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 ALJ to weigh medical opinions after considering factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Hensinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(c)

For all other medical opinions, the ALJ must assign weight after considering the following factors: examining relationship; length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; whether the medical opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings; consistency with the record as a whole; specialization of the medical source; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical 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 regulatory factors when evaluating medical opinions, but statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work are administrative findings on issues reserved to the Commissioner and receive no special significance.

Dexter v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-17(c), (d)(1), (3)

The ALJ considered the regulatory factors for evaluating these opinions and cited supporting evidence, to refute Plaintiff’s arguments. (Tr. 32–33). ... Statements such as the ones made by Plaintiff’s treating physicians “are not medical findings” and, instead, “are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... “A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled” and “[w]e will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dowler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-21(d)(1)

Although the physician, Celia Rodriguez (MD), from Southwest Network noted on October 2, 2019 that “[Plaintiff] should be on disability,” (Doc. 23-3 at 41), this conclusion does not provide a justification to remand to the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”); see also Martinez v. Astrue, 261 Fed. App’x. 33, 35 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he opinion that [the claimant] is unable to work is not a medical opinion, but is an opinion about an issue reserved for the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, giving more weight to opinions that are better supported and more consistent.

Hightower v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)

In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). For instance, the more a medical source presents evidence to support an opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight that medical opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

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.

Kimmerly v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(3)-(c)(4), (d)(2)-(d)(6)

Moreover, in evaluating the opinion evidence the ALJ must consider 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to meaningfully consider its nonexclusive factors when weighing an acceptable medical source's opinion, although a detailed factor-by-factor explanation is unnecessary.

Wood v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-04(c)

The ALJ must consider this nonexclusive list of factors to determine what weight to give medical opinions in the record: “(1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... “While an ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion . . . , it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) makes consistency with the record as a whole a relevant factor when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, including a treating physician’s opinion.

Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-22(c)(4)

Specifically, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), provides that “consistency . . . with the record as a whole” is a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider in determining how much weight to afford a medical opinion, including that of a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship and a source’s familiarity with other evidence in the record when weighing a medical source’s opinion.

Ramsey v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-08(c)

The treatment relationship, including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and a source’s familiarity with other evidence in the record are factors an ALJ can consider when weighing a source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the regulatory factors, including the length and extent of the treating relationship, and adequately address those factors when assigning weight.

Mickelson v. Saul · filed 2022-06-22(c)

Next, the ALJ did not address the length of the treating relationship. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(i). Generally, the longer a treating source has treated a plaintiff and the more times a treating source has seen a plaintiff, “the more weight” the ALJ will give the source’s medical opinion. Id. ... In sum, the ALJ did not sufficiently address the regulatory factors in determining what weight to give Dr. Amanullah’s and Dr. Scavo’s opinions, and remand is warranted on this ground. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant medical findings, and subsection (c)(4) directs greater weight when the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole.

Bowen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-08(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ properly afforded “little weight” to Dr. West’s mention of a “comfortable chair” because “[h]is examination made no findings regarding issues with discomfort si[t]ting, nor any impairments that might cause discomfort sitting”; the ALJ also noted that “[n]o other medical examiner or treatment provider noted issues with sitting or a basis for an especially equipped chair.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (supporting the proposition that an ALJ should afford more weight to an opinion supported by other medical findings). ... The ALJ explicitly stated that he afforded significant weight partially due to the fact that the 2012 opinion was consistent with subsequent evidence, as permitted by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4) and 416.927(c)(4)’s references to “the record as a whole.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider all enumerated factors, including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2022-07-25(c)(1)-(6)

The regulations require “ALJs to consider all of the enumerated factors in deciding what weight to give to a medical opinion.” ... Remand, is, therefore, necessary to allow the ALJ to consider Dr. Fiore’s medical opinion in light of the factors set forth in 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 specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, even when it is not entitled to controlling weight.

D'Aurio v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-28(c)(2)-(6)

[E]ven when a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling’ weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive. Id. at 129. 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing it.

Fleenor v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-30(c)(2)-(6)

However, contrary to our instructions, the second ALJ did not evaluate the length, nature, frequency of examination, or extent of Fleenor’s treatment relationship with her physicians. ... The second ALJ did not discuss the fact that Dr. Atteberry was the physician who performed Fleenor’s neck surgery, a context in which Dr. Atteberry saw Fleenor as a patient many times, nor did it recognize that Dr. Atteberry is a neurosurgeon, a specialty that increases the relevance of his opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs ALJs to consider six factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require them to expressly discuss each factor; it generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions without requiring great weight.

