20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator weighing a medical opinion to consider six factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and the source's expertise.

Palmer v. Saul · filed 2020-08-14(c)(1)-(6)

When weighing any medical opinion, treating or otherwise, the Regulations require that the ALJ consider the following factors: length of treatment relationship; frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; relevant evidence used to support the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the entire record; and the expertise and specialized knowledge of the source. ... These factors are set out in six subsections of the relevant regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(1)-(6); 20 C.F.R. §§416.927(c)(1)-(6). ... The Court finds that the ALJ evaluated the “other source” opinion evidence in accordance with the regulations and adequately explained his assignments of weight to both the Barros opinion and the Fellows opinion. ... The ALJ squarely addressed the supportability of the Fellows opinion, as required by subsection (3). “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. §416.927(c)(3). ... The ALJ adequately and effectively addressed the factors required by the regulations and by SSR 06-03p. The ALJ’s adherence to the regulation is clear and the ALJ sufficiently explained his decision. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in his evaluation of the Fellows opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when assigning relative weight to a treating physician's opinion that is not given controlling weight.

Blessing v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-17(c)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in assigning its relative weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s or psychologist’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship’s length and frequency, the source’s knowledge of the patient, support for the opinion, and consistency with the record.

Woods v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-17(c)(2)-(6)

In weighing the medical opinion of a treating physician or psychologist, the ALJ must also consider factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the amount of knowledge the doctor had about the patient, the amount of evidence supporting the opinion, and consistency with the record as a whole. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017) (remanding case because ALJ did not considers the factors listed in § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ did not defer to Dr. Michaels’ opinion and did not mention the § 404.1527 factors at all.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors, including the examining and treatment relationships, treatment length and frequency, supportability, consistency, and specialization, when assigning weight to a medical opinion.

Grzegorski v. Saul · filed 2020-08-26(c)

Further, the ALJ failed to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors, as 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) requires.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to medical opinions that provide relevant supporting evidence and better explanations, allowing the ALJ to discount a checkbox opinion lacking explicit reasons.

Blodgett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-01(c)(3)

Moreover, an ALJ is not required to take medical opinions at face value and may consider the quality of the explanation when determining how much weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007). Though Dr. Shin’s opinion indicated Plaintiff’s medical record was the basis for his opinion, Dr. Shin failed to provide explicit reasons for each of his opined functional limitations. See AR at 969-71. Instead, Dr. Shin’s August 2018 opinion noted Plaintiff’s limitations solely in checkbox form. Id. at 86, 969-71. Consequently, the ALJ did not err in discounting his opinion on this basis. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 (quoting Crane v. Shalala, 76 F.3d 251, 253 (9th Cir. 1996)) (“The ALJ may permissibly reject check-off reports that do not contain any explanation of the bases of their conclusions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Ringhausen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-01(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion, (4) consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence and otherwise weigh it using treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialty factors.

Dunning v. Saul · filed 2020-09-04(c)(2)–(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). “When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.” Revels, 874 F.3d at 654; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6). Greater weight is also given to the “opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider an opinion's supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, and the source's familiarity with the record when weighing the opinion.

McAndrews v. Saul · filed 2020-09-09(c), (c)(6)

An ALJ may reasonably consider the supportability and consistency of an opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) ... Additionally, an ALJ may consider a source’s familiarity with the record in weighing the reliability of their opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors and determine the weight of a treating-physician opinion when it is not given controlling weight, including the opinion’s supportability and timing.

Cunningham v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-24(c)(1)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c). ... Timing is a relevant consideration, and though an ALJ must consider each opinion, it is appropriate to discount an opinion provided outside of the relevant period. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (6); Turner v. Comm’r of Social Security, 613 F.3d 1217, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2010) (Gould, J., dissenting).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating medical opinions but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss each factor.

(SS) Lebeouf v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(c)

In her brief, Plaintiff cites to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 rather than 20 C.F.R. § 416.927. (See Doc. No. 12 at 20.) The former regulation pertains to disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act while the latter pertains to SSI. However, the regulations are substantively identical. ... However, while the ALJ must consider those factors, she is not required to expressly discuss each one.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an Administrative Law Judge to support the weight assigned to a medical opinion with substantial evidence and to apply the regulatory factors concerning supportability and consistency.

Tucker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3)-(c)(4)

Thus, ALJ Holsclaw’s explanation for the weight assigned to Dr. Dennis’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and does not comport with applicable law. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4), 416,927(c)(3) and (c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ, when weighing medical opinions, to consider consistency with the record, supporting evidence and explanation, the source's familiarity with the case record, specialization, and the number of visits with the provider.

Pittman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)(4), (b)(6), (c)(5), (c)(2)(i)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1996). ... Relevant factors when evaluating a medical opinion include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the quality of the explanation provided in the opinion, and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole. ... Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1042 (9th Cir. 2007); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)(6) (assessing the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record”). ... While opinions from sources that are not acceptable medical sources are not automatically entitled to lesser weight than opinions from acceptable medical sources, specialists’ opinions about issues related to their specialty are entitled to more weight than opinions from non-specialists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5), (f)(1). ... The number of visits a claimant had with a particular provider is a relevant factor in assigning weight to an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's expertise and specialized knowledge.

Wilke v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(c)(1)-(6)

When weighing any medical opinion, treating or otherwise, an ALJ must consider the following factors: length of treatment relationship; frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; relevant evidence used to support the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the entire record; and the expertise and specialized knowledge of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization.

Garcia-Cortes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)

When determining whether controlling weight should be given to a treating source, the ALJ must use a “factors-based test that considers the length of the treatment relationship, nature and extent of the relationship with [the] applicant, whether the source provided evidence in support of the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the source specializes in the field.” Guarente, 2017 WL 3621078 at *6 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treating relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other supporting or contradictory factors.

Griffin v. Saul · filed 2020-10-01(c)(1)-(6)

The relevant social security regulations provide that medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: 1) whether the source of the opinion examined the claimant; 2) whether the source treated the claimant and, if so, a) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and b) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and 6) any other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6); ... In this case, Dr. Travis, who examined Griffin twice, issued a medical source statement in which she opined, inter alia, that Griffin could only sit for four hours and stand and walk for one hour total during an eight-hour workday, could only occasionally push and pull leg controls, never balance, and could frequently reach overhead. ... Therefore, the Court finds that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Travis’s opinions that were expressed in the Medical Source Statement were not in line with Griffin’s own testimony, Dr. Travis’s own reports, or the record as a whole. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in assigning no weight to the Medical Source Statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when assigning weight to a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion, and permits specialty as a consideration but not an independent basis for rejection on these facts.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-08(c)(5)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s first proffered rationale for rejecting Dr. Lovell’s opinion—his lack of specialization—was not legitimate. Although the presence or absence of specialty training is an appropriate consideration when determining how much weight to assign to a medical opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5), it could not serve as an independent basis for rejecting as Dr. Lovell’s opinion, particularly in light of the length of Dr. Lovell’s treatment history with Plaintiff.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider factors including examination and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Malphrus v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-22(c)(1)-(6)

In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treatment relationship with the claimant and, if so, the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the source’s opinion with respect to all of the evidence of record; whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors including the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion.

