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 requires an ALJ to consider non-examining physicians’ opinions and weigh them according to their clinical support and consistency with the record.

Jarrett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-11(d)(3)-(4), (f)

Regulations require that an ALJ consider the opinions of non-examining physicians, including state agency psychological consultants. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). The weight due to a non-examining physician’s opinion depends, among other things, on the extent to which it is supported by clinical findings and is consistent with other evidence. See id. § 404.1527(d)(3)-(4); see also Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d. 1155, 1158, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the ALJ did not err in relying on a consulting physician’s opinion where it was consistent with the medical evidence and findings of the examining physician). Generally, the more consistent a physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight an ALJ should place on that opinion.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an administrative law judge to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion.

Hernandez v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-29(d)(2)

the ALJ must always give good reasons ... for the weight accorded to a treating source’s medical opinion.

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

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate medical findings supporting a physician’s disability statement, generally give controlling weight to a treating or primary physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of impairments, and weigh conflicting evidence, while reserving the ultimate disability determination to the ALJ.

Brown v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-19(c)(2), (e)(2)-(3)

The ALJ is required to evaluate all of the medical findings and other evidence that supports a physician’s statement that an individual is disabled. The opinion of a treating or primary physician is generally given controlling weight when evaluating the nature and severity of an individual’s impairments. However, no special significance is given to the source of an opinion on other issues which are reserved to the ALJ, such as the ultimate determination of disablement. ... The ALJ has the discretion to weigh any conflicting evidence in the case record and make a determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally favors opinions from treating sources and specialists addressing issues within their expertise, but does not require greater weight for a non-treating source outside the relevant specialty.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-05-24(d)(2), (d)(5)

Generally, the Commissioner “give[s] more weight to opinions from treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). With regard to specialists, the Commissioner “generally give[s] more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5). ... The psychologist, Dr. Turzo, was not a treating physician of Anderson’s. Therefore, the ALJ was not required to give her assessment more weight. Furthermore, pain assessment was not her specialty, and her report was inconsistent and equivocal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions from all acceptable medical sources about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments and resulting limitations.

Moss v. SSA · filed 2011-04-21

An ALJ is reguired to consider the medical opinions from all acceptable medical sources regarding the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments and resulting limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to recontact a medical source when inconsistencies or confusion about the source’s opinion warrant it, but not when the record presents no such problem.

Blackmon v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-04(c)(3)

Claimant is correct that, under certain circumstances, the ALJ [should] contact the doctor in the event of inconsistencies or confusion; however, this is not one of those situations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions and weigh them based on the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, and other relevant factors, while generally giving treating sources greater weight.

Lawrence v. SSA · filed 2011-06-17(b), (d)(1)-(3)

In making a disability determination, an ALJ must consider medical opinions in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The weight given to any given medical opinion is based on such factors as the nature and length of the examining relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(l)-(2). As a result, an ALJ will generally give greater weight to treating physicians, as these sources provide a more detailed and longitudinal picture of the claimant's medical condition than individual or consultive examinations. See id. Nevertheless, the weight to be given to a treating source's opinion is still contingent upon the evidence provided to support the opinion, the degree to which it is consistent with the record, the extent of the treating source's knowledge of the impairment, and other factors that are raised by the claimant. See SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2-*5 (July 2, 1996). ... As a result, substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to lend less credence to his opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)(explaining opinions weight is contingent, in part, on its consistency and supportability).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor.

Lawton v. Comissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-06-22(d)

The ALJ should consider the following factors when determining what weight to give to a medical opinion: (1) whether the source had examined the claimant; (2) whether the source was a treating physician; (3) the length of the treatment relationship and how often the physician had examined the claimant; (4) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (5) whether the medical evidence supports the opinion; (6) consistency; (7) specialization; and (8) other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). However, the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors. Rather, the ALJ must provide “good cause” for rejecting a treating physician’s medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with the physician’s examination findings and other medical evidence.

Phillips v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-26

We conclude that the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Cheong’s opinion. The ALJ cited 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, stating he had considered the opinion evidence according to regulatory requirements, and he thoroughly summarized the medical evidence and Dr. Cheong’s opinion. Dr. Cheong examined Phillips only three times, and his opinion is inconsistent with his examination findings; with the conservative treatment prescribed for CTS, which test results showed was mild to moderate; with the lack of testing or examination findings to confirm degenerative disc or joint disease or arthritis; with a consulting physician’s mostly normal examination findings and assessment of only a slight reduction in lumbar range of motion; and with Phillips’s statements to his health care providers about the status of his health.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions under specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, while giving a treating opinion substantial or considerable weight absent good cause and reserving the disability determination to the Commissioner.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-10-06(d), (e)(1), and (f)

The ALJ is to consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s “opinion is with the record as a whole”; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). These factors apply to both examining and nonexamining doctors. Id. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). ... The ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” ... Finally, the Commissioner, not a claimant’s physician, is responsible for determining whether a claimant is statutorily disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and generally give a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician's conclusions controlling weight while considering specified factors.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-10-26(c)(2)-(6)

ALJs “evaluate every medical opinion [] receive[d]” into the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). If a treating physician’s conclusions are (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ will generally give those conclusions controlling weight. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ evaluates medical evidence by considering (1) the length, nature, and extent of the relationship between the claimant and the physician; (2) the supportability of the physician’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the physician’s opinion with the record as a whole; (4) the specialization of the physician providing the opinion; and (5) any other factor the individual applying for benefits brings to the ALJ’s attention. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... Here, the ALJ properly weighed the medical evaluations, considered the reports in Hernandez’s medical record, assessed the consistency of these reports with the other medical evidence, and determined that Hernandez was capable of performing jobs existing within the national and local economies. That decision was supported by substantial evidence in Hernandez’s medical records and in the medical opinions and vocational expert testimony that the ALJ evaluated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to adequately explain the weight given to a treating-source medical opinion, including whether the opinion is consistent with objective evidence.

Pierce v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-24(c)

The ALJ did not adequately explain why he failed to give Dr. Flood’s opinion weight, as it was consistent with the objective evidence, i.e., a fracture in the left knee. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider its support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when assigning weight.