NELSON v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-06(c)

When ALJs consider medical opinion evidence for applications filed before March 27, 2017, they determine weight using six factors: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and, the catch-all, (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)—(6), 416.927(c)(1)—(6). Though ALJs are directed to consider these factors, there is no requirement that an ALJ explicitly address every factor in the decision. ... Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927—i.e., the old rules—ALJs generally afford “more weight to medical opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources” because such sources can “provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s)” and, thus, “a unique perspective to the medical evidence that [could not] be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations.” Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). However, ALJs have never been required to afford a treating physician’s opinion great weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical-source opinions using the specified factors, although the ALJ need not expressly state that every factor was considered.

Valentin v. Saul · filed 2022-09-08(c)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as the case here, “the treating source rule” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 applies. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Under those provisions, an ALJ is to weigh medical source opinions according to the following factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency with the record; (5) specialization of the provider; and (6) other factors a claimant brings to the ALJ’s attention. Id. The ALJ does not need “to make an express statement that [he] considered all the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, examination frequency, physician specialty, testing, and the opinion’s consistency with and support in the record when weighing a medical opinion.

Castro v. Saul · filed 2022-09-28(c)

Those factors include: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; physician’s specialty; types of tests performed; and consistency with and support for the opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The court upholds an ALJ’s decision to discount a treating physician’s opinion after considering these factors if she “minimally articulated” her reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors such as the examining or treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Neitzel v. Saul · filed 2022-10-25(c)

An ALJ must consider various factors when weighing medical opinions, including: the length, nature, and extent of the examining and treatment relationship; the supportability of the medical source’s opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record; and the source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Ephrain S. v. Berryhill, 355 F. Supp. 3d 738, 746 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, when a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight.

Walker v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-19(c)

Finally, it is unclear whether the ALJ applied the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those regulations require the ALJ to consider factors, such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, “when a treating source’s opinions are not given controlling weight.” See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 n.11. The ALJ did not indicate that these factors were considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Xaymongkhonh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-22(c)

The ALJ is to consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s ‘opinion is with the record as a whole’; and (5) the doctor’s specialization.” Forsyth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 503 F. App’x 892, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider any other relevant factors, including that medical evidence post-dates the claimant's date last insured, when weighing a medical opinion.

Griffith v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-20(c)(6)

As noted in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6), an ALJ may consider “any other relevant factors” when deciding how much weight to afford a medical opinion. The “irrelevancy” of evidence post-dating Plaintiff's date last insured, see Ortega, 232 F. App'x at 197, would be a “relevant factor[ ]” to consider when weighing the medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source controlling weight to consider and address each listed factor when weighing medical opinions.

Watlington v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-21(c)

In Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 986 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2021), and more recently in Shelley C. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-2042, 2023 WL 2147306 (4th Cir. 2023), the Fourth Circuit has emphasized that when an AL] does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, she must address each of the factors set out in 20 CFR. § 404.1527(c). It is not enough to acknowledge the factors; they must be addressed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering the treatment relationship, examination frequency, testing, supportability, and consistency.

Ostrander v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-18(c)

In this case, it is clear that the ALJ failed to properly apply the regulatory factors in weighing the medical opinion evidence. The ALJ did not discuss length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the opinion. ... This Court agrees with Plaintiff that once the opinions from nurse Lopez/Dr. Schowe and Dr. Boen are afforded the weight they deserve under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527, an award of benefits is supported.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider supportability, consistency, specialization, examination and treatment relationships, and other relevant factors such as familiarity with the record or the Social Security program.

Foote v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-25(c)

When weighing medical opinions, an ALJ is required to consider how well the medical source supports his opinion, how consistent it is with the record at large, whether the source has a relevant specialty, whether the source has examined the claimant, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, if any. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5), 416.927(c)(1)-(5). The ALJ must also consider any other relevant factors, such as the medical source’s familiarity with the record at large or the Social Security program. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6). ... In addition, though not required to explicitly weigh their opinions, the ALJ considered the opinions from Ms. Bagen, Ms. Desmavais, and Ms. Giczkowski, again following the regulatory factors. Tr. 1504-05.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(4) directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, the opinion’s supportability, and its consistency with other evidence.

Ellis v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-31(c)(1)–(4)

In determining the weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers several factors, including: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length and nature of the relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; and (4) the consistency of the opinion with other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(4). ... Lastly, the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Raftery and Dr. Yaratha’s opinions as both were entitled to little weight as opinions from non-treating medical sources. Dr. Raftery had only seen Ellis once; Dr. Yaratha had never seen Ellis. Both opinions suffered from issues with supportability. Dr. Yaratha, specifically, failed to properly support her findings, despite explicit and repeated instructions to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider any other relevant factors in deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, including that the opinion relies on evidence postdating the claimant’s date last insured.

