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 treats residual functional capacity as an administrative issue reserved to the Commissioner and directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering supporting evidence, including medical signs and laboratory findings.

Reisch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-21(d), (c)(3)

The regulations explicitly state that the issue of RFC is “reserved to the Commissioner” because it is an “administrative finding that [is] dispositive of the case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Furthermore, the regulations direct the ALJ to weigh a medical source opinion by evaluating the extent to which the source of the opinion has presented evidence, “particularly medical signs and laboratory findings,” to support the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes residual functional capacity an administrative determination within the ALJ’s province rather than a medical determination.

Peterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-24(d)(2)

Nevertheless, an RFC finding “is administrative in nature, not medical, and its determination is within the province of the ALJ, as the Commissioner’s regulations make clear.” Curry v. Comm’ of Soc. Sec., 855 F. App’x 46, 48 (2d Cir. 2024) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... In short, not only did the opinions of Dr. Fabiano, Dr. Booth, and Dr. McTighe make specific reference to Plaintiffs functional limitations, the ALJ also expressly discussed how he incorporated those limitations into his RFC determination. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argument that the ALJ imposed his own lay interpretation on the evidence in his formulation of the RFC 1s without merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding the severity of a claimant’s impairment to the Commissioner, while medical sources provide evidence and opinions about its nature and severity.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(d)(2)

While the ALJ uses medical sources to provide evidence, including opinions, on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s), the final responsibility for deciding severity 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(e)(2) reserves determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the SSA, rather than requiring the agency to adopt physicians’ opinions.

Julian DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-05-24(e)(2)

The determination of RFC, however, is an issue reserved to the SSA.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves the determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so treating-source opinions on that issue are not entitled to controlling weight or special significance.

Moomey v. Apfel · filed 1998-05-05(e)

First, the issue of whether a claimant is disabled is one left to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). As stated in SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed.Reg. 34471, 34472 (1996): ... [TJreating source opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner are never entitled to controlling weight or special significance. Giving controlling weight to such opinions would, in effect, confer upon the treating source the authority to make the determination or decision about whether an individual is under a disability, and thus would be an abdication of the Commissioner’s statutory responsibility to determine whether an individual is disabled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) makes a treating physician's opinion that a claimant is totally disabled non-dispositive because the ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Mangold v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-20(e)(2)

A treating physician may also opine that a claimant is totally disabled, however, “[t]hat opinion is not dispositive because final responsibility for determining the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Secretary.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) does not require an administrative law judge to accept a medical source’s conclusion on the ultimate issue of disability.

Riddle v. Apfel · filed 1999-12-17(e)

In the instant case, the “conflict” in the medical testimony existed entirely within Ladin’s report, which seemed to equate certain restrictions on heavy lifting and movement of the upper extremities with “total disability.” The Administrative Law Judge was not required to accept Ladin’s conclusion with respect to the ultimate issue of disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats a medical opinion that a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so the treating physician's conclusion on that ultimate issue is not controlling.

Falcon-Cartagena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-10-23(e)(1)

To the extent claimant's treating physician's opinion that claimant was unable to work is inconsistent with those reports, we note that the treating doctor is not a psychiatrist and that, in any case, her opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not controlling.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation makes medical-source opinions that a claimant meets a listing or is disabled nonbinding because those determinations are reserved to the Commissioner.

Dias v. Apfel · filed 2001-10-23(e)(1) and (e)(2)

The conclusions of Dr. May Louie, claimant's treating physician, that claimant's Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease meets the listing for peripheral neuropathies and that claimant is disabled are not binding on the Commissioner as these determinations are reserved solely for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1) and (e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) provides that the Commissioner, rather than an individual physician, decides the ultimate issue of disability after weighing all of the evidence in the record.

Hamor v. Massanari · filed 2001-06-19(e)

Contrary to Hamor’s assertion, he is not entitled to disability benefits simply because one physician finds him “disabled” or “unable to work”; the Commissioner determines the ultimate issue of disability only after weighing all of the evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work is reserved to the Commissioner.

Cainglit v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-17(d)(2), (e)(1)

An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion only if “it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Castellano , 26 F.3d at 1029; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1). ... An opinion by a treating physician that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” has no special significance because it is not a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1); 416.927(e)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence, and requires an ALJ who discounts it to provide good reasons and weigh the listed factors.

Petergal v. Saul · filed 2020-05-22(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that this rule governs claims filed before March 27, 2017); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it as long as she provides an adequate explanation for doing so. Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011), and then determine what weight to give it considering “‘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 support for the physician’s opinion.’” Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2008)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, and otherwise explain its weight by addressing specified factors.