Vording v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-11-04(c)

When determining the weight given to a physician’s opinion, an ALJ considers numerous factors, including the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors, including a medical source’s specialization, when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

(SS) Horton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-19(c)(1)-(6)

Generally speaking, the ALJ is required to consider a host of factors in deciding the weight given to any medical opinion, including the examining relationship, the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and any other factors deemed relevant. ... However, the ALJ also took into account Tielman’s specialty as a speech pathologist—and not a psychiatrist or psychologist—and appropriately weighed her opinion on plaintiff’s limitations under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of an opinion source's understanding of SSA disability criteria, the opinion's supportability, and its consistency with the record; a treating physician's opinion may receive less weight when based on subjective complaints or lacking sufficient supporting evidence.

Gilmore v. Saul · filed 2020-12-02(c)(3)–(4), (c)(6)

An understanding of the SSA’s criteria for disability determinations is one factor considered when weighing medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (2017). Other factors comprise of supportability, including the explanation of the medical opinion, and consistency with the record as a whole. Id. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(4). A treating physician’s opinions can receive less weight if they appear based on subjective complaints or if they lack sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider how well it is supported by relevant evidence and how consistent it is with the record.

Casas v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-12(c)(3)-(4)

When weighing medical opinions provided by a medical source such as a consultative examiner, the ALJ must consider multiple factors, including the extent to which the source’s opinions are supported by relevant evidence and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Koorathota v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-28(c)

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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires the agency to consider six specified factors when deciding the weight of a medical opinion if controlling weight is not given to a treating source’s opinion.

Wheeler v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-05(c)(1)-(6)

Since the ALJ did not give controlling weight to Dr. Chowdhry’s medical opinions, and he did not rely on or identify any competing first hand medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting those opinions, he was required to perform the six-factor analysis outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). He did not specifically perform that analysis, but only noted some inconsistencies between his observations, the medical records, and Plaintiff’s own testimony.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an administrative law judge to consider the medical source’s examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Woods v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-08(c)(1)–(6)

An ALJ must weigh the following factors when considering medical opinions: (1) whether the source has an examining relationship with claimant; (2) whether the source has a treatment relationship with claimant; (3) supportability (as shown by relevant evidence and explanation); (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors, including the source’s familiarity with other information in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors when deciding what weight to assign it.

Peterson v. Saul · filed 2021-03-18(c)

In that event, however, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to accord the opinion. See Social Security Ruling 96-2p. The factors include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the treating source; and (6) any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(I)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to weigh the listed factors when evaluating a medical opinion.

Hamilton v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-23(c)(1)–(6)

An ALJ must weigh the following factors when considering medical opinions: (1) whether the source has an examining relationship with claimant; (2) whether the source has a treatment relationship with claimant; (3) supportability (as shown by relevant evidence and explanation); (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors, including the source’s familiarity with other information in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). “To reject an uncontradicted opinion of a treating or examining doctor, an ALJ must state clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Id. When evaluating conflicting medical opinions, an ALJ need not accept a brief, conclusory, or inadequately supported opinion. Id. Here, the ALJ needed to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to properly reject Dr. Reiter’s opinion. See Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216 (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs adjudicators to give greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, and explained more fully.

Grove v. Saul · filed 2021-03-25(c)(3)

Section 404.1527 states, “The more a medial source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). In this case, Dr. Ruta neither cited to any treatment notes that supported his extreme limitations nor alluded to any specific objective clinical findings to support the conclusions. It was therefore not improper for the ALJ to explain that this was one reason he assigned little weight to Dr. Ruta’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed regulatory factors.

Perillo v. O'Malley · filed 2021-04-15(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider an opinion's consistency with the record, the explanation supporting it, and the source's familiarity with the record when assigning weight.

McKinley v. Saul · filed 2021-04-19(c)

The Court finds the ALJ did not err. The consistency of an opinion with the record as a whole and the amount of explanation offered by the source are legitimate factors for an ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The Court finds the ALJ did not err. The amount of explanation offered for an opinion and the source’s familiarity with the record are legitimate factors for the ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Thornton v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-06(c)

In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treatment relationship with the claimant and, if so, the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the source’s opinion with respect to all of the evidence of record; whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors. See SSR 96-2p; Hines v. Barnhart, 453 Fd 559,563 (4th Cir. 2006). ... The ALJ did not properly evaluate the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors in relation to the evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion but does not require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor.

Wymer v. Saul · filed 2021-05-11(c)

Although the ALJ did not explicitly discuss all the factors listed in § 404.1527(c) when evaluating Dr. Chaganti’s opinion, the ALJ was not required to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the adjudicator to consider a medical opinion's explanation, consistency with the record as a whole, and the medical source's familiarity with the record when weighing the opinion.

Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-14(c)

The quality of the explanation provided in a medical opinion and the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole are relevant factors in evaluating a medical opinion. ... The extent to which a medical source is familiar with the medical record is a relevant factor in weighing a 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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs an ALJ to consider the regulation’s factors when weighing competing medical opinions, allowing the ALJ to credit one source’s functional assessment over another based on those factors.

Franklin v. Apfel · filed 1998-05-22(d)(2)

... To reach this conclusion, the ALJ credited the functional assessment of Dr. Horvath over the evaluation of Dr. Kim, and backed up his reasoning with reference to the factors outlined in the Commissioner’s regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Thus, I find that the ALJ’s conclusion that plaintiff exer-tionally could perform an almost full range of light work is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to consider specified treatment-relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Poindexter v. Apfel · filed 2000-02-29(d)(2)-(6)

In addition, the ALJ must consider the following specific factors to determine what weight to give any medical 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 ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Vinson v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-17(d)(2)-(6)

In weighing any medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the “length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship”; (3) the amount of relevant evidence supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent that opinion is with the rest of the record; (5) whether the physician is a specialist; and (6) other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.

Freeman v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-07(d)(2)-(6)

The ALJ must consider the following specific factors to determine what weight to give any medical 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 the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since 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) identifies factors for determining the weight given to a medical opinion, including the source’s treatment relationship, support, and consistency.

Flaherty v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-04(d)

The ALJ gave no weight to Dr. Van de Graaffs opinion that Ms. Flaherty’s migraines were disabling because he did not have a treating relationship with her, he based his opinion on a single, subjective report given to him by Ms. Flaherty, and his opinion was not supported by the evidence of record. We conclude that the ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Dr. Van de Graaffs opinion are in accordance with the governing regulation and case law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) and (d)(4) direct the adjudicator to give greater weight to medical opinions that are better supported and more consistent with the record as a whole.

Klodzinski v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-23(d)(3), (d)(4)

The Social Security Administration’s regulations codifying the treating physician rule provide, in part: “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3). ... The Social Security Administration’s regulations also state: “Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(4), 416.927(d)(4). ... We therefore “conclude that the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule.”

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion.

Brank v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-22(d)(2)-(6)

Where there is contradictory medical evidence, regulations, specify the factors an ALJ must consider in deciding how much weight to accord a treating physician’s opinion, including: treatment relationship, length of treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion afforded by the medical evidence, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when determining the weight to give a medical opinion.

Hunter-Hendrix v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-27(d)(2)-(6)

“An ALJ must also consider a series of specific factors in determining what weight to give any 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(c) requires the ALJ to determine the weight given to a consultative examiner’s opinion using the listed regulatory factors.