Gillhoolley v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-31(c)(6)

As noted in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6), an ALJ may consider “any other relevant factors” when deciding how much weight to afford a medical opinion. The “irrelevancy” of evidence post-dating Gillhoolley’s date last insured, would be a “relevant factor[ ]” to consider when weighing the medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion using factors that include the source relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Brook v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-09(c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to consider the weight afforded to every medical opinion in the record using certain factors, such as: the nature of the relationship, the supportability of the opinion in terms of all medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation provided, and the consistency of the opinion with the medical record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c). Here, the ALJ credited Dr. Stacer’s opinion because of the strength of the treating relationship—she examined him in-person twice—and its consistency with other medical records. For example, the ALJ found Dr. Stacer’s opinion matched that of Plaintiff’s previous therapist (Tr. 350), and other treating providers who found Plaintiff’s anxiety disorder “seems to be fairly situational regarding his work” but “did not seem to think that switch[ing] vocations at this time is in his best interest.” Tr. 304, 351; see also Tr. 89, 101 (analysis of State agency medical and psychological consultants). Both of these were reasonable bases to credit Dr. Stacer’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c). Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider the 1527(c) factors are simply an effort to have this Court re-weigh the evidence, which it cannot do. Ahearn v. Saul, 988 F.3d 1111, 1115 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting “[w]e may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ”). The Court therefore finds the ALJ did not err in crediting Dr. Stacer’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider all listed factors in deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Teske v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-16(c)

ALJ O’Grady appears to have failed to consider all of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Unless we give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”) (emphasis added). Those factors include, as also set forth in Crowell, supra, the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the consistency of the medical opinion, and whether the opinion stems from the proponent’s area of specialization. Id. There is no indication in ALJ O’Grady’s decision that she considered any of these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treating or examining relationship, its relevance and duration, examination frequency, supporting evidence, and the source's medical specialization.

Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-29(c)

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). Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in giving little weight to Dr. Jajoo’s medical opinion because Dr. Jajoo’s own treatment notes and other medical notes are inconsistent with Dr. Jajoo’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits ALJs to evaluate medical opinions using the claimant’s relationship with the doctor, the opinion’s supportability, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Griffith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-17(c)

Section 404.1527 identifies factors that ALJs may consider to evaluate medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those criteria include the claimant’s relationship to the doctor, the opinion’s supportability, and the consistency between the opinion and “the record as a whole.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the weight assigned to reviewing physicians’ opinions to be evaluated under its six factors, including the extent to which the opinions consider all pertinent evidence.

Sinclair v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-26(c)(1)-(6)

Factors to consider are: (i) the examining relationship; (ii) the treatment relationship; (iii) supportability; (iv) consistency; (v) specialization; and (vi) other factors. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and 20 CFR § 416.927(c)(1)-(6). Because the pertinent medical opinions here come from reviewing rather than treating physicians, the weight to be given such opinions “will depend on the degree to which these medical opinions consider all the pertinent evidence in [a claimant’s] claim.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(3); 20 CFR § 416.927(c)(3). ... Such analysis by the ALJ is clearly insufficient under 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and 20 CFR § 416.927(c)(1)-(6) and provides no basis for meaningful review by this Court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) makes a medical source’s familiarity with the claimant’s record relevant to opinion weight, but lack of review of the entire record is not alone sufficient to discount an examining source’s opinion.

Ruiz-Sehnert o/b/o Amy Moreno v. O'Malley · filed 2024-10-08(c)

The extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is a relevant factor in weighing a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Nonetheless, the ALJ gave little consideration to the fact that Dr. Marks and Dr. Morgan each examined Plaintiff, and Dr. Marks examined her on three occasions. Furthermore, the ALJ gave significant weight to the November and December 2014 opinions of Gary Nelson, Ph.D. (Tr. 98-99, 111-12, 124-26, 138-40), the reviewing psychologist, who only reviewed a small portion of the overall record. The fact that Drs. Marks, Morgan, and Carstens did not review the entire record is insufficient, standing alone, to constitute a specific, legitimate reason for giving less weight to their 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 but does not require the ALJ to discuss each factor specifically.

Ward v. Colvin · filed 2025-02-07(c)

The ALJ must consider various factors in determining the weight of medical opinions, such as the length and nature of the provider relationship, the support provided within each opinion, and its consistency with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). The ALJ does not need to specifically discuss each factor in the disability determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A medical source’s understanding of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements may be considered when deciding how much weight to give the source’s medical opinion.

Vernon v. Social Security · filed 2025-03-21(c)(2)

The incompatibility of the definitions was not the ALJ’s sole reason for discounting any of the medical opinions but was one factor which she considered. It was proper for her to do so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[T]he amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has . . . [is a] relevant factor[] that [ALJs] will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a non-treating medical source's opinion using the examining relationship, treating relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Kane v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-12(c)

That regulation requires ALJs to weigh medical opinions of non-treating medical sources using the following factors: “(1) examining relationship, (2) treating relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors.” Wiese v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 728, 731 (8th Cir. 2009). Though Dr. Karayusuf examined Plaintiff, and the state agency physicians did not, the ALJ determined that Dr. Karayusuf’s opinion was not supported or consistent with the other evidence in the record whereas the state agency physicians’ opinions were supported and consistent with other evidence. (Tr. 597.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions under six factors, but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss every factor in the written decision.