Koelzer v. Berryhill · filed 2017-05-17(c)

When weighing a medical opinion, including that of an examining source, the ALJ must consider the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence, such as medical signs and laboratory results; the extent to which an opinion is consistent with other opinions and evidence in the record; whether the opinion is within the source’s area of specialization; and other ■ factors such as the medical source’s degree of familiarity with the SSA’s disability process and with other information in the claimant’s record. ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ erred .in rejecting the entirety of Dr. Trait’s neurological evaluation, including the extensive objective medical evidence contained within it and the doctor’s professional opinions as a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators to weigh a physician’s opinion based on its consistency with the record, its explanation, the treatment relationship, the doctor’s specialty, and other relevant factors.

Rose v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-13(c)

The weight accorded to a physician’s opinion depends on whether it is consistent with the record and accompanied by adequate explanation, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and the doctor’s specialty, among other things. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Agency to evaluate every medical opinion and ordinarily give controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record.

Mejia v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-22(c)(2)

Social Security regulations require the Agency to “evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s],” generally giving, more weight to evidence from a claimant’s treating physician. 20 C.F.R.- § 404.1527(c). Where the Agency finds the treating physician’s opinion of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments is well-supported by accepted medical techniques, and consistent with the other substantive evidence in the record, that opinion is ordinarily controlling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (even when contradicted, treating or examining physician’s opinion is owed deference, and often the “greatest” weight).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats an acceptable medical source's statement about the nature and severity of an impairment, including work capacity and restrictions, as a medical opinion, and subsection (b) requires the ALJ to consider such opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence.

Kneeland v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2017-03-08(a)(2), (b)

Contrary to the Commissioner’s arguments, Dr. Bernauer’s opinion constitutes a medical opinion within the meaning of the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) states: “Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” Dr. Bernauer’s opinion meets this definition as he examined Kneeland, noted observations from that examination, and opined on her work limitations. Given that Dr. Bernauer’s opinion is a medical opinion, the ALJ legally erred by rejecting it without explanation, which resulted in an RFC not based on substantial evidence. Medical opinions, especially conflicting medical opinions, must be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) provides: “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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and an ALJ may discount such an opinion for good reasons without expressly addressing every factor in § 404.1527(c).

Bean v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-01-22(c)(2)

A treating medical source’s opinion about the claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion. Id. “Those reasons must offer a rationale that could be accepted by a reasonable mind.” ... If the ALJ satisfies that standard, the court will uphold the decision to discount a treating source’s opinion. Id. ... Here, the ALJ gave “good reasons” which could be accepted by a reasonable mind for the weight given to Dr. Wheeler’s opinion. ... Where an ALJ provides good reasons for giving little weight to a treating source’s opinion, he is not required to expressly address each of the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits an ALJ to discount the opinion for permissible reasons such as inconsistency, lack of support, and other relevant factors.

Gibbons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6)

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004). Remand is appropriate if the ALJ does not provide good reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion. Newbury v. Astrue, 321 F. App'x 16, 17 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 makes the Secretary, rather than a physician, responsible for determining whether a claimant is disabled, so a physician's disability conclusion is not determinative.

Mazzella v. Secretary of United States Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1984-03-08

The naked assertion of Dr. Cabot that “[t]he patient is not totally disabled. He is capable of part-time work.” (Tr. 64) is of little effect. The determination that a claimant is or is not disabled within the meaning of the Act is to be made by the Secretary. A physician's conclusion on the issue of disability is not determinative.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an administrative law judge to accept a physician's opinion on the ultimate issue of disability, but an uncontroverted opinion cannot be rejected without clear and convincing reasons.

Jesus MONTIJO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-03-26

The administrative law judge is not bound by the uncontroverted opinions of the claimant’s physicians on the ultimate issue of disability, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (1983), but he cannot reject them without presenting clear and convincing reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) makes the administrative law judge responsible for determining residual functional capacity and does not require obtaining a medical expert's opinion in every case.

Armstrong v. Barnhart · filed 2003-10-15(f)(2)

Certainly, plaintiff does not mean to suggest that an ALJ must always take his or her residual functional capacity assessment directly from the mouth of a physician; under the regulations, it is the ALJ’s responsibility to determine a residual functional capacity and resort to a medical expert is not always necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since SSA’s August 1, 1991 revision added the specific requirement that a treating source’s medical opinion be well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844).

Section 404.1527 requires review of the medical findings supporting a physician's disability statement and gives credible treating-physician evidence controlling weight absent contrary evidence.

Gulan v. Heckler · filed 1984-04-05

Therefore, a statement by a physician that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not mean that the Social Security Administration will determine that the claimant is disabled; review of the medical findings and other evidence supporting a physician’s statement of disability is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. However, if the AU concludes that a treating physician’s evidence is credible, she should give it controlling weight in the absence of evidence to the contrary because of the treating physician’s greater familiarity with the plaintiff’s conditions and circumstances.

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 does not require an administrative law judge to give a treating physician's opinion conclusive effect merely because the physician is the treating and family physician.

Guiseppe LOMBARDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard S. SCHWEIKER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appel · filed 1984-12-11

The AU, however, was not required to give Dr. Tavoularis’ opinion conclusive effect even though he was the treating and family physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to make an independent disability determination from the medical findings while giving great or substantial weight to a claimant’s treating physician’s opinion.

Johnson v. Heckler · filed 1985-05-06

Although the AU must make his own determination of disability based on the medical findings, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is entitled to great or substantial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 makes a treating physician's conclusion that a claimant is incapacitated nonbinding on the Secretary.

Dean v. Heckler · filed 1985-07-18

This conclusion does not bind the Secretary, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and the AU did not consider it as such.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A physician's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not by itself require a disability finding, but the adjudicator must closely consider the medical findings of the treating physician.

Wilson BREWSTER, Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health & Human Services, Appellee · filed 1986-03-26

Although the regulations provide that “a statement by [a] physician that [a claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Secretary] will determine that [the claimant is] disabled,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the AU must nevertheless pay close attention to the medical findings of a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to determine disability from medical findings and other evidence even when a claimant's physician says the claimant is disabled or unable to work.

Noah C. BELL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-08-14

The regulation in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1527 provides that although a claimant's physician may state he is "disabled" or "unable to work" the agency will nevertheless determine disability based upon the medical findings and other evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 makes a treating physician's conclusion that a claimant is disabled nonbinding on the Secretary, but the Secretary must give a reasoned rationale for disregarding the physician's particular findings.

Clementine COTTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1986-09-18

While it is true that the Secretary is not obligated to award disability solely on the basis of a treating physician’s conclusion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (1986), the Secretary must provide a reasoned rationale for disregarding a particular treating physician’s findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not bind an administrative law judge to a treating physician's conclusory legal determination that a claimant is disabled, particularly when it lacks detailed clinical and diagnostic support.