Comstock v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-14(c)

The weight to be given to his opinion is determined by the factors listed under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Chabot v SSA · filed 2014-05-20(c)(2)-(6)

Should the ALJ find inconsistencies between the opinion and other evidence in the medical record, however, he or she must give “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the opinion and apply a number of factors to any treating source’s medical opinion that is not given controlling weight. ... The factors are: the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the relationship; the extent to which medical signs and laboratory findings, and the physician’s explanation of them, support the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; whether the treating physician is a specialist in the field; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2-6). ... They further provide evidence that the ALJ considered the required factors, especially the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to consider evidentiary support, the treatment relationship and examination frequency, and the physician’s specialty when assigning weight to a medical opinion.

Jones v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-01(c)(2)(i), (c)(3), (c)(5)

If an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine what weight, if any, to assign to the opinion by considering the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. ... The lack of affirmative support in the medical record is a legitimate consideration at both steps of treating physician analysis. ... In addition, the ALJ noted that “it is unclear from the record [Dr. Koldkolo’s] specialty, or the length and frequency of his treatment of [Ms. Jones].” ... These also were legitimate factors to be considered under the applicable regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (5), 416.927(c)(2)(i), (5) (identifying length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination and physician’s specialty as factors to be considered in assigning weight to medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, including the physician's treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Fody v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-01(c)

Scrutiny reveals,' however, that plaintiffs complaint is not really that the ALJ failed to consider the factors set forth in the checklist (such as whether the physicians whose opinions she considered had an examining or treatment relationship with plaintiff, and whether the opinions are supported by, and consistent with, the record as a whole), but rather that the ALJ’s consideration of those factors should have resulted in a different conclusion. ... As this example illustrates, the ALJ adequately explained her reasons for discounting Dr. Ramadurai’s opinion and for giving greater weight to the opinion of Dr. Jilhewar, and built the requisite “logical bridge” between the evidence and her conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the medical source's treatment or examining relationship, the relationship's length and frequency, supporting evidence, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion.

Grim v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-04(c)(2)-(6)

In deciding weight to give any medical opinion, the ALJ considers not only whether the source has a treating or examining relationship with the claimant, but also whether the treatment or examination is related to the alleged disability, the length of the relationship, frequency of examination, supporting evidence provided by the source, and medical specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires considering how well a medical opinion is supported and how consistent it is with the record when determining the weight to give it.

McCleary v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-01(c)(3)-(4)

The weight afforded to any medical opinion is dependent on a variety of factors, including the degree to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators weighing medical opinions to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Roache v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-21(c)

In evaluating such evidence, factors to be considered include how long the practitioner has known the claimant and how frequently the practitioner has seen the claimant; how consistent the opinion is with other evidence; the degree to which the claimant presents relevant evidence to support an opinion; how well the source explains the opinion; whether the source has a specialty related to the individual’s impairments; and any other factors that support or refute the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ to weigh an examining psychologist’s opinion based on the treatment relationship’s length and extent and on consistency with the record, so an internally inconsistent opinion may be discounted.

Ravizee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-03-23(c)(2), (c)(4)

The administrative law judge was entitled to discount the opinion of Dr. John Goff in determining whether Ravizee was mentally disabled. Dr. Goff examined Ravizee regarding his application for disability, see id. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) (providing that the length and extent of treatment affects the weight given a physician’s opinion), and offered an opinion that was internally inconsistent, see id. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a physician’s report controlling weight to examine factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Seney v. Colvin · filed 2016-05-05(c)

The ALJ failed to appropriately examine and elaborate upon the elements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), therefore the matter should be remanded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a physician’s opinion.

Ybarra v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-29(c)

In determining the weight to give a physician’s opinion, the ALJ should consider the relationship between the physician and the claimant (treating and examining physicians being given more weight); the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; the physician’s specialization; and other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires treating-source medical opinions to be weighed using specified factors, including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Stockett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-10-26(c)(1)-(5)

Additionally, pursuant to SSR 96-2p, if the ALJ finds that the treating source’s opinion is not well-supported, that “means only that the opinion is not entitled to ‘controlling weight,’ not that the opinion should be rejected. Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.” These factors include the examining relationship, the treatment relationship (the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, and specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors before assigning weight to a medical opinion.

Swanson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-03-31(c)

Moreover, before assigning weight to N.P. Kading’s opinion, the ALJ was required to consider the factors listed under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).The ALJ did not do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires a treating medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight to receive deference and be weighed using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship's length, examination frequency, and nature and extent.

Weiskopf v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-12(c)

Even when there is substantial evidence contradicting a treating physician’s opinion such that it is no longer entitled to controlling weight, the opinion is nevertheless “entitled to deference.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 633 (quoting SSR 96-2P, at *4). To determine the amount of deference, the opinion “must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. [§] 404.1527.” SSR 96-2P, at *4. These factors include, among others, the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ did not engage in this analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the source's examining or treating relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

McClain v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2017-09-28(c)(1)-(6)

The relevant social security regulations provide that medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: 1) whether the source of the opinion examined the claimant; 2) whether the source treated the claimant and, if so, a) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and b) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and 6) any other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6); see also Nichols v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 679 F. App’x 792, 797 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)) (stating that “[i]n determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers such factors as the examining or treating relationship, whether the opinion is well-supported, whether the opinion is consistent with the record, and the doctor’s specialization”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be weighed based on factors including the examining or treating relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Earley v. Colvin · filed 2017-10-06(c)(1)-(6)

The relevant social security regulations provide that medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: 1) whether the source of the opinion examined the claimant; 2) whether the source treated the claimant and, if so, a) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and b) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and 6) any other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as the examining or treating relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Hantzis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-04-19(c)

In determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, the ALJ considers such factors as the examining or treating relationship, whether the opinion is well-supported, whether the opinion is consistent with the record, and the doctor’s specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, including examining-source opinions, and explain the weight assigned.

Anderson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-12-19(c)(1)–(6)

Additionally, the ALJ failed to minimally address most of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, the ALJ did not discuss the nature and extent of the examining relationship, the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with his own examination notes and the entire record, or whether Dr. Gillis had a relevant specialty. “[P]roper consideration of these factors may have caused the ALJ to accord greater weight to [Dr. Gillis’] opinions.” Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. Accordingly, remand is necessary for the ALJ to properly analyze and explain the weight to be afforded to the opinion of Dr. Gillis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence, weigh non-treating opinions using the listed factors, and explain the weight assigned in a narrative sufficient for meaningful judicial review.

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-02-22(a)(1), (b)

The ALJ has an obligation to consider medical opinions “along with the rest of the relevant evidence” ina case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Generally, the ALJ will consider the following factors when determining what weight to give a non-treating physician's opinion: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors. Id. ... Merely stating that a licensed psychologist’s opinion receives great weight because of their expertise is meaningless if every opinion is given by a person with expertise in the area, but not every opinicn is given weight for such expertise without an explanation why. The ALJ is free to assign great weight to the opinion of a licensed, practicing psychologist, and to assign lesser weight to an individual with higher or equivalent credentials—the regulations do not ascribe any such requirement on the ALJ—but the ALJ is not free to do so without a sufficient explanation that this Court may meaningfully review. No duty of equivalence is imposed, simply a duty of explanation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Morand v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-15(c)

In weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the treating source, and other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors and explain the weight given to a medical opinion, including a treating source’s opinion.