Padilla v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-22(c)

The ALJ must evaluate medical opinions according to the following factors: (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. Id. at 1331 (citing Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003)); accord 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). “In applying these factors, the ALJ's findings must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight [he] gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reason for that weight.” Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1331. An ALJ is “not required to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Razo v. Colvin, 663 F. App’x 710, 715 (10th Cir. 2016), quoting Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing medical-opinion evidence to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Miller v. Bisignano · filed 2026-04-17(c)(2)–(6)

Miller filed her claim in 2015, so the rules in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 govern whether the ALJ properly evaluated the medical-opinion evidence. Those rules require the ALJ to determine the appropriate weight to give an opinion based on a number of factors, including the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence in the record, and the specialization of the physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to apply its listed factors when deciding how much weight to give medical opinions.

Crassaris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-08(c)

The Report found that the ALJ “focused on certain ‘normal’ findings in the treatment notes while ignoring other findings in the same notes” and “failed to apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to decide how much weight the opinions of Dr. Ernest Martin and Dr. Susan Martin should have been accorded.” (Id. at 24, 25.) ... Since no specific objections were filed by either party and the Report does not contain clear error, the court adopts the Report herein.

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 each medical opinion.

Gardner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-17(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider their consistency with the record and a treating source’s specialization rather than discounting each opinion in isolation.

Martinez v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-10-09(c)(2)(ii), (c)(4)

Neither ALJ Blucher nor ALJ Kirkpatrick considered the consistency between these three opinions as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), and instead discounted each opinion in isolation. ... There is no indication that ALJ Kirkpatrick ever considered his specialization, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), in rejecting his statements about the failure of the surgery to improve Martinez’s incontinence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using specified factors when the opinion does not warrant controlling weight.

Jacqalyne T v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-17(c)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on the (1) 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 with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in the medical conditions at issue; and (6) other factors which 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 provides that the RFC determination is reserved to the Commissioner and requires the ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions and assign each a weight.

Lolic v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-02(b), (c), and (d)(2)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In formulating the RFC, the ALJ evaluates all medical opinions in the record and assigns a weight to each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats the RFC determination as the ALJ’s responsibility and does not require the ALJ to adopt any particular physician’s opinion.

Roberson v. Saul · filed 2019-12-17(d)(2)

However, the RFC determination is the province of the ALJ, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2), and “an ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion or choose between the opinions [of] any of the claimant’s physicians [in making that determination].” Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 845 (7th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ to include every finding from a medical source in the RFC merely because the source’s overall opinion receives significant weight; the RFC determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Wilkinson v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2014-03-05(d)(2)

As an initial matter, no rule or regulation compels an ALJ to incorporate into an RFC every finding made by a medical source simply because the ALJ gives the source’s opinion as a whole “significant” weight. On the contrary, the controlling regulations are clear that the RFC finding is a determination expressly reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2), 404.1546(c), 416.946(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 excludes a claimant’s residual functional capacity from the category of medical opinions because deciding it is reserved to the Commissioner.

Langley v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-12(e)(2)

Therefore, under the current regulations, a claimant’s RFC is specifically excluded from being considered a medical opinion, and thus cannot be a medical assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) places final responsibility for determining residual functional capacity with the agency rather than a treating or examining source.

Noffsinger v. Chater · filed 1998-01-30(e)(2)

As to a claimant’s disability, opinions from treating physicians are not dispositive. Under the applicable regulations, the final responsibility for the determination of residual functional capacity lies with the agency, not a treating or examining source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2); 416.927(e)(2); Castellano, 26 F.3d at 1029.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) reserves the determination of residual functional capacity to the Commissioner as a legal, rather than medical, decision.

Crosby v. Apfel · filed 1999-12-09(e)(2)

Further, the determination of Crosby’s RFC is a legal decision rather than a medical one. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527.(e)(2), 416.927(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical and other evidence in the record when assessing a disability claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Pitman v. Saul · filed 2021-10-11(d)(2)

In assessing a disability claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence in the record. ... I find no error in the ALJ’s decision not to specifically discuss Dr. Nelson’s indication that plaintiff was experiencing bodily pain in light of plaintiff’s statement in her disability form that her condition did not “cause [her] pain or other symptoms,” and Dr. Andrias’s similar indication that plaintiff’s psychiatric condition did not “exacerbate [her] experience of pain or any other physical symptom.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) places final responsibility for determining residual functional capacity with the Commissioner rather than a medical source.

Williamson v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-07(e)(2)

In addition, the final responsibility for determining RFC rests with the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2); 404.1546.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves the final responsibility for deciding medical equivalence and residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, but that reservation does not insulate the decision from judicial review.