Robert B. KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1984-08-30

Since it was not Dr. Larrick's prerogative to make the legal determination of disability, the ALJ was not bound by his conclusory statement. Montijo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 729 F.2d 599, 601 (9th Cir.1984) (per curiam); 20 C.F.R. Sec. 404.1527 (1983). This is particularly true where, as here, the ALJ identified good reason for not accepting Dr. Larrick's determination, i.e., it was not supported by any detailed, clinical, diagnostic evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives substantial weight to a claimant’s treating physician’s opinion, but the opinion does not control the disability determination and cannot be disregarded without specific, legitimate reasons.

Glen W. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1988-04-19

Substantial weight is afforded the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician. ... While the conclusion of a treating physician does not direct a finding of “disabled” or “non-disabled,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (1986), it cannot be disregarded absent a showing of “specific, legitimate reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an adjudicator to accept a treating physician’s opinion when it is unsupported and contradicted by medical evidence.

Sorenson v. Bowen · filed 1988-11-16

However, the deference given under the law to opinions of treating physicians does not require acceptance of such opinions in all circumstances. See 20 C.F. R. § 404.1527, and Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). Garrison v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 710 (7th Cir.1985), describes an exception applicable here. ... The court therefore concludes that the treating physician’s opinion is unsupported and contradicted by the medical evidence. See, Allison v. Heckler, 711 F.2d 145, 148 (10th Cir.1983) (a treating physician’s opinion may be discounted for these reasons).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an administrative law judge to discount a physician’s opinion when it is brief, conclusory, and unsupported by medical evidence, including when the physician is not shown to be a regular treating source.

Salazar v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1992-04-14

Although a treating physician's opinion must be given deference over that of a consulting physician employed by the government, it may be disregarded "if it is brief, conclusory, and unsupported by medical evidence[.]" Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir.1987). There is no evidence indicating that Dr. Sanchez was Claimant's regular treating physician. He is not a psychiatrist or a psychologist, and his treatment of Claimant was limited and of short duration. His brief and conclusory opinion is not supported by medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 583 (11th Cir.1991) (treating physician's report may be discounted if conclusory or unsupported by objective medical evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion great weight, but it is not conclusive when unsupported by complete and specific clinical findings.

Patsy A. Stieb v. Department of Health and Human Services · filed 1992-05-11

We further conclude that the ALJ did not err in disregarding evidence of disability given by Stieb's regular treating physician. While a treating physician's opinion is normally given great weight, Stieb's physician did not support his finding of disability with complete and specific clinical findings, and thus, his opinion was not conclusive. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (1991).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion about a claimant’s condition to receive special preference and, in many circumstances, to be controlling and binding in determining disability status.

Black v. Sullivan · filed 1992-06-22(d)(2)

The new regulation requires that a treating physician’s opinion as to the condition of a claimant be given special preference in the determination of a disability status and in many circumstances the opinion may be controlling and binding upon the AU. 20 C.F.R. Part 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 does not make a treating physician's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work binding on the ALJ, who need not always accept it over a non-examining medical consultant.

Urban v. Sullivan · filed 1992-07-08

A statement by a treating physician that a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not binding on the AU. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Further, the AU need not always accept the opinion of the treating physician over a non-examining medical consultant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not make a treating physician’s unsupported conclusion that a claimant is disabled controlling, because the ultimate disability determination is for the Secretary.

Smith v. Sullivan · filed 1992-07-22

While it has long been the view of this court that treating physicians’ opinions should be given great weight, the bald assertion that his patient is permanently disabled without medical evidence meeting the “administrative definition and requirements” (which he states he does not know) clearly is not controlling. ... The final decision on whether a claimant is disabled or not is a legal one rather than a medical one, and it is for the Secretary to make that decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a treating physician’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not dispositive; the agency must review the medical findings and other evidence supporting that statement.

Day v. Sullivan · filed 1992-07-31

The regulations further reveal that the treating physician’s opinion is not absolutely dispositive: ... a statement by ... [the claimant’s physician] that ... [the claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that ... [the claimant] is disabled. We have to review the medical findings and other evidence that support a physician’s statement that ... [the claimant] is disabled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a physician's opinion to be weighed according to its clinical support and consistency with the other evidence.

Halpin v. Sullivan · filed 1992-10-05

The weight to be accorded a physician's opinion, whether he is a treating or consulting physician, depends on whether it is supported by clinical observations and findings, and is consistent with other evidence in the record. Ward v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1986); Waudby v. Bowen, 713 F.Supp. 325, 330 (W.D.Mo. 1989). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. A treating physician's opinion is generally entitled to substantial weight; however, such an opinion is not conclusive in determining disability status, and the opinion must be supported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data. Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir.1989). ... Dr. Lents' opinion is not supported by clinical observations and findings and is inconsistent with other evidence in the record. Ward v. Heckler, 786 F.2d 844; Waudby v. Bowen, 713 F.Supp. 325, 330; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, Dr. Lents' conclusion is inconsistent with the residual functional capacity assessments of Dr. Ridings and Dr. Reimer. The examinations of the claimant by Dr. Ridings, Dr. Reimer and Dr. Lents were all within a four month period. Therefore, since Dr. Lents' disability conclusion was not supported by objective medical findings and is inconsistent with other evidence in the record, it is proper to accord little weight to his statement.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require automatic controlling weight for every treating doctor's report; controlling weight applies only when the opinion is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, otherwise the opinion is evaluated under the rule's other factors.

Rivera v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1993-02-19(d)(2)

The regulation is thus neither as delimiting nor inflexible as appellant's argument suggests. It does not mandate assignment of some unvarying weight to every report in every case. The ALJ is not required automatically to give controlling weight to any "treating" doctor's report, denominated as such. In some cases "controlling weight" may be assigned if the report meets the specified qualifications, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. In other cases, the weight of a treating source's report is further evaluated in light of the many factors articulated throughout the remainder of the rule. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain why a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight when it is contradicted by substantial objective medical evidence.

Rodriguez v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1993-05-04(d)(2)

The ALJ fully credited the internist's report. He declined to assign controlling weight to the treating chiropractor's diagnoses because they were contradicted by the other substantial objective medical evidence in the record, including x-rays. He carefully explained his conclusions as required by the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1991).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and gives greater weight to opinions from physicians with a longer treatment relationship and more contact with the claimant.