Rein v. Colvin · filed 2018-04-23(c)

Further, even assuming the ALJ provided “good reasons” for not affording Dr. Weinstein’s opinion controlling weight, she was still required to address the factors set forth m 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ afforded Dr. Weinstein’s opinion only “little weight,” but failed to adequately address or otherwise demonstrate consideration of many of the other enumerated factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require express discussion of every factor when the ALJ gives good reasons for rejecting the opinion.

Bourque v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-07-23(c)

Third, Bourque argues that the ALJ erred by failing to acknowledge Dr. Solorio as a treating source and by failing to address all relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The court disagrees. Assuming that Dr. Solorio can be considered a treating source, the ALJ provided good reasons for affording his opinion little weight. As noted above, the ALJ found Dr. Solorio’s assessment inconsistent with his own clinical findings and with the objective medical evidence. In addition, the ALJ noted that Dr. Solorio only examined Bourque on two occasions. ... These constitute good reasons for the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Solorio’s opinion, and where the ALJ provides good reasons, 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(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with other medical opinions, the source’s expertise, and other relevant factors.

Arseneau v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-08-14(c)

The ALJ must consider “the examining relationship, treatment relationship (including length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, and nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability of the opinion by evidence in the record, consistency with the medical opinions of other physicians,” along with the doctor’s expertise in the area and any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors in deciding what weight to give it.

Alesia v. Colvin · filed 2018-08-16(c)

Even if Dr. McNett’s opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, they “are still entitled to deference.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4 (July 2, 1996).7 As such, the ALJ was required to address the checklist of factors found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to give those opinions. See id.; Scrogham, 765 F.3d at 697-98 & n.48 (explaining that the ALJ should have addressed the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c) and indicating that her failure to do so was not harmless); Bauer, 532 F.3d at 608 (noting that “the checklist comes into play” once an opinion is not given controlling weight).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who gives a treating source's opinion less than controlling weight to consider the listed factors when deciding the weight assigned to medical opinions.

Testamark v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-31(c)

Under these circumstances, the ALJ’s failure to address the § 404.1527(c) and § 416.927(c) factors itself requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

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

This discussion should have been part of the ALJ's evaluation of regulatory factors used to weigh Dr. Bernstein's opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the listed factors for each acceptable and non-acceptable medical opinion.

Ailor v. Saul · filed 2019-04-18(c)

First, the ALJ shall evaluate each acceptable and non-acceptable medical opinion in the record, including those not discussed by the Court in this opinion, pursuant to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Caruso v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-09(c)

On remand, the ALJ should explicitly consider the following factors as it applies to any treating physician’s medical opinion to which the ALJ gives less than controlling weight: (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors such as a medical source’s understanding of disability programs. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider the frequency of examination when weighing a medical opinion.

Trepanier v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-15(c)

But again, the frequency of examination leading up to an opinion is a permissible regulatory factor for the ALJ to consider, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and here, the ALJ also explained how Dr. Bello’s findings after a single examination were out of proportion to his assignment of a “guarded” prognosis. (A.R. 24.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a physician’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors that validate or contradict the opinion, while not every factor must be applied to a nonmedical source.

Wadlington v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-18(c)(1)-(6)

The Court is not convinced the ALJ needed to go through the six enumerated factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 before assigning little weight to Ms. Buford’s assessment and finds the ALJ acted properly. ... As such, the ALJ was required to determine what weight to give Dr. Burleson’s opinion by considering a variety of factors, including: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) whether the physician was a specialist in the relevant area; and (6) other factors that validate or contradict the opinion. Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (4) require medical opinions to be supported by and consistent with relevant evidence, while treatment records themselves are not medical opinions requiring a weight assignment.

Victor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-08(c)(3), (4)

Rather, both the regulations and the case law draw a distinction between the two, repeatedly noting that medical opinions should be supported by, and be consistent with, “relevant evidence . . ., particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.” See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4); Ephrain S. v. Berryhill, 355 F. Supp. 3d 738, 746 (N.D. Ill. 2019) (“[a]n ALJ can reject a doctor’s opinion if it is not supported by treatment notes or the record as a whole.”). Thus, while Judge DeGuilio was correct that the ALJ needed to consider Dr. Dasari’s treatment records as they pertained to the supportability and consistency of medical opinions in the record, those treatment records did not constitute a medical opinion to which weight needed to be assigned.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Jackson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-29(c)

In assessing the weight due to be afforded to medical opinions, the ALJ should consider the following factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and doctor, the length of the treatment and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability and consistency of the evidence, the specialization of the doctor, and other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating source’s opinion and minimally articulate the reasoning, even without expressly discussing each factor.

Tapper III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-30(c)

The ALJ also failed to properly weigh the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in discussing Dr. Kavinsky’s opinion. Although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor, the ALJ must still consider the factors and “minimally articulate” his reasoning. ... The ALJ failed to evaluate multiple factors, several of which would favor giving Dr. Kavinsky’s opinion greater weight. Specifically, the ALJ failed to acknowledge the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, along with the frequency of examination, and the types of tests performed. ... The ALJ failed to discuss these factors or indicate that he considered them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) makes the frequency of a claimant’s contacts with a medical source and the source’s familiarity with the case record relevant factors when weighing the source’s medical opinion.

Baldwin v. Saul · filed 2019-08-07(c)

Second, the ALJ gave little weight to this joint opinion because there was no record that Mrs. Earl was a treating provider and thus her opinion was based on a one-time examination of Plaintiff. Tr. 27. The number of times a claimant meets with a provider is a relevant factor in assigning weight to an opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Additionally, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) requires an ALJ to consider the frequency of examination when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Lee v. Saul · filed 2019-08-08(c)(1)

In this case, the ALJ adequately articulated the reasons for discounting reports based on only one evaluation and largely reflected plaintiff’s subjective reporting. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(I) (ALJs should consider “frequency of examination” in weight it assigns opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing medical and other-source opinions and to explain the weight given to other-source opinions well enough for a claimant or later reviewer to follow the reasoning when the opinions may affect the outcome.

Caywood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-08(c) and (f)

Because no “treating source” medical opinion was given controlling weight in this case, the ALJ was required to weigh several factors when determining the weight to assign both medical opinions and opinions from “not acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (f). These factors include: the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the opinion’s author. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). With respect to “not acceptable medical source” opinions, though “not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case,” the ALJ generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); see also Cruse v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 541 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939 (S.S.A.)). ... The ALJ did not discuss adequately any of the applicable factors when giving “partial” and “little” weight to the opinions of CNS Bingham and Counselor Manon. Instead, the ALJ appeared to give CNS Bingham “little weight” merely because he was “not an acceptable medical source.” Further, though the ALJ briefly addressed the “consistency” factor, there is no meaningful comparison to the record as a whole. Instead, the ALJ merely makes a conclusory statement that “the record as a whole suggests the claimant is more capable than Ms. Manon suggested” and briefly references Caywood’s daily activities. Because the ALJ failed to properly explain the weight given to these opinions by considering the regulatory factors, I cannot properly evaluate the merit of the ALJ’s decision to assign “partial” and “little” weight to the opinions of these examining specialists with history of treating Caywood. Therefore, the Commissioner’s decision must be reversed and the matter remanded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) makes the physician’s specialty an important factor when an ALJ evaluates a medical opinion.