Cadillac v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-12-11

The ALJ rejected Dr. Mylod’s assessment that the combination of Cadillac’s impairments satisfied Listing 1.05C, a decision, of course, that was within the ALJ’s discretion to make. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“the final responsibility for deciding these issues [i.e., equalling and residual functional capacity] is reserved to the Commissioner”). That the decision rests with the ALJ does not, however, insulate it from review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity as a legal or administrative decision rather than a medical one.

Stevens v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-23(e)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is a legal decision rather than a medical one. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that medical source opinions are considered in assessing residual functional capacity, while the final determination of residual functional capacity is left to the Commissioner.

LESTER v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION, Respondent-Respondent. · filed 2014-01-16(d)(2)

In addition, it was up to the Director to resolve conflicts in the evidence between Dr. Ruble’s medical evidence and Dr. Moniz’s medical evidence, including the RFC questionnaires. See, e.g., Rader, 810 S.W.2d at 348; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (while medical source opinions are considered in assessing RFC, the final determination of RFC is left to the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats the determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity as a legal decision rather than a medical one.

Ford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-28(e)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is a legal decision rather than a medical one. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats medical sources as providing evidence about residual functional capacity while reserving final responsibility for deciding it to the Commissioner.

Mink v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-19(d)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (Commissioner uses medical sources to “provide evidence” regarding several factors, including RFC, but the “final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of medical opinions about a claimant’s functioning while reserving final responsibility for deciding residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-15(d)(2)

While an ALJ will consider medical opinions on a plaintiff’s functioning, ultimately the ALJ is tasked with reaching an RFC assessment based on the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC and specific work-related limitations to the Commissioner or Agency, while requiring consideration of medical-source opinions when evaluating disability.

Geisinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-30(d)(2), (e)(2)

The determination of the claimant’s RFC is an administrative decision that is reserved for the Commissioner. ... The determination of an individual’s RFC need not be based on a specific medical opinion because it is a determination reserved to the ALJ as fact-finder for the Commissioner. ... Although the ALJ must give consideration to the opinions of medical sources in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled, the final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s specific work-related or RFC limitations is reserved to the Agency.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to formulate a claimant’s residual functional capacity based on the entire medical record and other evidence presented at the hearing.

POHL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-08-19(d)(2)

An ALJ is tasked with formulating a claimant’s RFC based on the entire medical record and other evidence presented at the hearing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Here, the ALJ carefully and adequately considered all the relevant medical proofs before providing a detailed explanation for each portion of the determined RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a disability applicant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Dilworth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(d)(2)

Next, with respect to Plaintiff’s argument that it was not the ALJ’s duty to determine his RFC, Plaintiff is mistaken. Final responsibility for determination of a disability applicant’s RFC is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation reserves responsibility for determining a claimant's residual functional capacity to the ALJ, who must weigh the record as a whole, including medical-source opinions.

BALL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-26(d)(2)

The Court notes that a claimant’s RFC is the most that she can do despite her limitations, and that the determination of a claimant’s RFC is solely within the province of the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1545(a). In formulating a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must weigh the evidence as a whole, including medical records, medical source opinions, a claimant’s subjective complaints, and descriptions of his or her own limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 404.1529, 404.1545.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) recognizes that medical-source opinions on issues such as residual functional capacity do not control because the final responsibility for deciding those issues rests with the Commissioner.

Hochstine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-23(d)(2)

“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not adopt a physician’s RFC opinion wholesale.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-08(d)(2), (e)

The Social Security regulations, rulings, and Sixth Circuit precedent provide that the ALJ is charged with the final responsibility in determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the residual functional capacity “is reserved to the Commissioner”). ... Indeed, “[a]n RFC determination is a legal decision rather than a medical one, and the development of a claimant’s RFC is solely within the province of an ALJ.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 405.1546. Therefore, the ALJ was not required to incorporate any portion of Dr. Rajan’s opinion into her RFC, and consequently, Plaintiff has shown no reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that although the agency considers medical-source opinions on issues such as residual functional capacity, the final responsibility for deciding those issues remains with the Commissioner.

Yacos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-03(d)(2)

Given the apparent conflict between Dr. Ippolito’s opinion and all the other evidence in the record, the ALJ’s decision not to include a stress-based limitation in Yacos’s RFC was not error. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2); 416.927(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity[,] . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved for the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require a claimant's residual functional capacity assessment to come from a physician because determining residual functional capacity and ability to work is the ALJ's responsibility.

Bramlett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-11-22(d)(2)

But, “the task of determining a claimant’s [RFC] and ability to work is within the province of the ALJ, not of doctors.” ... See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-5P, 1996 WL 374183, at *2 (July 2, 1996). And, this court has previously held that “the law of this Circuit does not require an RFC from a physician.” ... Thus, Bramlett cannot establish that the ALJ erred in determining her RFC simply because it is not based on an RFC assessment from a physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that medical-source opinions on issues such as residual functional capacity are considered, but the final responsibility for deciding those issues rests with the Commissioner.