Odorizzi v. Sullivan · filed 1993-10-21(d)(2)

Dr. Finkel’s opinion, as that of the treating physician, is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Even if his opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, then the longer he treated plaintiff and the more contact he had with him regarding his back condition the more weight his opinion would be granted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i) and (ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician's opinion to be well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Dow v. HHS · filed 1994-03-31(d)(2)

The regulations give the ALJ wide discretion in weighing evaluations by treating physicians. They require that a treating physician's opinion be "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [not] inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while the treatment relationship's length and nature support giving the opinion greater weight.

Diaz v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1994-06-02(d)

Under the Secretary’s regulations, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Moreover, the longer a doctor treats a claimant, the more weight his opinion should be granted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i) and (ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, but an opinion that the claimant is disabled is not dispositive because that ultimate determination is reserved to the Secretary.

George CASTELLANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1994-06-17(d)(2), (e)(2)

The Secretary will give controlling weight to that type of opinion if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... A treating physician may also proffer an opinion that a claimant is totally disabled. That opinion is not dispositive because final responsibility for determining the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Secretary.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under subsection (d), a treating physician’s opinion about the degree of a claimant’s disability is entitled to significant weight.

Calrroll v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services of United States · filed 1995-01-20(d)

If plaintiff did in fact see Dr. Griffith between October 1976 and June 1980, his opinion as a treating physician regarding the degree of plaintiffs disability would be entitled to significant weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating doctor’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits less than controlling weight when the record provides sound bases for doing so.

Poteat v. Shalala · filed 1995-01-20(d)(2)

The Secretary gives a treating doctor’s opinion on the nature and severity of impairments controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... On review, the court finds that the Secretary had sound bases for assigning less than controlling weight to Dr. McCain’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the record; an opinion that does not satisfy those conditions may still receive some weight.

Thomas J. FRANKL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, De · filed 1995-02-13(d)(2)

We agree with the district court and the ALJ that these opinions are eonclusory and therefore not entitled to controlling weight, ... yet we conclude that the opinions are entitled to some weight in this case.

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 provides that a treating physician's opinion may receive controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques.

Chartier v. Shalala, Secretary · filed 1995-02-21

Although plaintiff is seemingly troubled that greater reliance was placed on the physicians' opinions than on his own opinion and complaints, 20 C.F.R., § 404.1527 and § 416. 927 emphatically provide that a treating physician's opinion may be entitled to controlling weight, but only when the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s opinion to be supported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data, gives such an opinion limited weight when it is merely conclusory, and reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Secretary.

Barry v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-15(d)(2), (e)(1)

“A treating physician’s opinion is ‘not conclusive in determining disability status and must be supported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic data.’ ... It is the Secretary and not the treating physician “who is responsible for determining whether or not a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability.” ... “Although the opinion of the treating physician is to be accorded a high degree of deference by the ALJ, this deference should be limited if the treating physician’s opinion consists only of conclusory statements.” ... (“The weight given a treating physician’s opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques, results from frequent examinations, and supports the administrative record.

Koseck v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1994-10-18(d)

If the opinion of the treating physician is supported by medically acceptable techniques and results from frequent examinations, and the opinion supports the administrative record, the treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and good reasons when controlling weight is not given.

Thorington v. Shalala · filed 1994-10-28(d)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply [several factors] in determining the weight to give the opinion. We always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion. ... The ALJ’s determination did not comply with these requirements.

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

Section 404.1527(d) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques, results from frequent examinations, and supports the administrative record.

Manns v. Shalala · filed 1995-05-26(d)

If the opinion of the treating physician is supported by medically acceptable techniques and results from frequent examinations, and the opinion supports the administrative record, the treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight.

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

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

Sapienza v. Shalala · filed 1995-08-14(d)(2)

A treating physician is one who has provided the individual with medical treatment or evaluation, and who has or had an ongoing treatment and a physician-patient relationship with the applicant. ... Generally, a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Donald SMALLWOOD, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee · filed 1995-08-30(d)(2)

Since Dr. Lemon did not overstep his medical role in stating his opinion that Small-wood was limited to four-hour days, and since Dr. Lemon is Smallwood’s treating cardiologist, his opinion on the matter controls if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable ... diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Gercke v. Chater · filed 1995-10-11(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion that an individual is disabled is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Even if the treating physician’s opinion is retrospective, the opinion is binding on the Commissioner unless contradicted by other medical evidence or “overwhelmingly compelling” non-medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the listed factors determine the weight given to it.

Brown v. Department of Health & Human Services · filed 1996-01-25(d)(2)

These regulations begin with the following general principle regarding the opinions of treating physicians. Treatment relationship. Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources.... If wc find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply [various factors presented in the regulation] in determining the weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a physician opinion when it is brief, conclusory, or unsupported by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Ferguson v. Secretary of HHS · filed 1996-02-02(d)(2)

The ALJ may also reject a physician opinion when it is brief, concluso-ry, or not supported by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Two of the three statements upon which plaintiff seeks to rely do not appear to be formal diagnoses, but rather informal statements in letters. All three are brief and fairly conclusory. ... The court determines that the ALJ, having highlighted these four manners in which the evidence was inconsistent with the doctors’ findings of inability to return to work, acted within the bounds of his discretion in giving less weight to the three physician statements.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight than a non-treating physician’s opinion, but controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ weighs it using specified factors.

Winford v. Chater · filed 1996-02-26(d)(2)

Under section 404.1527, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to more weight than the opinion of a non-treating physician. It is only given controlling weight, however, if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Under section 404.1527, if an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must then consider the weight to be given to the physician’s opinion by applying five factors identified in the regulation: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examinations; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence with which the physician supports his opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area in which he is rendering an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i-ii), and (d)(3) — (5).

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

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

Tardnugo v. SSA · filed 1996-02-27(d)(2)

Although Tardugno's treating chiropractor. Dr. McCarthy, gave his opinion in June 1993 and May 1994 that Tardugno was totally disabled due to a "disc syndrome," his opinion merits controlling weight only if it "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic technigues and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1994). ... Based on the record. Dr. McCarthy's treatment is not well-supported and his opinion of total disability is contradicted by other examining physicians. ... Therefore, the ALJ was entitled to give more weight to opinions other than that of Dr. McCarthy.

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

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the factfinder to explain the weight assigned when it is not controlling.