Dodgson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(d)(5)

In evaluating a medical opinion, the specialty of the physician providing the opinion is an important factor. ... Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(3)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) directs the ALJ to consider a medical source's familiarity with the case record when weighing a medical opinion.

Kadar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(c)(6)

Further, the ALJ properly assessed the medical opinions when formulating Plaintiff’s RFC regarding Plaintiff’s need for supplemental oxygen and an assistive device for ambulating. ... The ALJ properly gave little weight to non-examining state agency medical consultant Dr. Steele upon noting that Dr. Steele did not treat or examine the Plaintiff, and he rendered his opinion very early on (Tr. 36, 1443-46). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (c)(6), 416.927 (c)(6) (familiarity with case file).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator evaluating an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source to consider the same factors used for acceptable medical-source opinions, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Zimmerman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-15(c), (f)

Thus, the fact that Lunda is a physical therapist and therefore not an acceptable medical source is not a sufficient reason to discount her opinion because the ALJ was still required to evaluate her opinion according to the requirements set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources are considered using the same factors that are applied to opinions from acceptable medical sources). Thus, in determining what weight to afford Lunda’s opinion, the ALJ was required to consider (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of Lunda’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion and the record as a whole; (4) whether Lunda is a specialist; and (5) other factors that would support or contradict Lunda’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Sturgill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-15(d)(2)-(d)(6)

In weighing differing medical opinion evidence, an ALJ considers the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). These factors include: “(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion, with respect to relevant evidence such as medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician rendering the opinion; and (6) any other factor raised by the applicant.” Meece v. Barnhart, 192 Fed. Appx. 456, 461 (6th Cir.2006) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(d)(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ, absent reliable controverting medical evidence, to analyze a treating physician's views under the regulatory factors before rejecting the opinion.

Goley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-20(d)(2)

But, “absent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant's treating specialist, an ALJ may reject the opinion of the treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician's views under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).” Newton, 209 F.3d at 453. Put simply, the ALJ must consider the Newton factors – derived from Section 404.1527(d) – “when the ALJ intends to reject or give little weight to a treating specialist’s opinion,” where there is no reliable evidence from a separate treating physician to controvert the first. Id. ... Because the records shows that the ALJ did not consider the Newton factors, the Court finds no need to reach the good cause analysis because the ALJ erred at the threshold step of rejecting Dr. Carlos Galindo’s opinion’s absent a controverting opinion and substantial evidence to do so, and her determination of non-disability might have been different had the ALJ done so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate medical opinions using the listed regulatory factors, including the opinion's support and consistency with the record.

Culp v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-08-21(c)

Such opinions may not be ignored and, where a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, all medical opinions will be evaluated by the Commissioner in accordance with factors contained in the regulations. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); SSR 96-5p, West’s Soc. Sec. Reporting Serv., Rulings 123-24 (Supp. 2018). Those factors are: (1) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it conflicts with other record evidence or when the source is unfamiliar with the record.

Shelby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(c)(4), (c)(6)

A conflict with other evidence in the record is a valid basis to discount an opinion (20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)), and “evidence of medical treatment successfully relieving symptoms can undermine a claim of disability.” Wellington v. Berryhill, 878 F.3d 867, 876 (9th Cir. 2017). ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (a medical source’s unfamiliarity with the record is a valid basis to discount an opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified factors when weighing a medical opinion that is not given controlling weight.

MONDY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-08-14(c)

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ failed to consider the factors found in regulations for weighing medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) provide factors that must be considered for any medical opinion not given controlling weight: the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and “any factors” brought to the Commissioner’s attention. In evaluating the opinions of Dr. Merlin and Dr. Koretzky, the ALJ explicitly considered the examining relationship (see, e.g., R. at 21 (describing a “consultative examination”)), supportability (see, e.g., R. at 22 (finding Dr. Koretzky’s medical opinion to be “unsupported by objective findings”)), and consistency (id. (discussing “inconsisten[cy] with the longitudinal treatment record as a whole”)). While the ALJ does not appear to have discussed the treatment relationship, that fact does not warrant remand; the ALJ clearly discussed the opinions of Dr. Merlin and Dr. Koretzky and provided reasons, based on medical evidence in the record, for discounting those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when determining the weight of a medical opinion unless the opinion receives controlling weight.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-27(c)

Unless controlling weight is given to a treating source’s opinion per § 404.1527(c)(2), an ALJ is to consider the following factors in determining the weight to give to “any medical opinion”: (1) the physician’s examining relationship; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship: length of treatment and frequency of examination; (3) the support a medical source presents for its opinion, in terms of objective evidence and explanation; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician; and (6) other factors, including a medical source’s amount of understanding of “our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s decision reflects that he adequately analyzed the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) before assigning “little weight” to Dr. Kubiliun’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to apply the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization; for a non-examining source, the weight depends on the source’s supporting explanation.

Wilson-Empey v. Saul · filed 2019-08-28(c)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). ... However, the regulations caution that “because non-examining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [a claimant], the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” ... It is incorrect for an ALJ to place significant weight on the findings of a non-examining source that differ from other medical evidence of record without adequate explanation. ... Here, the ALJ’s explanation for giving the greatest weight to the opinion of non-examining expert Dr. Bruni is deficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to assess its weight using the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Guyton, Sr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(c)

If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must still determine what weight to give it according to the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant; whether the physician’s opinions were sufficiently supported; how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue; and other factors, such as the amount of understanding of the disability programs and their evidentiary requirements or the extent to which an acceptable medical source is familiar with other information in the claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) require an ALJ to consider an opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record when assigning it weight.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(c)(3)-(4)

When determining weight and articulating good reasons, the ALJ “must apply certain factors” to the opinion. ... These factors include the length of treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. ... The supportability of a physician’s opinion is one factor to be considered when assigning weight and delineating good reasons. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion.”). ... Additionally, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole is a factor to be considered. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(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.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, giving greater weight when those factors favor the opinion.

Isaacs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-29(c)

Because Dr. Richardson was Plaintiff’s treating physician, his opinion was presumably entitled to controlling weight if it was supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... However, his decision does not demonstrate a weighing of Dr. Richardson’s opinion based on all the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), “[g]enerally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion. ... “Generally, the more knowledge a treating source has about your impairment(s) the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). Thus, the regulations direct ALJs to give greater weight to an opinion about the effects of pain from a physician treating a claimant specifically for pain. ... Because the ALJ neglected to weigh Dr. Richardson’s opinion based on the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which presumably lend greater weight to his opinion, the undersigned recommends the court find the ALJ’s weighing of the opinion to be unsupported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

(SS) Haave v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-03(c)(2)-(6)

And when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment or examination relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, and the same standard applies to treating and non-treating physicians.

Burdette v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c)(1)–(6)

In evaluating medical evidence, “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” ... When determining how much weight to afford an opinion, the ALJ considers (1) whether there is an examining or treatment relationship and the nature and extent thereof; (2) whether the source offers relevant medical evidence to support the opinion; (3) consistency with the record as a whole; (4) the specialization of the source, if any; and (5) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). This standard applies equally to the opinions of treating and non-treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not strictly require an ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor when weighing a medical opinion.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2019-09-06(c)

First, “the regulations do not strictly require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors when assigning weight.