Bamberg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-31(d)(2)

An ALJ considers medical opinions as to a claimant’s level of functioning, but he must ultimately reach an RFC assessment based on the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves determining how a claimant’s conditions affect her ability to work to the ALJ and does not require an identical medical opinion.

Reinartz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-02-25(d)(2)

The effect of a claimant’s conditions on her ability to work, however, is a determination expressly reserved for the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Social Security Ruling 96-5P, 1996 WL 374183, *5 (July 2, 1996). Thus, the premise of Reinartz’s argument—that the ALJ lacked the capacity to make this determination—is wrong.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) provides that the final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity rests with the ALJ.

Curtis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(d)

In the end, the final responsibility for deciding a plaintiff’s RFC rests with the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that an ALJ considers medical opinions in assessing the nature and severity of impairments, but the final responsibility for determining residual functional capacity remains with the ALJ.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-05(d)(2)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, the ALJ did not need a specific RFC opinion from a CE or other medical professional to assess Plaintiff’s functional limitations. See Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “there is no requirement in the regulations for a direct correspondence between an RFC finding and a specific medical opinion on the functional capacity in question”); Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945, 949 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[T]he ALJ, not a physician, is charged with determining a claimant’s RFC from the medical record.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (explaining that, while an ALJ considers medical opinions in assessing the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, the final responsibility for determining RFC is reserved to the ALJ).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding issues such as an individual's residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(d)(2)

The “final responsibility” for decision issues such as an individual’s RFC “is reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2), 404.1546(c), 416.946(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats residual functional capacity as a determination reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion.

(SS) Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-22(d)(2)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment to be based on a medical opinion.

Strassburg v. Saul · filed 2020-05-27(d)(2)

Indeed, assessing a claimant’s RFC is the province of the ALJ; it does not need to be based on any medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); see also Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 845 (7th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats a residual functional capacity determination as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner, rather than a medical opinion.

Mezo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-01(d)(2)

The determination of RFC is an administrative finding that is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) leaves the final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, so the RFC need not match any particular medical source’s opinion.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-20(d)(2)

Further, the RFC is a legal determination, not a medical one; it need not match any particular medical source and the ALJ is ultimately responsible for determining the RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1545, 404.1546(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, rather than a medical professional.

Salisbury v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-30(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves residual functional capacity determinations to the ALJ, who need not adopt every limitation stated in a medical opinion.

Buettner v. Saul · filed 2020-11-04(d)

First, “the determination of a claimant’s RFC is a matter for the ALJ alone . . . to decide.” Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)). The ALJ therefore was not required to adopt all of Dr. Musholt’s opined limitations, notwithstanding the overall weight he attributed to that assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves the determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Detty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-09(e)

The determination of RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Lee v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(d)(2)

More importantly, determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity rests solely with the commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) assigns the ALJ final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity and does not require adoption of any one doctor’s opinion.

Fanta v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15(d)(2)

An ALJ has “final responsibility” for determining a claimantʹs residual functional capacity and need not adopt any one doctorʹs opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 845 (7th Cir. 2007). The ALJ here provided sufficient reason for discounting Dr. Lee’s recommendation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves the final responsibility for deciding residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, even though medical sources provide evidence and opinions about it.

McKean v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-15(d)(2)

As outlined in the regulations: [w]e use medical sources, including your treating source, to provide evidence, including opinions, on the nature and severity of your impairment(s). Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as [. . .] your residual functional capacity (see §§ 404.1545 and 404.1546), [. . .] the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Therefore, regardless of whether the term medical is used to define the RFC, the final responsibility for deciding a plaintiff’s RFC is reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that an RFC determination is not a medical opinion and that responsibility for making it is reserved to the Commissioner.

(SS) Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(d)(2)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats a determination of residual functional capacity as not being a medical opinion.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(d)(2)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that although the agency considers medical-source opinions on issues such as residual functional capacity, the final responsibility for deciding those issues remains with the Commissioner.

Pippins v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2021-05-10(d)(2)

On certain issues, opinions by medical providers are not medical opinions, but opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). One of these issues is the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) ... Here, the ALJ’s RFC determination is based on substantial evidence. Even if the ALJ’s finding is less restrictive than the only medical opinion on the record, the RFC determination is within his discretion. This means he is not entirely bound by the opinion of a medical provider if his determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Bates v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-24(d)(2)

... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant's residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Ward v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-17(d)(2)

The Social Security regulations, rulings, and Sixth Circuit precedent provide that the ALJ is charged with the final responsibility in determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the residual functional capacity “is reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the ALJ.

Sebranek v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-22(d)(2)

But a claimant’s residual functional capacity is the most they can do given their impairments, ... Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 675–76 (7th Cir. 2008), and determining that capacity is reserved to the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(3) treats a claimant’s RFC as an administrative finding for the ALJ to assess, rather than a medical opinion that a particular medical source must provide.