Porter v. Chater · filed 1996-03-27(d)(2)

The regulations governing adjudication of disability claims provide.that a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it is supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d). When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the factfinder must apply a number of factors set forth in the regulations to determine the weight to give the opinion and must always give good reasons for giving the opinion whatever weight it receives.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Arturo S. MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appe · filed 1995-07-10(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a patient’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with ... other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise accords it considerable weight when supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the record as a whole.

Stupakevich v. Chater · filed 1995-12-05(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4)

The opinion of a treating physician is only given controlling weight where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... Even though it may not be entitled to controlling weight, the opinion of a treating physician nevertheless is accorded considerable weight when it is supported by relevant evidence, such as “medical signs and laboratory findings,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3), and is consistent “with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Sanders v. Chater · filed 1996-03-29(d)

The regulations governing adjudication of disability claims provide that a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments will be given controlling weight if it is supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d). ... In accordance with the pertinent regulations, the ALJ must state whether he is giving Dr. Haddad’s opinion controlling weight and, if not, why. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Ward v. Chater · filed 1996-04-29(d)(2)

This regulation, like the treating physician’s rule, gives more weight to the opinion of a treating source. However, it accords that opinion controlling weight only if two conditions are met: (1) that it is supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) that it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating physicians' opinions, requires those opinions to be weighed against the record as a whole, and leaves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Holler v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-05-09(d)(2), (d)(4), and (e)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1995), the Commissioner must generally give more weight to the opinion of a treating physician because the physician is often most able to provide "a detailed, longitudinal picture" of a claimant's alleged disability. The opinion of a treating physician must be weighed against the record as a whole when determining eligibility for disability insurance benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4) (1995). The Commissioner is ultimately responsible for determining whether the claimant is disabled under the Act, and a treating physician's opinion that the claimant is disabled does not necessarily mean that the claimant will be found disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 1527(e) (1995).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a treating physician's opinion when it is inconsistent with detailed clinical and diagnostic evidence.

Semuga v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-06-13(d)(2)

Although the opinion of a treating physician is usually given greater weight than that of an examining physician, see Allen v. Califano, 613 F.2d 139, 145 (6th Cir.1980), the ALJ could properly reject Dr. Ritchey's opinion as not being consistent with the detailed clinical and diagnostic test evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347-48 (6th Cir.1993).

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

Section 404.1527(d) permits the Secretary to reject one or more inconsistent treating-physician opinions after considering the listed factors, but requires specific, legitimate reasons for disregarding an opinion and a determination that the competing opinions outweigh it.

Hishaw v. Chater · filed 1996-08-23(d)

When several treating physicians render inconsistent opinions, the Secretary may reject one or more of those opinions after considering the factors identified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... The Secretary must determine whether the opinions rendered by the other physicians outweigh that of the treating physician, and must give specific, legitimate reasons for disregarding his opinion.

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

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

Toro v. Chater · filed 1996-09-10(d)(2)

The Commissioner is to give a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the applicant’s impairments “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... In rejecting the opinion of Dr. Hill concerning plaintiffs residual functional capacity, the ALJ cited evidence that is pertinent to a determination that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. ... it is especially significant that, as far as can be determined on the basis of the North General Hospital documents in the record, Dr. Hill had examined plaintiff only once prior to assessing her residual functional capacity on May 20,1992.

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) makes a treating physician's opinion binding on an ALJ only when no evidence contradicts it.

Rickard v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-11-27(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician such as Dr. Evans is binding on an ALJ only if no evidence contradicts that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give appropriate weight to treating-source opinions and provide good reasons when declining to give them controlling weight.

Woodin v. SSA · filed 1996-12-18(d)(2)

However, if the ALJ does not give such controlling weight, he or she must "always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ gave] to [the claimant's] treating source's opinion." Id.

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

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

Thomas v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 1996-12-18(d)(2)

Thomas primarily contends that the ALJ failed to abide by the Commissioner's treating physician regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), and thus erred in refusing to accept Dr. Pabis's retrospective opinion that Thomas was disabled by schizophrenia as of June 1987. Under this regulation, if the treating source's opinion "is well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence" in the record, the opinion will be accorded "controlling weight." ... The ALJ properly applied the treating physician regulation in rejecting both Dr. Pabis's diagnosis of schizophrenia and his speculation that the schizophrenia reached a disabling level by June 1987.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The Secretary must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Bosley v. Shalala · filed 1995-03-09(d)(2)

In evaluating medical evidence, the Secretary will give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment, when that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs consideration of the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the physician’s longitudinal knowledge when determining the deference due a medical opinion.

Stanistreet v. Chater · filed 1995-10-13(d)(2)

Deference is given a treating physician’s opinion because he has a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual, ... and is most able to develop a detailed, longitudinal picture of the patient’s medical impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship are all considered in determining whether a physician’s opinion is entitled to such deference.

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

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating physician's opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors.

Havice v. Chater · filed 1997-01-10(d)(2)-(6)

A treating physician's opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment will be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2); Castellano, 26 F.3d at 1029. If the treating physician's opinion is inconsistent with other medical evidence, the ALJ must “examine the other physicians’ reports to see if they ‘outweigh[ ]’ the treating physician's report, not the other way around.” Goatcher v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th 1995)(quotations omitted). In addition, the ALJ must consider the following specific factors to determine what weight to give a medical opinion: ... Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). ... On this record, it is impossible to conclude that the radiologist’s opinion outweighs that of Dr. Sisler, and the ALJ erred in rejecting the treating physician’s opinion.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires greater weight for a treating physician's opinion because it provides a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant's condition, but the opinion need not receive controlling weight when it lacks clinical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Dixon v. Chater, Commissioner · filed 1997-01-22(d)(2)

The Commissioner must generally give more weight to the opinion of a treating physician because the physician is often most able to provide "a detailed, longitudinal picture" of a claimant's alleged disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(1996). However, the "treating physician's rule," see Coffman v. Bowen, 829 F.2d 514, 517-18 (4th Cir. 1987), does not require that a treating physician's testimony and report be given "controlling weight." Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996) ("[I]f a [treating] 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."); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2) (1996).

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

When a treating physician provides a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's impairments, the treating physician's findings are usually given more weight than a nontreating physician's findings.

Dedis v. Chater · filed 1997-02-11(d)(2)

This error is particularly troublesome since the findings of a treating physician are usually given more weight than the findings of a non-treating physician when the treating physician has in fact provided a detailed, longitudinal picture of medical impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Under § 404.1527(d)(2), a treating physician’s opinion on disability does not control the ultimate disability determination; the Commissioner may reject it when substantial contrary evidence exists.