Smoot v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-10(c)

Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of the regulatory factors when a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight; a short treatment history supports giving that opinion less weight, while nonexamining opinions are generally given less weight than examining opinions.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2), (d)(3)

State agency opinions weigh much less from the start because they are recognized as non-examining opinions in the regulations. See Wilcockson v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 878, 880 (8th Cir. 2008) (“the opinions of nonexamining sources are generally, but not always, given less weight than those of examining sources.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)). Therefore, a short treatment history is a good reason for giving a treating physician’s opinion less weight but has no bearing on the state agency opinion because it is already presumed to have less weight based on that factor. I find no error with this aspect of the ALJ’s evaluation of these opinions, especially because the short treatment history was one of several reasons the ALJ provided for giving Dr. Kahl’s opinion less than controlling weight. ... The ALJ provided good reasons for weighing the medical opinions as she did, particularly with regard to Dr. Kahl’s opinion, and the § 404.1527(c)(2) factors support the ALJ’s evaluation as discussed by Judge Roberts. Olson’s objections related to the ALJ assessment of the medical opinion evidence are overruled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss each factor or use particular language or a precise format.

HARTZOG v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-09-19

However, while an ALJ must, of course, consider the factors set forth in those regulations, the ALJ need not expressly discuss each factor. ... Therefore, the fact that the ALJ did not explain how each factor in Sections 404.1527 and 416.927 applied to his analysis is not a mistake of law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs the ALJ to consider the length and frequency of the source relationship when evaluating an opinion.

Parchen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-20(c)(2)

Information from medical sources other than “acceptable medical sources” may provide insight into “the severity of the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual’s ability to function.” SSR 06-03p. The ALJ must consider several factors when evaluating the opinion of such sources, including: (1) length of relationship and frequency of contact; (2) consistency of opinion with other evidence; (3) quality of source’s explanation for opinion; (4) any specialty or expertise related to impairment; and (5) any other factors tending to support or refute the opinion. See SSR 06-03p; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator weighing a treating source's opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, source specialty, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Thao, Tongkou v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-09-26(c)

The ALJ addressed all of the factors deemed relevant in the regulation, taking into account the length of Dr. Rubino’s treating relationship with claimant, frequency of examination, his area of specialty, the supportability of the opinion and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider its consistency with the record as a whole, along with the other applicable factors.

Moss v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(c)(4)

In evaluating the weight assigned to medical opinions from treating sources, nontreating sources, and nonexamining sources, an ALJ must consider the following factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c): ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... An ALJ is not required to discuss every factor set forth in the relevant regulations. ... Second, the court finds the ALJ properly relied upon the fact that Dr. Douglas and Ms. Zumbrennan’s opinions were inconsistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4); ... Because the ALJ relied upon proper factors in according reduced weight to the opinions of Dr. Douglas and Ms. Zumbrennan, the court concludes that the ALJ did not err in evaluating those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency with the record, and the medical source’s specialization.

De Bruin v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-09-30(c)

Regardless of its source, medical opinions are weighed according to several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the medical source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).5 The Court reasonably infers that the ALJ considered each of these factors, inasmuch as Drs. Flavin and El-Sokkary each examined Ms. De Bruin only once, and the ALJ indisputably considered and assessed their reports, which noted their respective specializations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the specified relationship, support, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors.

Shapleigh v. Colvin · filed 2019-09-30

In determining the weight a medical opinion should receive, the ALJ considers the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the length of treatment, the nature and extent of treatment, evidence in support of the medical opinion, consistency with the record, specialty in the medical field, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Here, the ALJ did not fully explain the factors he considered in deciding to give “little weight” to Dr. Cloutier’s opinion. The ALJ stated only that there were some discrepancies between her report and other evidence in the record. R. at 20. The ALJ did not comment on the factors listed in the regulation. In the context of this case, the lack of a fuller explanation in accordance with the regulation requires a remand for several reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight because it conflicts with substantial evidence, the ALJ must weigh it using the relevant factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Rose v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must consider the relevant weight to be given to the opinion under the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). These factors include the length and nature of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). The ALJ properly considered the relevant factors when weighing Dr. Charles’s opinion. First, the ALJ acknowledged Dr. Charles’s treating relationship with Plaintiff as her primary care physician. AR 28. Then, as discussed in the previous section, the ALJ compared Dr. Charles’s opinion to the doctor’s own objective findings and the record as a whole, thereby applying the supportability and consistency factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(4). After weighing the factors, the ALJ reasonably decided to accord the opinion little weight. The ALJ did not err.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, although the ALJ need not articulate every factor for an opinion from a non-treating source.

Brown Parson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(c)

Unless controlling weight is given to a treating source’s opinion per § 404.1527(c)(2), an ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the weight to give to “any medical opinion”: (1) the physician’s examining relationship; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship: length of treatment and frequency of examination; (3) the support a medical source presents for its opinion, in terms of objective evidence and explanation; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician; and (6) other factors, including a medical source’s amount of understanding of “our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements.” Id. § 404.1527(c). ... While the ALJ was not required to articulate his consideration of § 404.1527(c)’s factors in assigning partial weight to Dr. Broderick’s opinion, because she is not a treating source, he was required to consider them in weighing the medical evidence; his explanation for assigning Dr. Broderick’s opinion partial weight indicates that he did.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, including examining providers’ opinions, and treats treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record as relevant to assigning weight, but a one-time examination alone is insufficient to reject an opinion.

Bishop v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-18(b), (c)

The number of visits a claimant had with a particular provider is a relevant factor in assigning weight to an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, the fact that an evaluator examined Plaintiff one time is not a legally sufficient basis for rejecting the opinion. The regulations direct that all opinions, including the opinions of examining providers, should be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c). ... The Court notes the ALJ’s rationale is inconsistent with the ALJ giving great weight to Dr. Moore, who had no treatment relationship with Plaintiff. Tr. 25. This was not a specific and legitimate reason to discount Dr. Pollack’s opinion. However, such error is harmless because the ALJ provided other specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to discredit Dr. Pollack’s opinion. Molina, 674 F.3d at 1115.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(6) directs an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Dano v. Saul · filed 2019-11-19(c)(3)-(6)

In particular, very little discernible attempt was made to address many of the factors that the relevant regulation directs should be considered in this regard. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)- (6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require an ALJ to explicitly address every listed factor for weighing medical-opinion evidence in the written decision.

Hoops v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-30(c)(2)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ was not required to explicitly address all of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for weighing medical opinion evidence within the written decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally favors giving more weight to a specialist’s opinion and supports discounting a one-time consulting opinion when it is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Garrett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-12-17(c)(2)(ii) & (5); (c)(4) & (6)

Generally, a specialist’s opinion deserves more weight than opinions from providers who do not specialize in that field. Mills v. Astrue, 226 Fed. Appx. 926, 930 (11th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) & (5). But under the governing legal standard, multiple contradictory treatment notes from non-specialist, treating physicians about the stability of Ms. Garrett’s mental health before and during the disability period constitute substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision to ... discount Dr. Gragg’s one-time consulting opinion as inconsistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) & (6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Overbay v. SSA · filed 2020-01-16(c)

This statement by the ALJ indicates that she considered the required set of factors, including treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see also Perry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 734 F. App’x 335, 339 (6th Cir. 2018) (“This does not require an ‘exhaustive, step-by-step analysis[.]’”) (quoting Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 785 (6th Cir. 2017)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to weigh the source's examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Seaman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-22(c)(1)-(6)

An ALJ must weigh the following factors when considering medical opinions: (1) whether the source has an examining relationship with claimant; (2) whether the source has a treatment relationship with claimant; (3) supportability (as shown by relevant evidence and explanation); (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors, including the source’s familiarity with other information in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) directs that the longer a treating source has treated a claimant and the more often the claimant has been seen, the more weight the Social Security Administration gives the source’s medical opinion.