RAWLS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-30(d)(2)-(3)

RFC is purely an administrative finding, not a medical assessment, and thus the responsibility for assessing and assigning a claimant’s RFC rests solely with the ALJ, not with any particular medical source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(3); 404.1546(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Pettit v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30(d)(2)

Ultimately, it is the ALJ who has the final responsibility in determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the residual functional capacity “is reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant's residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Lazaro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-25(d)(2)

The Social Security regulations, rulings, and Sixth Circuit precedent charge the ALJ with the final responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the RFC “is reserved to the Commissioner”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c) (“the administrative law judge . . . is responsible for assessing your [RFC]”); Webb v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 368 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 2004) (“the ALJ is charged with the responsibility of evaluating the medical evidence and the claimant’s testimony to form an ‘assessment of [her] [RFC]’”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(3) assigns responsibility for assessing and assigning a claimant's residual functional capacity to the administrative law judge rather than a particular medical source.

HILDEBRANDT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-07-28(d)(2)-(3)

The responsibility for assessing and assigning a claimant’s RFC rests solely with the ALJ, not with any particular medical source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(3); 404.1546(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, rather than to a medical professional.

Wolfe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-19(d)(2)

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant's residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Schott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-23(d)(2)

The Social Security regulations, rulings, and Sixth Circuit precedent provide that the ALJ is charged with the final responsibility in determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the residual functional capacity “is reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

(SS) Flemming v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(d)(2)

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“the final responsibility for deciding [RFC] is reserved to the Commissioner), § 404.1545(a)(1) (“We will assess your residual functional capacity based on all the relevant evidence in your case record.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) and (2) treat the residual functional capacity determination as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion for a treating doctor to decide.

Rushing v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-28(d)(2)

The RFC determination is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), (2); 416.927(d)(1), (2); Dominguez v. Colvin, 808 F.3d 403, 409 (9th Cir. 2015). In making this finding, the ALJ need only include credible limitations supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity for the Commissioner.

Reales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-27(d)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding issues such as a claimant's residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, who may weigh medical-source opinions without adopting any one opinion in full.

D'aquino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-18(d)(2)

Even if Dr. Kropsky’s opinion of “moderate” limitations precludes light work as Plaintiff proposes, the ALJ is the ultimate decision-maker and evaluates the totality of the circumstances, when it comes to RFC determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(d)(2), determining residual functional capacity is an administrative finding reserved to the ALJ, not a medical finding made by the claimant’s physician.

Barrios v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-01(d)(2)

Finally, the Court notes the ALJ’s RFC finding is not a medical finding; it is an administrative finding regarding a claimant’s ability to perform basic work functions that is expressly reserved to the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (ALJ is responsible for determining RFC); Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“It is clear that it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant’s physician, to determine residual functional capacity.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) assigns the ALJ, rather than a physician, responsibility for the ultimate disability and residual-functional-capacity determinations.

GONZALEZ-BONET v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-29(e)

At the administrative hearing stage, it is the ALJ who is charged with determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c), 416.927(e), 416.946(c); see also Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted). ... Moreover, “[t]here is no legal requirement that a physician have made the particular findings that an ALJ adopts in the course of determining an RFC.” Titterington v. Barnhart, 174 F. App’x 6, 11 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 362 (stating that an ALJ “is not precluded from reaching RFC determinations without outside medical expert review of each fact incorporated into the decision”). In addition, as previously noted, it is the ALJ—not a physician—who is charged with making the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) makes the ALJ responsible at the administrative hearing stage for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity rather than leaving that ultimate determination to treating or examining physicians or agency consultants.

BARNETT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-05-19(e)

At the administrative hearing stage, the ALJ is charged with determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361 (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining residual functional capacity and does not require every RFC limitation to match a medical opinion.

JIAMPETTI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-12-13(e)

To the extent that Plaintiff suggests that an ALJ must support every RFC limitation with a matching medical opinion, Plaintiff is mistaken. As previously discussed, it is the ALJ who is charged with determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361 (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) gives the Commissioner final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Stilson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-12-20(e)(2)

Moreover, the final responsibility for determining RFC rests with the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2), 404.1546.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives the ALJ final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Greve v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-28(d)(2)

An ALJ has the “final responsibility” for determining a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Fanta v. Saul, 848 F. App’x 655, 658 (7th Cir. 2021).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives the ALJ final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Bumgardner v. O'Malley · filed 2024-01-30(d)(2)

However, “an ALJ need only include limitations [in the RFC] that are supported by the medical record” and the ALJ has “final responsibility” for determining a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Reynolds, 25 F.4th at 473.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives the ALJ final responsibility for assessing residual functional capacity, so the assessment need not match a single medical opinion if substantial evidence supports it.