Lafleur v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-02-19(d)(2)

There is no merit to LaFleur's argument that Dr. Cavanagh's opinion was entitled to greater probative weight. Even if the ALJ had expressly considered Dr. Cavanaugh a "treating physician" under the regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the ultimate determination of disability rests with the Commissioner, and not with the treating doctor. Houston v. Secretary of Health and Human Servs., 736 F.2d 365, 367 (6th Cir.1984). The Commissioner was not bound by Dr. Cavanagh's opinion of total disability, because there was a great deal of substantive evidence to the contrary.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hinkle v. Callahan · filed 1997-03-31(d)(2)

In addition to being well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, in order to be given controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion must not be inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Because Dr. Ball’s opinion was inconsistent with Dr. Cochran’s, it was not entitled to controlling weight by the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d) requires an administrative law judge to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by clinical and laboratory findings, and otherwise to weigh it against the entire record.

Bryant v. Shirley Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-04-04(d)

An administrative law judge, however, must give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician only when that physician's opinion is supported by clinical and laboratory findings. When substantial evidence contradicts the opinion of a treating physician, the judge must determine how much weight to give each bit of testimony in light of the record as a whole. In that situation, the opinion of a treating physician is not dispositive.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source medical opinions, but an ALJ need not give controlling weight to a treating physician's unsupported opinion that a claimant is totally disabled.

Lopez v. SSA · filed 1997-05-09(d)

Lopez is correct that a treating physician's medical opinion generally is entitled to greater weight than an opinion of a nonexamining physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). In addition, there is no guestion that Dr. Kott had a long-term treating relationship with Lopez and that Dr. Kott is a specialist in neurology, an appropriate specialty to treat Lopez's condition. See § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6). ... Accordingly, the ALJ gave appropriate weight to the treating physicians' medical opinions and did not err in failing to give controlling weight to the treating physicians' opinions that he was "totally disabled."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not make a treating physician's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work binding on the ALJ.

Hayatgheyb v. John J. Callahan, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1997-07-17

However, a treating physician's statement that a claimant is "disabled" or "unable to work" is not binding on the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Secretary to consider a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is disabled when it is supported by medical findings and other evidence.

Jeannette DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant · filed 1990-08-29

Under our holding today, the Secretary must consider any medical evidence which is relevant to the residual functional capacity of the claimant for widow’s disability benefits, including the direct testimony of the claimant and the documented opinion of the claimant’s treating physician to the extent it is grounded in medical evidence.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ 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 case record.

Kelly v. Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1994-12-08(d)(2)

The ALJ was required to give controlling weight to Dr. White’s opinion of the severity of Mr. Kelly’s impairment, if that opinion was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d at 56.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a treating physician’s opinion when it is not well supported by clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Hayes v. Callahan · filed 1997-08-08(d)(2)

The ALJ also may reject a treating physician’s opinion if it is not well supported by climcal and/or laboratory diagnostic techniques or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion only when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, § 404.1527(d) requires the ALJ to weigh it using specified factors, including supportability.

Loftus v. SSA · filed 1997-08-20(d)(2), (d)(3)

First Circuit law does not require that an ALJ give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion. Arrovo v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 82, 89 (1st Cir. 1991); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(1997)(controlling weight given to treating source's opinion when "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record"). If a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is required to apply a number of factors and explain the reasons for his decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1997). The ALJ considers the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the consistency of the opinion with other opinions, and whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings. Id. The ALJ must not substitute his own judgment for uncontroverted medical opinion. Rosado v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 807 F.2d 292, 293-294 (1st Cir. 1986).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source's well-supported, consistent medical opinion, but it does not require controlling weight for a chiropractor's opinion because a chiropractor is not a medical source.

Clarence WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1997-10-15(d)(2)

We, therefore, must agree with the Second Circuit’s conclusion that under the current regulations, the ALJ has the discretion to determine the appropriate weight to accord a chiropractor’s opinion based on all evidence in the record since a chiropractor is not a medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs that opinions from treating sources generally receive more weight because they can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's impairment and a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

Lewis v. Callahan · filed 1997-10-29(d)(2)

A similar preference for the opinions of treating doctors is found in the Commissioner's regulations: Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultive examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.

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

A well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record receives controlling weight; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed using the regulatory factors.

Singletary v. Apfel · filed 1997-11-10(d)(2)-(5)

Even if the ALJ could not assign controlling weight to Dr. Dobson’s opinion, the ALJ should have evaluated the factors laid out in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(5). Instead, the ALJ rejected Dr. Dobson’s opinion in a single sentence. In light of the regulatory factors, Dr. Dobson’s opinion would still be entitled to considerable weight.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits less than controlling weight otherwise.

Gorton v. Callahan, SSA · filed 1998-01-20(d)(2)

The portion D r . Nagel’s opinion concerning the plaintiff’s exertional capacity was not entitled to controlling weight under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) because it was not sufficiently supported by objective medical evidence and not sufficiently consistent with the other evidence in the record.

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

Section 404.1527(d) allows opinions from examining physicians to receive less weight than opinions from physicians who have treated the claimant over a long period.

Oray R. Winter v. John J. Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1998-01-22(d)

The Social Security regulations note that the opinions of examining physicians may be given less weight than those who have treated the patient over a long period of time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) ... Additionally, the ALJ's opinion does not suggest that she reinterpreted Dr. Rao's test results.

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

Under § 404.1527(d)(2), a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments receives controlling weight when well-supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Underwood v. Shalala · filed 1997-09-25(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments will be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fox v. Apfel · filed 1997-10-28(d)(2)

The opinion of the treating physician controls if it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

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

The regulation gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is medically well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Brister v. Apfel · filed 1998-02-12(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to "controlling weight” if well supported medically and when not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion only when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, while reserving the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Boisvert v. Callahan · filed 1998-03-10(e)

A treating physician’s opinion may be entitled to controlling weight, but only if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Further, the Commissioner still retains the ultimate responsibility for making the decision of whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to determine the nature of the physician-patient relationship and give the treating physician's opinions appropriate weight.

Smith v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1998-03-11

On remand, the ALJ should determine the nature of the physician-patient relationship between Dr. Hinkle and Mr. Smith, and accord the doctor's opinions concerning the disabling nature of the claimant's pain their appropriate weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires the Commissioner to give more weight to a treating physician's opinion and to weigh it against the record as a whole.

Goodman v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1998-03-18(d)(2), (d)(4)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1997), the Commissioner must generally give more weight to the opinion of a treating physician because the physician is often most able to provide "a detailed, longitudinal picture" of a claimant's alleged disability. The opinion of a treating physician must be weighed in light of the record as a whole when determining eligibility for disability insurance benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4) (1997).

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

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

Rohrberg v. Apfel · filed 1998-11-12(d)(2)

In fact, the ALJ must “give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record; if those criteria are not met, the opinion is analyzed like any other medical opinion.

Byrd v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1998-12-31(d)(2)

Under the social security regulations, a treating physician's opinion will be given controlling weight if (1) it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (2) it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1997). If the treating physician's opinion does not satisfy these criteria, then it must be analyzed as any other medical opinion of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (1997).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the adjudicator must weigh it using the listed factors.

Rhodes v. Apfel · filed 1999-02-24(d)(2)

A treating physician's assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Absent these two prerequisites, it is an error to give an opinion controlling weight simply because it is the opinion of the treating physician. If the opinion of a treating physician is not well supported or is inconsistent with other evidence, the ALJ must consider the following factors to determine what weight to give the opinion: (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 Secretary's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2)(6). Although the ALJ failed to specifically mention the factors listed in 404.1527(d), the ALJ applied the factors when determining the weight to be given to Dr. Chaudhari's opinion.

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

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

Flowers v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1999-03-19(d)

Under the Social Security regulations, a treating physician's opinion need not be given controlling weight unless: (1) it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; if it is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider specified factors and explain the weight assigned.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1998-05-05(d)(2)

The law gives special evidentiary weight to the opinion of the treating physician. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). The factors that must be considered when the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a ■ specialist. ... In addition, the regulations provide that the agency “will always give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it] gives [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”

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

Section 404.1527 gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the adjudicator must weigh it under the listed factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Guyton v. Apfel · filed 1998-08-31(d)(2), (d)(2)(i)-(d)(6)

In order for evidence from the treating source to receive “controlling weight,” it must be 1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and 2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the opinion of a treating source fails to meet one of these two requirements, the Administrative Law Judge or the Appeals Council must then request additional evidence (if needed) and apply the following six factors “in determining the weight to give the opinion”: 1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; 2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) the relevant evidence in support of the medical opinion; 4) the consistency of the medical opinions reflected in the record as a whole; 5) whether the medical provider is a specialist in the area in which he renders his opinion; and 6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(d)(6). Additionally, the Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council are required to give “good reasons” regarding the “the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Michaels v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 1998-10-27(d)(2)

As the ALJ in this case acknowledged, a treating physician's opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition should receive "controlling weight" if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable" findings and techniques, and "is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" of record. 20 C.F .R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Dr. Marshall's explanation was well-reasoned and sufficiently detailed to support his opinion that Michaels needed to recline frequently throughout the day. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) ("The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion. Furthermore, because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions."). ... We find this rationale insufficient for several reasons, and we cannot affirm the denial of benefits based on illogical reasoning that fails to "build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the result." Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 307 (7th Cir.1996). See also Groves v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 809, 811 (7th Cir.1998); J.C. Penney Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.3d 988, 996 (7th Cir.1997). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) ("We will always give good reasons ... for the weight we give your treating source's opinion.").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating physician's opinion and to give good reasons when declining to give it controlling weight.

Barton v. SSA · filed 1999-03-24(d)(2)

Generally, the ALJ must afford more weight to the medical opinions of a claimant's treating physicians because those sources are: likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant's] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Of course, the ALJ may decide not to give controlling weight to the opinions of a claimant's treating physicians. However, if the ALJ does not give those opinions controlling weight, he or she must "always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [actually ascribed] to [the claimant's] treating source's opinion." Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs an ALJ to recognize that a treating physician’s opinion may deserve deference.

Hung NGUYEN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1999-03-26(d)(2)

Although for the reasons mentioned above, the May results were not critical, the ALJ’s reasoning was further weakened by his apparent failure to recognize that Dr. Mahoney’s opinion, as that of a treating physician may have been entitled to some deference. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to consider and apply specified factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion.

Sloan v. Apfel · filed 1999-08-03(d)

Regardless of whether the ALJ considered Dr. Evans a treating physician, the ALJ did apply the proper legal standards and analysis relative to a treating physician in deciding that Dr. Evans’ opinion was entitled to no more weight as a treating physician than the other physicians’ opinions. In our remand, we directed that the Commissioner should consider and apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), which he did.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified relationship, supportability, and specialty factors.

DaCosta v. Apfel · filed 2000-01-11(d)(2)

The Commissioner’s regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (1998), specifies that a treating doctor’s opinion may be entitled to controlling weight, but only when the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of the record. In addition, when the a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner must consider such factors as the kind and duration of the examining and treating relationship, the general supportability of the treating physician’s opinion with the entire medical record and the medical specialty of the physician, when assessing the reliability of the report. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence and requires good reasons for the weight assigned; subsection (d)(5)’s greater weight for specialists does not apply when the specialist’s opinion is contradicted or discredited.

Prosch v. Apfel · filed 2000-02-03(d)(2), (d)(5)

Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, the regulations provide that the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2); see also SSR 96-2p. ... Although a finding that a treating physician’s opinion is not so supported may in certain circumstances support the discrediting of a treating physician’s evaluation, we do not believe that such a finding is required. This conclusion is fully supported by section 404.1527(d)(2) itself, which provides that a treating physician’s opinion is accorded controlling weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (emphasis added). ... We have held, however, that this rule does not apply where the opinion of the specialist is controverted by substantial evidence or is otherwise discredited. See Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622-23 (8th Cir. 1994). Because Dr. Crowe’s opinion was contrary to other substantial medical evidence, it accordingly was not entitled to special deference under section 404.1527(d)(5).

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

A treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence; specialist status does not require special deference when substantial evidence controverts or discredits the opinion.

Prosch v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-02-03(d)(2), (d)(5)

First, Prosch contends that 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) mandates that an ALJ cannot refuse to grant a treating physician's opinion controlling weight unless the ALJ finds that the opinion was not "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques," a finding not made by the ALJ in this case. Although a finding that a treating physician's opinion is not so supported may in certain circumstances support the discrediting of a treating physician's evaluation, we do not believe that such a finding is required. This conclusion is fully supported by section 404.1527(d)(2) itself, which provides that a treating physician's opinion is accorded controlling weight only if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (emphasis added). ... Second, Prosch argues that the opinion of Dr. Crowe, an orthopedic specialist, is entitled to greater weight than the opinions of the other physicians of record because of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5), which provides that the opinion of a specialist is accorded greater weight than the opinion of a general physician. We have held, however, that this rule does not apply where the opinion of the specialist is controverted by substantial evidence or is otherwise discredited. See Riley v. Shalala, 18 F.3d 619, 622-23 (8th Cir. 1994). Because Dr. Crowe's opinion was contrary to other substantial medical evidence, it accordingly was not entitled to special deference under section 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) provides that a medical-source statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not itself establish disability, while the supporting medical findings and other evidence must be reviewed.

Abachiche v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-14(d)(1)

(1) Opinions that you are disabled. We are responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability. In so doing, we review all of the medical findings and other evidence that support a medical source’s statement that you are disabled. 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... Given the uncertainty surrounding Dr. Round’s statements, it is not sufficiently clear to the Court that the ALJ could make a finding supported by substantial evidence that Abachiche was not disabled without reopening the record and obtaining additional medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source’s opinion to consider the regulatory checklist of factors, not just supportability and consistency, even when declining controlling weight.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(c)(2)

The list of factors in § 404.1527 does not exist to occupy space. Indeed, even if an ALJ articulates a good reason for refusing to give a treating source controlling weight, remand can be based on the ALJ’s failure to discuss the “required checklist of factors.” Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 750–51 (7th Cir. 2010). Here, the ALJ failed to consider any factors other than the supportability and consistency of King’s opinion. True, these are the most important factors. However, the Commissioner points to no authority that permits the ALJ to consider these factors to the exclusion of the others.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors and give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight unless good cause supports giving it less weight.

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

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; 3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; 4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). A treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence); see also Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight where: 1) the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; 2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or 3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hintz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

MANHEIMER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-16(c)(2)

“[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a treating source as a medical source with an ongoing treatment relationship, while § 404.1527(c)(4) directs that greater consistency with the record as a whole warrants greater weight for a medical opinion.

Norman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-09(a)(2) and (c)(4)

However, as the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, Dr. Kahle is not properly defined as a treating source. A treating source is a medical source “who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship” with a claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Courts often look to the context and frequency of the visits between a patient and doctor. See Kornecky v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 167 F. App’x. 496, 506 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[D]epending on the circumstances and the nature of the alleged condition, two or three visits often will not suffice for an ongoing treatment relationship.”). Dr. Kahle had a limited relationship with Norman; the record reflects only two appointments before rendering his opinions (Doc. 17 at 10). Further, Norman presents no evidence supporting the contention that Dr. Kahle was a treating source. ... Nonetheless, the ALJ did apply the treating source analysis and provided good reasons, based on the objective evidence, for giving Dr. Kahle’s opinion little weight (Doc. 11 at 34). ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”) ... Likewise, this Court concludes the ALJ properly relied on the record as a whole to discount Dr. Kahle’s opinion, and the determination Norman had the ability to sustain employment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and good reasons when the opinion is given less weight.

Steffel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-15(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating doctor's opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the record, requires good reasons to deny controlling weight, and section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified factors.

Steadman v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-22(c)(2), (c)

“[A] treating doctor’s opinion generally is entitled to controlling weight if it is consistent with the record.” Hall v. Berryhill, 906 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must provide good reasons for the weight he gives it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). He must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship, the extent to which the opinion is supported by other evidence, its consistency with the record as a whole, the physician’s specialization, and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating doctor's opinion more weight than a non-treating doctor's opinion and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Rice v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2021-03-26(c)(2)

A treating doctor’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a non- treating doctor’s opinion, and an ALJ must give good reasons for discounting a treating doctor’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Moore v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

An opinion from a medical source who has examined the claimant is generally given more weight than one who has not, and in particular the opinion of someone who regularly treats the claimant (treating-source opinion) must be given “controlling weight” if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory ... diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must evaluate it under the regulation’s factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Sippel v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-04-27(c)(2)

For claims such as this one, filed prior to March 2017, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Reinaas v. Saul, 953 F.3d 461, 465 (7" Cir. 2020). ... As plaintiff notes, the ALJ failed to mention Dr. Sethi’s status as a rheumatologist, the relevant specialty in a psoriatic arthritis case. ... The ALJ also failed to specifically discuss the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, which commenced in October 2015 and continued through the time of the hearing, including (by my count) nine visits during that span. (Tr. at 524, 534, 544, 555, 566, 621, 814, 1168, 1192.) ... Dr. Sethi did, yet the ALJ failed to consider whether and how this relationship and the doctor’s speciality affected his analysis. ... In sum, the ALJ failed to discuss important regulatory factors in this case, and at least some of the reasons he provided for discounting Dr. Sethi’s opinion do not withstand scrutiny. Accordingly, I cannot uphold his decision giving this opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An acceptable medical source whose relationship with a claimant exists solely to prepare a disability report is not a treating source and is not entitled to controlling weight.

Gresham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-07(a)(2)

Furthermore, the assessment was prepared for purposes of Gresham’s disability application, and, therefore, it was not a “treating source” and not entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (“We will not consider an acceptable medical source to be your treating source if your relationship with the source is not based on your medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on your need to obtain a report in support of your claim for disability.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Siwek v. Saul · filed 2020-01-22(c)(2)

In sum, the ALJ erred by not giving controlling weight to Dr. McCall’s opinion that Lucy could not perform a job that required lifting of over five pounds because the opinion came from a treating source, is well-supported by medically acceptable practices, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ also erred in failing to address the treating physician regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion; a formal two-step discussion is unnecessary when those reasons are clear.

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

Importantly, the written decision need not discuss each step in the treating physician rule so long as the Court can understand clearly the weight granted to a treating source opinion and the ALJ articulated good reasons for granting that weight. ... Consequently, the ALJ did not err by not expressly articulating the two-step process.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lehman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(c)(2)

Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before March 17, 2017, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to explain the weight given to a treating source opinion that does not receive controlling weight.

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

Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ found Dr. Lynch’s opinion unworthy of controlling weight but failed to take the second step and explain the weight of which it was due is without merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require controlling weight or treating-source reasons for an opinion without evidence that a treating physician gave it.

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

Because there is no evidence that this statement was from a treating physician, the ALJ was not required to assign controlling weight to it or to state good reasons for the weight he did assign.