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

As for the ALJ’s second reason, the fact that a physician has limited interaction with a disability claimant can serve as a specific, legitimate reason for discounting that physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight [the Social Security Administration] will give to the source's medical opinion.”). The record does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. May had only “limited” opportunities to observe Plaintiff’s functioning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including examination, the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

O'Neil v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-27(c)(1)–(c)(6)

The weight the ALJ gives an opinion depends on a variety of factors, namely: whether the physician examined the claimant; the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship (if any); the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from medical signs and laboratory findings; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; the physician’s specialization; and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ weighing a non-treating or non-examining source opinion to consider relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization, and provide a meaningful explanation for the weight assigned.

O'Neil v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-27(d)(2)

When the opinion comes from a non-treating or non-examining source, it is usually not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Rather, the ALJ should consider relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In the Court’s view, the ALJ provided a meaningful explanation for the weight assigned to Dr. Terry’s opinion. He noted that Dr. Terry’s proposed limitation regarding constructive criticism was not supported by the record and stressed that the record demonstrated consistently that Plaintiff was cooperative with others. (See id.). The Regulations do not require more. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider the medical-opinion factors, including the treatment relationship and supporting evidence, when deciding the weight to give a treating physician's opinion.

Streich v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-05(d)(2)

In determining the amount of weight to give to a medical opinion, the ALJ considers the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the length of treatment, the nature and extent of treatment, evidence in support of the medical opinion, consistency with the record, specialty in the medical field, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider a medical source’s understanding of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements when weighing the source’s opinion.

Arstill v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-14(c)(6)

But the fact that the DDS doctors are comparatively well-versed in the analysis of social security disability claims is a salient one under the regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6) (describing that “the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has” is a valid factor to consider); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c)(5), 416.920c(c)(5) (same). Thus, I find the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. McAuliffe’s opinion because it contradicts the opinions of the DDS doctors is not error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh a medical opinion by considering factors such as the source’s relationship with the claimant, the opinion’s support, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Tweedy v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-07(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to meaningfully evaluate consultative examiners’ opinions using the listed factors, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Elliott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-14(c)

Consultative examiners’ opinions must be meaningfully evaluated according to the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(c), but an ALJ need not give “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole, and subsection (c)(6) makes the source's familiarity with the claimant's case record relevant to the weight assigned.

Savare v. Saul · filed 2020-02-24(c)(4), (c)(6)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); Nguyen, 100 F.3d at 1464. ... Moreover, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs that an opinion receives greater weight when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Quintanar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-25(c)(4)

“[A]n ALJ is responsible for determining credibility and resolving conflicts in medical testimony.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). He properly determines the weight to be given each medical opinion by considering the evidence in the record as the ALJ did here. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider specified treatment-relationship, examination, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability factors, but need not explicitly weigh each factor if the factors are sufficiently accounted for.

Hall v. Saul · filed 2020-03-02(c)

“If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... The ALJ is not required to “explicitly weigh every factor.” ... Instead, the ALJ need only “sufficiently account for the factors.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical-source opinions using factors such as the provider relationship, supportability, and consistency.

Obeng-Meyers v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-05(c)

An ALJ must consider the findings of State Agency consultants according to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b) (2017). Under section 404.1527, the weight that an ALJ gives to medical sources is based on factors like the claimant’s relationship with the provider and the supportability and consistency of the provider’s opinion. ... The ALJ’s decision does not contain any analysis of the section 404.1527(c) factors. ... Without weighing the factors or clearly setting out the reasons for the ALJ’s decision, the court cannot conduct the substantial-evidence review that is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give little or no weight to a medical opinion, including a treating-source opinion, when the regulatory factors support that treatment and the ALJ explains the rationale.

Martin v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-18(c)

Furthermore, while an ALJ may not reject medical evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason, see King v. Califano, 615 F.2d 1018, 1020 (4th Cir. 1980), an ALJ may, under the regulations, assign no or little weight to a medical opinion, even one from a treating source, based on the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), if he sufficiently explains his rationale and if the record supports his findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating-source opinion, and treatment length alone is insufficient to justify giving the opinion little weight.

Lacy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-18(c)

In determining the weight to give a treating source’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, specialization, and other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Although the length of the treatment relationship is one consideration, the Court finds that, absent a weighing of the remaining factors, it alone does not establish a sufficient and legitimate reason to give Dr. Nolan’s opinion little weight. See Price v. Colvin, 635 F. App’x 379, 380 (9th Cir. 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)–(6) directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions by considering the supporting evidence and explanation, consistency with the record as a whole, and the physician's specialty.

Keelen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(d)(3)–(6)

“[F]actors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided[,] the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole[, and] the specialty of the physician providing the opinion…” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)–(6)); see also Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 1989) (an ALJ need not agree with everything contained in the medical opinion and can consider some portions less significant than others).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to weigh medical opinions without expressly discussing every listed factor, but requires consideration of consistency; opinions inconsistent with the record may receive less weight.

Larson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c), (c)(4)

An ALJ need not explicitly address each factor under § 404.1527(c), see Lawton, 431 F. App’x at 833. The “consistency” factor to which Larson refers explains, “Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the SSA] will give to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). The ALJ considered consistency, found the opinions were inconsistent with the record (including other objective medical evidence), and substantial evidence supports that finding, as discussed above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, and failure to discuss those factors is reversible legal error.

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

Additionally, when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's specialization.

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

When weighing medical opinions, an ALJ must consider many factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “For instance, the Social Security regulations command that the ALJ consider (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length and nature of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the medical opinion is amply supported by relevant evidence; (4) whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s specialization.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires weighing medical opinions using multiple factors, including supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, while treating the medical source's relationship with the claimant as only one factor.

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

The applicable regulation provides that the extent to which a medical source is ... factor in weighing a medical opinion, but that is just one of several factors to be considered, including supportability and consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship and examination frequency, supportability, consistency with the record, and other relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Dillard v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-21(c)

The ALJ was required to consider the length of Plaintiff’s treatment relationship with Dr. Chamie and the frequency of examination; the supportability of Dr. Chamie’s opinions; the consistency of Dr. Chamie’s opinion with the record as a whole and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Although the ALJ claimed to have considered those factors, Tr. 24, she did not discuss how they affected her analysis of the weight to be given to Dr. Chamie’s opinion. As a result, the ALJ erred by giving little weight to Dr. Chamie’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider six listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion.

THOMAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-06-23(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source’s expertise when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

King v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-22(c)(2)-(6)

Specifically, the regulations require that the ALJ consider the following factors: length of treatment relationship; frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; relevant evidence used to support the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the entire record; and the expertise and specialized knowledge of the source. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions.