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-23(d)(2)

As a preliminary matter, the RFC assessment is an administrative determination for which the ALJ bears “the final responsibility.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “[T]he ALJ’s RFC conclusion need not perfectly match any single medical opinion in the record, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.” Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 78 (2d Cir. 2022). In fact, the ALJ’s function is to weigh the evidence as a whole and resolve any conflicts. See Richardson, 402 U.S. at 399 (“We therefore are presented with the not uncommon situation of conflicting medical evidence. The trier of fact has the duty to resolve that conflict.”). The Court therefore disagrees that ALJ Horton’s physical RFC assessment was impermissible because it did not match any of the three medical opinions in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)–(3) reserves responsibility for assessing and assigning a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the ALJ rather than any particular medical source.

BRYANT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-03-26(d)(2)–(3)

The responsibility for assessing and assigning a claimant’s RFC rests solely with the ALJ, not with any particular medical source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)–(3), 404.1546(c); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) places final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the Commissioner.

Harris v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-05-21(e)(2)

Moreover, the final responsibility for determining RFC rests with the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 404.1546.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) places final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity with the Commissioner.

Medina v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-06-24(e)(2)

Moreover, the final responsibility for determining RFC rests with the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 404.1546.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) assigns the ALJ final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Dalia v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-07-23(d)(2)

The RFC assessment is an administrative determination for which the ALJ bears “the final responsibility.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives the Commissioner final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, allowing an ALJ to translate medical opinions and other record evidence into concrete functional limitations.

Logston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-15(d)(2)

In finding as such, the ALJ appropriately translated the medical opinions and other evidence in the record into concrete limitations in the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) (the Commissioner has final responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC); see Petrini v. Berryhill, 705 F. App’x 511, 512 (9th Cir. 2017) (because the “ALJ permissibly discounted opinions [of other medical sources], [he] was not required to incorporate their findings into the RFC finding.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining residual functional capacity, so every RFC limitation need not match a medical opinion.

GRANT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-10-17(e)

Notably, to the extent that Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ must support every RFC limitation with a matching medical opinion, Plaintiff is mistaken. As previously discussed, the ALJ is charged with ... determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361 (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) assigns the ALJ final responsibility for determining residual functional capacity while requiring consideration of medical-source evidence.

LANDER v. DUDEK · filed 2025-03-27(d)(2)

The ALJ has the final responsibility for determining a claimant's RFC, though medical sources are to be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c). ... Without any physician of record indicating that she was limited to greater physical limitations than those opined by the ALJ, the ALJ did not err in evaluating her capable of medium work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity and does not require every RFC limitation to match a medical opinion.

MELI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2025-06-27(e)

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff suggests that an ALJ must support every RFC limitation with a matching medical opinion, Plaintiff is mistaken. As previously noted, it is the ALJ who is charged with determining the claimant's RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c); see also Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Amado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-15(d)(2)

Moreover, the “final responsibility” for determining a claimant’s RFC “is reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity the ALJ’s responsibility.

Rocio Gudino Cortez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-25(d)(2)

Defendant is correct that, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the ALJ to determine the RFC. (Doc. No. 17 at 15 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) assigns the ALJ responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity at the administrative hearing stage.

BETANCOURT · filed 2026-01-09(e)

At the administrative hearing stage, it is the ALJ who is charged with determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c), 416.927(e), 416.946(c); see also Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives the ALJ final responsibility for determining residual functional capacity, so the RFC need not perfectly match any single medical opinion if substantial evidence supports it.

Everett · filed 2026-03-25(d)(2)

And the ALJ bears “the final responsibility” for making RFC determinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). It follows from these basic principles that the ALJ's RFC conclusion need not perfectly match any single medical opinion in the record, so long as it is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves the final decision on residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, who may assess a capacity more restrictive than the physicians’ opinions.

(SS) Pinto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-29(d)(2)

Having considered both the opinions of multiple medical professionals, the ALJ formulated Plaintiff’s RFC, which included a more restrictive limitation to exertional activity than found by the opining physicians.6 See Mills, 2014 WL 4195012, at *4 (finding argument that the ALJ was improperly attempting to “play doctor” to be without merit where the ALJ “carefully analyzed the various medical opinions, treatment records, and [the] plaintiff's own testimony in formulating an RFC.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“the final responsibility for deciding [an RFC] is reserved to the Commissioner”), § 404.1545(a)(1) (“We will assess your [RFC] based on all the relevant evidence in your case record.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves the residual functional capacity determination to the Commissioner.

Kemplen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(d)(2)

The determination of RFC is an administrative finding that is reserved to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The ALJ considers medical opinions when determining residual functional capacity, but retains final responsibility for that determination.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-20(d)(2)

The Social Security regulations explicitly provide that while an ALJ will consider relevant opinions from medical sources to arrive at a corresponding RFC determination, ultimately, the responsibility to synthesize complex relevant medical data, and to arrive at a corresponding RFC determination, rests solely with the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1546(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats a determination of residual functional capacity as not a medical opinion.

(SS) Encinas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(d)(2)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC).