

A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to address a medical opinion's supportability and assess the underlying evaluation.

Winkel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

The government argues that Dr. Elliott’s original neuropsychological evaluation isn’t a “medical opinion,” citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(2). Even so, Dr. Elliott later provided a medical opinion [R. 680-81] that relied on the original neuropsychological evaluation. Because the ALJ was required to address the supportability of that opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), the ALJ was required to assess the underlying evaluation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when the medical source provides relevant supporting evidence and a better explanation for it.

BAEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-31(c)(3)

In opposition, the Commissioner cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, titled “Evaluating opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017.” The regulation sets forth six factors to be considered when weighing opinion evidence, one of which is: ... (3) Supportability. The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. ... The ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Quintana’s opinion conforms to the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings.

Noble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(c)(3)

“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion whose restrictions are not supported by objective clinical findings.

Shultz v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-28(c)(3)

Second, the ALJ appropriately concluded that Dr. Kay’s assessment was brief and conclusory, “with little in the way of clinical findings to support its conclusion.” AR 3492. The extreme restrictions assessment by Dr. Kay was not supported by objective clinical findings. The only “clinical findings and objective signs” Dr. Kay identified to support his assessment was tenderness in the left lower lumbar and coccyx. The other clinical findings cited were all normal. AR 931. Although Plaintiff refers to several medical records that she believes support Dr. Kay’s findings (Jt. Stip. at 19), none of these records were referenced by Dr. Kay in support of his conclusions or attached, even though such records were available. The ALJ properly relied on this deficiency in assessing the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits less weight for a medical opinion that is conclusory and lacks supporting explanation or evidence.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-19(c)(3)

Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Hernandez’s opinions were conclusory. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); Hargress v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 883 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2018) (providing good cause exists to discount treating physician opinions that are conclusory and not bolstered with evidence). Dr. Hernandez merely checked boxes and provided a short, general explanation in the forms. (Tr. 551-52.) No further information was provided. (Tr. 551-57.) The ALJ, therefore, properly found this opinion was conclusory.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) allows a medical opinion to receive less weight when it lacks supporting explanation or relevant evidence.

Lang v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-11(c)(3)

The ALJ did not error in this assessment where the opinion lacked support because it relied substantially upon the opinion of Dr. Marks formed during an examination where Plaintiff’s lack of full effort was a concern. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); Tr. 760.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires a hearing officer to consider how well a medical source supports an opinion, but the officer need not expressly use the word “supportability,” and a discussion of the relevant medical evidence may demonstrate that the factor was considered.

Shiebler v. O'Malley · filed 2024-12-17(c)(3)

In weighing medical evidence, a hearing officer must consider supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c). “Supportability” requires the officer to grant more weight to sources which provide better explanations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(3). The hearing officer need not use the specific word “supportability” or “consistency” in his decision. See, e.g., Angela H.-M. v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 631 F. Supp. 3d 1, 10 (W.D.N.Y. 2022) (finding hearing officer’s discussion sufficient even where the officer “did not specifically use the words ‘supportability’ and ‘consistency’”). “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the hearing officer] will give that medical opinion.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(b)(3). The Hearing Officer did not make a legal error in omitting to discuss the supportability factor explicitly when rejecting Sullivan’s report. As detailed above, the Hearing Officer’s description of the relevant medical evidence is itself the Hearing Officer’s consideration of the supportability factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion that the source fails to support with examination findings or an adequate explanation.

Badger v. King · filed 2025-02-05(c)(3)

First, the ALJ gave very little weight to the opinion of Dr. C. Mark Anderson, because Dr. Anderson’s conclusions were unsupported by the results of his own examination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); see Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002). ... Finally, despite knowing that Badger had frequently used cannabis, Dr. Anderson neglected to explain how this factor might impact Badger’s mental or physical condition, meaning the ALJ could give his under-explained opinion less weight. Id. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may discount a medical opinion when the source does not adequately explain or support the assessed limitations.

Wandick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-17(c)(3)

This was an appropriate reason to discount Dr. Thorpe’s opinion; a finding that a physician’s opinion is not well explained can serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (The better an explanation a source provides for the medical opinion, the more weight the Social Security Administration will give that opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives a medical opinion more weight when the source provides more relevant supporting evidence, medical signs and laboratory findings, and a better explanation.

Morgan · filed 2025-10-31(c)(3)

The supportability determination is defined in this way: “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3); 416.927(c)(3). And “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3); 416.927(c)(3). ... Concerning “supportability,” the ALJ explained “Dr. Shahzad provided little in the way of rationale in support of the assessed limitations, and his statement actually notes “no physical findings” in support of his diagnoses and opinion.” [Tr. at 26] ... Indeed, the ALJ’s decision scrupulously analyzed the various medical evidence and opinions and other testimony in reaching these conclusions. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when the source presents more relevant supporting evidence, including medical signs and laboratory findings, and provides a better explanation.

May · filed 2026-02-09(c)(3)

The supportability determination is defined in this way: “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). And “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives a medical opinion more weight when its source presents more relevant supporting evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, and provides a better explanation.

Pennell · filed 2026-05-19(c)(3)

The supportability determination is defined in this way: “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). And “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives a medical opinion more weight when the source presents more relevant supporting evidence and provides a better explanation.

Slone · filed 2026-05-22(c)(3)

The supportability determination is defined in this way: “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). And “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) gives less weight to a medical opinion unsupported by clinical findings than to a well-supported opinion.

Stevens v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-13(d)(3)

As set forth in the regulations, an opinion that is not based on clinical findings will not be accorded as much weight as an opinion that is well-supported.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a) requires an impairment to result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Rancel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-08-31(a)

Although the school records indicate emotional and behavioral problems from a young age, they are insufficient to establish that Rancel had a severe and medically determinable impairment. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(1)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(A) (“[A]n individual shall be considered to be disabled . . . if he is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which . . . has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a) (“[An] impairment must result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) requires an impairment to result from an anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormality demonstrable by objective medical evidence.

Cannon v. Saul · filed 2020-05-07(a)(1)

Plaintiff must do more than simply show proof of multiple impairments in order to qualify as disabled; she must show that these multiple impairments result from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities which are demonstrable by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, calls for less weight when unsupported or inconsistent, and reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Miller v. Callahan · filed 1997-04-08(d)(2), (d)(4), (d)(6), (e)(1)

“Circuit precedent does not require that a treating physician’s testimony ‘be given controlling weight,”’ but if a “treating source’s opinion ... is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record,” it will be given controlling weight. ... “Conversely, only if a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight.” ... “The determination” of whether the claimant meets the statutory definition of disability is reserved to the [Commissioner], even when a medical source opinion includes a statement that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” ... It is the Commissioner who is to make that ultimate determination. Consequently, the ALJ was not required to adopt Dr. Yukna’s conclusion of the plaintiffs disability. As to the other opinions on the record, however, the Court finds that they were entitled to great weight.

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 the record, and otherwise requires specific good reasons for the weight assigned; an ALJ need not expressly discuss every listed factor if the rationale is clear and supported.

Eley v. SSA · filed 2015-04-21(c)

The opinion of a treating physician must be given controlling weight if it is well supported and not inconsistent with other evidence on the record. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). If controlling weight is not afforded the opinion of a treating source, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight afforded that source. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). “The ‘good reasons’ requirement mandates that the ALJ's order ‘must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion, supported by 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 reasons for that weight.’” ... The ALJ need not, as Eley suggests, explicitly take account of all the factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, so long as the court is “able to discern the rationale the ALJ used to reach his determination and that determination is founded on ‘good reasons’ that are supported by substantial record evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) favors giving greater weight to a treating source’s opinion when the source has a longer and more frequent treatment relationship with the claimant.

Osborn v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-22(c)(2)

Here, Dr. Belza was the most frequent treating source, and as the ALJ summarized, had a longitudinal history with plaintiff beginning in 1994, until at least 2009. ... Accordingly, Dr. Belza’s exertional restrictions as set forth in his June 4, 2009 statement should be entitled to great weight. 20 § C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2); Tr. 320.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Medina v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-12-27(c)(2)

Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician's opinion, he must "give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives to the] treating source's medical opinion."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to evaluate its weight using the listed relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-24(c)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the physician’s opinion does merit. ... In making that determination, the regulations require the ... ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician's specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). Thus, the weight given to a treating physician depends on the circumstances.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires consideration of a treating-source opinion's supportability and consistency with the record when deciding whether to give it controlling weight.

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

The ALJ’s discussion of the consistency between Dr. Pai’s opinions and the record as a whole are a valid consideration under 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ also addressed the supportability of Dr. Pai’s opinions, another factor to be considered under 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion using specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

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

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the opinion is weighed based on a number of factors, including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, opinion’s supportability, opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the provider, and any other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 2003). The ALJ is required to “give good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Cline, 771 F.3d at 1103.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating-source medical opinions more weight and requires an ALJ to evaluate them for controlling weight and under specified factors.

Marquez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-02(d)(2)

According to the “treating physician rule,” the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) Commissioner will generally give more weight to medical opinions from treating sources than those from non-treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The regulations also require an ALJ to consider several specific factors in weighing a physician’s opinion. ... The ALJ did not reference these factors or state that he considered them with respect to Dr. Lago. ... The ALJ also did not give good reasons for his decision to give lesser weight to Dr. Lago’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires consideration of specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, with reasons for the assigned weight.

Milner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-03(c)(2)

When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” he must “apply the factors listed” in SSA regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian, 708 F.3d at 418. After considering those factors, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion,” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004), and provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned. Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must defer to it and explain its weight using the regulatory factors.

Sherfield v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2)-(6)

If a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the opinion is still entitled to deference, and the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ must consider the following six factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) specialization of the medical source; and (6) any other factors that may support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). If an ALJ rejects the treating source’s opinion, he must give “specific, legitimate reasons” for doing so, based on an evaluation of all the regulatory factors. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301. Although the ALJ’s decision “need not include an explicit discussion of each factor,” the record must reflect that the ALJ considered every relevant factor in the weight calculation. Andersen v. Astrue, 319 F. App’x 712, 718 (10th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Gillam v. Saul · filed 2020-04-23(c)(2)-(6)

Where the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion based on several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the level of specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). And, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. See Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”). The failure to give good reasons for discrediting a treating physician’s opinion is a ground for remand.

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 medical opinion.

Currier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-09(c)(2)

The regulations provide that the Commissioner’s decision will “always give good reasons” for the weight given a treating source’s medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Here, the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Dr. Charlson’s opinions did not rise to that level.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion and gives it controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; an opinion from a physician who did not treat the claimant during the relevant period need not receive deferential weight.

Kubiszewski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-10(c)(2)

The regulations provide that, regardless of its source, an adjudicator will evaluate every medical opinion that she receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An adjudicator is required to provide good reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion and will give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ did not err in providing Dr. Both’s opinion little weight, as she did not begin treating Kubiszewski until six months after the date last insured, and no evidence relates her opinion back to the relevant time period. (R. 600). ... Because she did not treat Kubiszewski during the relevant period, the ALJ was not required to give her deferential weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and to give specific good reasons when declining to do so before applying the other opinion-weighing factors.

Lovejoy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-10(c)(2)

The ALJ failed, however, to follow Social Security regulations in evaluating Dr. Sunshine’s opinions regarding Lovejoy’s abilities to carry out instructions, interact with the general public, sustain an ordinary routine, or perform activities within a schedule. Here, the ALJ does not give good reasons for declining to give controlling weight to these opinions. ... Indeed, the ALJ addressed many opinion-weighing factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) including the frequency and nature of Dr. Sunshine’s treating relationship with Lovejoy, the formatting of the opinions consisting of “fill in the blank and check the box forms”, and certain inconsistencies (noted above) with Dr. Sunshine’s treatment notes and other medical records. However, “these factors are properly applied only after the ALJ has determined that a treating-source opinion will not be given controlling weight.” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Here, the ALJ failed to give good reasons for declining to give controlling weight to Dr. Sunshine’s opinions regarding Lovejoy’s mental functional abilities; thus, the decision’s explanation fails before moving onto the opinion-weighing factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ erred by failing to follow the regulations and adequately explain why controlling weight was not given to the opinions of Lovejoy’s treating neurologist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider the opinions of non-examining state agency medical and psychological consultants because they are highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

Milner v. Astrue · filed 2008-05-02(f)(2)(i)

The ALJ is required to consider the opinions of non-examining state agency medical and psychological consultants because they “are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) permits an ALJ to consider residual functional capacity forms completed by medical consultants.

Noble v. Callahan · filed 1997-08-08(f)(2)

The ALJ may also consider residual functional capacity forms completed by medical consultants. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence when making a disability determination.

Daniel v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(b)

Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, in making a disability determination, the ALJ shall “always consider the medical opinions5 in [the] case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b); see also Heino v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 873, 879 (8th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the medical opinions in the case record and evaluate every medical opinion received, regardless of its source; the ALJ need not consider reports that were not in the record before the decision.

Ziemer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11(b), (c)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence” in the record. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). ... Dr. Boyer’s records were not, however, part of the record before the ALJ in this matter at the time of the hearing or the ALJ’s decision. ... There was, therefore, no error because the ALJ could not have considered Dr. Boyer’s reports that were not in the record before him.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires ALJs to consider all medical opinions they receive when evaluating a claimant’s case.

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

ALJs must consider all medical opinions that they receive in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Platt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the adjudicator to consider relevant medical opinions when evaluating a disability claim.

Abeyta v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-04(c)

Because the Appeals Council was required to consider all medical opinions, its failure to consider Dr. Maestas’s 2017 opinion, which was relevant to the period under consideration, is error. See Doyal, 331 F.3d at 764; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the Commissioner to consider all medical opinions in the case record when making a disability determination.

Hartwick v. Saul · filed 2020-08-18(b)

As set forth in the Commissioner’s Regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b) and 416.927(b), the Commissioner must consider all medical opinions in the case record when making its disability determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) (CONSENT) Facey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence when evaluating a disability claim.

(SS) Mai v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-23(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions of record.

Rivas v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-02(b)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes the extent to which a medical source is familiar with other information in the case record a relevant factor in weighing the medical opinion.

Northwind v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(c)(6)

Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ erred in considering Dr. Widlan’s lack of familiarity with the treatment record when weighing Dr. Widlan’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6) (explaining that “the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record” is a relevant factor that will be considered in weighing a medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of the treating relationship and generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues within the specialist’s area of expertise.

Zada v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-24(c)(2)(i), (c)(5)

Applying the treating physician rule to the ALJ’s analysis of Dr. Barnum’s opinions, the Court finds that the ALJ made several errors. First, the ALJ failed to address the frequency, length, nature, and extent of Dr. Barnum’s treating relationship with Plaintiff, despite these being significant factors, as discussed above. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“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 medical source’s medical opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.”). Second, the ALJ did not mention that Dr. Barnum is a specialist (an orthopedic surgeon) who opined about medical issues related to his area of specialty (Plaintiff’s ability to lift/carry, stand/walk, sit, and reach). Id. at § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the weight of relevant medical opinions by considering factors including the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

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

Where a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight to give the relevant medical sources by considering factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of visits, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the medical source supports the opinion with medical evidence, whether the opinion is consistent with the medical record, and the medical source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to explain how the record bears on those factors.