Hurtado v. Saul · filed 2021-07-22(c)

The ALJ weighed the doctors’ opinions in accordance with the governing regulation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (listing the factors to be considered), and gave a detailed explanation of his reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors when determining the opinion’s appropriate weight.

Gibbs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-11(c)(1)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sadler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

Rather, his opinion was also rejected because Dr. Gleick did not support his opinion with specific medical findings. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires an adjudicator to consider specified factors when it is not given controlling weight; those factors do not apply to statements from a non-acceptable medical source.

Brasky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-19(c)(2), (c)(1)-(6)

Dr. Rogers is a treating orthopedic surgeon and generally the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). When a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ considers the following factors to determine how much weight it should receive: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the source presented relevant evidence to support the opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether a specialist rendered the opinion in his or her area of expertise; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The Court finds the ALJ properly considered the requisite factors in considering Dr. Rogers’ opinion. ... Thus, the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. sections 404.1527 and 416.927 for the weighing of medical opinions explicitly do not apply to an ALJ’s evaluation of statements by a medical provider who is not an acceptable medical source. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s reasoning is clear and the opinion was properly evaluated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician's opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

FAIRHURST v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-07(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, physician specialty, tests performed, and the opinion's consistency and supportability.

MILES v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-09-08(c)

When weighing a medical opinion, "the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion." Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight to consider factors including the treatment relationship, specialty, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record.

Kautzer, Susan v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-09-15(c)

In assessing the weight to be given to an opinion not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must consider the following factors: the length, frequency, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the source’s area of specialty; the degree to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; and the degree to which the opinion consistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) says that a medical-source opinion given outside the source’s specialty is entitled to less weight.

Geitz v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-17(c)(2)(ii)

With respect to Dr. Buck’s recommendation that Geitz seek mental health treatment in February 2018, under the regulations, where a medical source provides an opinion outside his or her specialty, it is entitled to less weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), 416.927(c)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability, while explaining the reasons for the weight assigned.

McClure v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(d)(2)-(6)

An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). When the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, “the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). An ALJ does not need to “explicitly weigh each factor” so long as the ALJ’s decision makes clear that these factors were considered. Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. Appx. 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013). An ALJ also isn’t required to mention every piece of evidence, see Craft, 539 F.3d at 673, but an ALJ cannot ignore entire lines of contrary evidence, Arnett v. Astrue, 676 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2012), especially that of a treating source. The ALJ must “confront the evidence that does not support [his] conclusion and explain why that evidence was rejected.” Moore v. Colvin, 743 F.3d 1118, 1123 (7th Cir. 2014). It is error to analyze only the evidence that supports the Commissioner’s conclusion while ignoring the evidence that undermines it. Id. That is the case here—just as the magistrate judge concluded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

In evaluating medical opinions, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider listed factors and include a narrative discussion explaining the evidence supporting the weight assigned to differing opinions.

Janiuk v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-22(c)

The court agrees with the magistrate judge that the ALJ in this case properly supported his decision to give Dr. Hormel’s opinion little weight. The ALJ assessment relies on the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and he included the required narrative discussion describing how the evidence supported the weight he gave to differing opinions in the record. Therefore, Melisa’s objection to the magistrate judge finding on this issue is OVERRULED.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a doctor's opinion based on the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and its nature and extent.

Peppers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-22(c)(2)

A doctor’s opinion may be discounted based on the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Because Dr. Nichols was a consultative examiner and only saw Peppers on one occasion, her opinion is not entitled to any deference or special consideration. ... The ALJ nevertheless gave the opinion of Dr. Nichols “some weight,” discussed her report and opinions, and explained the reasons for crediting some portions of her opinion and discrediting others. R. 26. ... In the alternative, the court finds that the ALJ did not err in according some weight to Dr. Nichols’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Gothard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(c)

The Regulations establish a hierarchy among medical opinions that provides a framework for determining the weight afforded each medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability”; (4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and (5) “[s]pecialization.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); ... An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). ... The ALJ did not err in this regard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh non-controlling medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Evans v. Saul · filed 2021-10-01(c)

Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes a medical source’s familiarity with other information in the claimant’s case record relevant when assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion.

Tometczak v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-20(c)(6)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (specifying that the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight to give that opinion); Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1042 (recognizing the ALJ is to consider the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole and assess the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ, after declining to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting explanations, consistency with the record, and specialization when assigning the opinion’s weight.

Laggner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-02(c)

After declining to attribute controlling weight, the ALJ still had to assess the proper weight to give to the opinion. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008). This requires consideration of several factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the physician and claimant’s treatment relationship, whether the physician supported his or her opinions with sufficient explanations, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Keaton v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-CV-3074-WTL-DML, 2018 WL 345087, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 10, 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) says that the weight given a medical opinion depends on factors including the medical source’s treatment relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Peoples v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-12-08(d)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion using relevant factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency.

Chilla v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-09(c)

Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to consider all the factors listed in 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(c) and 416,927(c). Plaintiff is incorrect. The ALJ noted that Plaintiff had seen Dr. Rozenfeld in 2017 and several times in 2018. (Tr. 30). The ALJ referred to treatments that Dr. Rozenfeld performed, thus recognizing that he was a treating neurologist. The ALJ also considered the consistency and supportability of the opinion, finding that portions of Dr. Rozenfeld’s opinion “was not adequately borne out by the medical records and appears to place excessive reliance on the claimant’s subjective allegations.” (Tr. 30). Therefore, this Court finds the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Rozenfeld’s opinion to be supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship when determining the weight to give a medical opinion, even if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

David v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-21(c)(2)–(6)

Even if Dr. Bakken’s opinion would not merit controlling weight in calculating David’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ still erred in failing to consider factors such as the nature and extent of Dr. Bakken’s treatment relationship with David when determining the weight to give his specialized medical opinion. See Revels, 874 F.3d at 654 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and source specialization.

Ray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-12(c)(1)-(6)

Regarding Dr. Hansen's opinion, Plaintiff further argues that the ALJ did not consider the relevant factors, as the Act requires, when finding it credible. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The Court finds this argument to be without merit. The ALJ clearly stated that the overall record supported Dr. Hansen's findings and addressed those findings, as discussed more fully below, which included Plaintiff's X-ray and MRI results, treatment notes, and his subjective complaints. See AR at 19. The ALJ also discussed consistencies between Dr. Ganesh's findings, including that Plaintiff does not need a cane to ambulate. See id. The ALJ additionally pointed to the fact that Dr. Hansen was an orthopedic surgeon with programmatic knowledge relating to Plaintiff's debilitations and that his findings were based on his review of the available records. See id. The ALJ therefore properly considered the relevant factors when affording Dr. Hansen's opinion considerable weight. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ weighing an opinion from an ‘other source’ to use the same factors used for acceptable medical sources, including the length of the treatment relationship, and permits discounting the opinion based in part on a short treatment relationship.

Gugliotto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-18(d)

“In weighing the opinions of ‘other sources’, the ALJ must use the same factors for the evaluation of the opinions from ‘acceptable medical sources’ enumerated in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d).” ... “Therefore, it was not improper for the ALJ to discount Ms. Sullivan’s opinion, in part, because of the short duration of the treatment relationship.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider six factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion: the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

JORGENSEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-08(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).