King v. Saul · filed 2020-05-11(c)

When weighing medical opinions, an ALJ must consider certain regulatory factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the medical source’s opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record, and the source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Walker v. Saul, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2020 WL 1698857, at *3 (7th Cir. April 8, 2020). ... But she did not discuss how those records affected the regulatory factors required to be considered in an opinion evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). For example, the ALJ did not explain how those records affected the supportability of Dr. Jain’s opinion or the consistency of his medical findings with the record evidence as a whole. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider factors including the source’s treating or examining relationship, the support for the medical opinion, and its consistency with the record when deciding how much weight to give it.

Orcutt v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(c)

In deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors including, e.g., the treating or examining relationship of the opinion’s source and the claimant; how well the opinion is supported; and how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... This is a sufficient explanation for the Court to determine the reasons for the weight assigned.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to assess a medical opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Watts v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-07

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, the adjudicator may consider how often the claimant met the provider and how familiar the provider was with the claimant's case record.

Prickett v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(c)(2)(i), (c)(6)

The number of times a claimant meets with a provider is a relevant factor in assigning weight to an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). Additionally, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider six factors when assigning weight to a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to recite and assess every factor for every opinion if the explanation sufficiently specifies the weight and reasons.

Borden v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)

When assigning weight to a record medical opinion, the ALJ considers six factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, which include the treatment and examining relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... An ALJ does not need to “recite and assess each one of [the] six factors with respect to every opinion in the record.” ... However, the ALJ “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the . . . opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider, when weighing a medical opinion, that consulting physicians did not review treating physicians’ reports.

Deleon v. Saul · filed 2020-07-13(c)(3)

To the extent DeLeon further argues reliance on those reports was improper because the consulting physicians did not review the treating physicians’ reports, the ALJ was required to consider that fact in weighing their opinions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), and in any event, the ALJ discounted the treating physicians’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider a medical source’s familiarity with the record and understanding of the Social Security disability program when deciding how much weight to give the source’s opinion.

Walton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-13(c)(6)

The regulations explicitly provide the ALJ may consider “other factors,” such as a medical source’s familiarity with the record and his or her understanding of the SSA’s disability program, when determining how much weight to provide a medical source’s statement. Camille v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-CV-01283, 2018 WL 3599736, at *9 (D. Conn. July 27, 2018); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T]he amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has, regardless of the source of that understanding, and the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record are relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialty, when assigning weight to a medical opinion unless a treating source opinion receives controlling weight.

Galaviz v. Saul · filed 2020-07-22(c)

As provided in the regulations, “[u]nless we give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion”: length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialty, and other factors. 20 CFR 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the listed factors, and a medical source's failure to provide function-by-function limitations is not itself one of those factors or sufficient alone to reject the opinion.

Coleman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-29(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given to each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional. ... In determining what weight to accord any medical opinion, an ALJ must consider: ... (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Whether an opinion provides function-by-function work limitations is not part of the list of factors an ALJ should consider when weighing the opinion. ... Without other legitimate reasons, the lack of specific function-by-function limitations is not a sufficient reason for rejecting Dr. Urbank’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor.

Carbajal v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-31(c)

Finally, relying on Trevizo, 862 F.3d at 998, Plaintiff argues that reversal is warranted because the ALJ failed to consider the regulatory factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527, 416.927. ... While an ALJ must consider the regulatory factors, there is no requirement that an ALJ explicitly discuss the factors in his/her decision. ... Two of the regulatory factors are supportability and consistency with the record, both of which the ALJ here expressly discussed. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927. In addition, the ALJ acknowledged the length of the treating relationship and recognized that Dr. Park was a treating physician. Thus, the record confirms that the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Park’s opinion was consistent with the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion based on the doctor's lack of access to the claimant's longitudinal record.

Amble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-03(c)(6)

Dr. Portman’s lack of access to the longitudinal record is a valid reason to discount his opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the Commissioner to consider the medical-opinion relationship, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding what weight to give an opinion.

Ferdina v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-08-11(d)

Social Security regulations also provide that, in considering what weight to give any medical opinion (regardless of whether it is from a treating or non-treating physician), the Commissioner should evaluate: the extent of the examining or treating relationship between the doctor and patient; whether the doctor's opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; the doctor's specialization; and other factors.