Cortes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-29(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician should be given controlling weight if it is: (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques;” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Once an ALJ has determined that a treating source opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight accorded to the opinion. The reasons provided must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). The ALJ is to discuss certain factors, which include (1) the length of the treatment relationship and 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, and (5) the specialization of the treating source. Id.; see also Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Failure to analyze a treating source opinion under the two-prong controlling weight test amounts to the failure to provide good reasons for giving that opinion less than controlling weight. Gayheart at 376-77.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to explicitly consider the factors concerning the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Sadusky v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-26(c)(2)

When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” as happened here, he must “explicitly consider” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including: ‘“(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”’

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The treating-source rule in § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to decide first whether a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight, and to apply the remaining regulatory factors only after deciding that it does not.

Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-14(c)(2)

The ALJ improperly reduced the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by the Regulations into solely consideration of the remaining factors in the Regulations, such as the “supportability” and “consistency” factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). This constitutes error because the “supportability” and “consistency” factors—along with the others listed in the Regulations—“are properly applied only after the ALJ has determined that a treating-source opinion will not be given controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight and directs adjudicators to weigh a non-controlling opinion using factors including the treatment relationship and consistency.

Branch v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-21(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider 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); see also Revels, 874 F.3d at 654. In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654. ... It was error for the ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinions of the non-examining consultants (see AR at 31-33), and to exclusively base the Step Three analysis and the RFC findings on those opinions because they are contradicted by the overwhelming weight of the medical evidence as discussed above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion more weight and, if not controlling weight, explain the decision and consider specified treatment-relationship and support factors.

Hanson, David v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-08-13(d)(2)

An ALJ who does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician must offer ‘good reasons’ for declining to do so.” Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Generally, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician are “give[n] more weight” because he or she is “likely to be the medical professional[ ] most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2011). Specifically, if an ALJ chooses not to 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 consistent and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors in weighing it.

Black v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(c)(2)

As Plaintiff filed his applications prior to March 27, 2017, the rules in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 apply to the ALJ’s assignment of weight to the medical opinions in the record. The process of assigning weight to medical opinions in the record begins with a determination whether to assign controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). A treating-source opinion must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). ... If controlling weight is not assigned to the treating source’s opinion, the Administrative Law Judge must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) of the regulations in deciding how much weight to accord each medical opinion in the record, including the medical opinion from the treating source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376.

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 explain the assigned weight and consider the specified evaluation factors.

McCarthy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-25

The treating physician rule “requires that the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician be accorded ‘controlling weight’ if it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... If the ALJ decides that the treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” ... accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The factors that the ALJ “must consider” include: (i) The frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Failure to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion is a ground for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to evaluate it under the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Foote v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-25(a)(2), (c)(2)-(6)

Generally, the ALJ should give more weight to medical opinions from a claimant’s “treating sources,” which means an acceptable medical source who has had an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) & (c)(2). The ALJ must give an opinion from a treating source “controlling weight,” if it is both “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003). ... If a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the opinion is still entitled to deference, and the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ must consider the following six factors: (1) the examining relationship; ... (6) any other factors that may support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). If an ALJ rejects the treating source’s opinion, he must give “specific, legitimate reasons” for doing so, based on an evaluation of all the regulatory factors. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301. ... The Court finds the ALJ did not provide specific, legitimate, or clear reasons for omitting Dr. Slater’s restriction on reaching away from the body, while also giving his medical source statement and RFC opinion great weight. ... Under these circumstances, the Court finds the ALJ failed to apply correct legal standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified treatment-relationship and opinion factors in assigning weight.

Weyland v. Saul · filed 2020-10-02(c)(2)

“For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion” to determine how much weight to give the opinion. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the treating relationship and consistency with the record when deciding how much weight to give a treating-source opinion.

George v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-06(c)(2)

As outlined above, and by the ALJ in his decision, Dr. DePra’s treatment records reflected gaps in treatment, only intermittent pain complaints and treatment for symptoms unrelated to pain, and minimal to normal examination findings, including no deficits in strength, motor, sensory, reflexes, range of motion, gait. (T. 18-19, 444-453, 504-525, 526-593); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (ALJ must consider the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment in assessing treating source opinion). ... The ALJ properly concluded Dr. DePra’s opinion was “inconsistent with treatment (or lack thereof) provided.” (T. 22); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (ALJ must consider the consistency of the treating opinion with the remaining medical evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh specified factors.

Benedict v. Saul · filed 2020-10-15(c)

The regulation states that on questions of the nature and severity of the impairment(s), a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ, whose function it is to weigh the evidence, determined that the doctor’s conclusions “are highly inconsistent with the overall medical record, course of care, and his own objective physical examinations findings.” Tr. at 32. The regulation goes on to state that when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply factors listed below to determine how much weight is given to the opinion. Those factors include: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the opinion to be weighed using the regulation's factors.

Janes v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-19(c)(2)

In cases, such as this one, filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion about “the nature and severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s), including [his] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his] physical and mental restrictions,” if the opinion is both: (1) well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); ... However, even if a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, "[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is supported by sound medical evidence and a consistent record, and otherwise requires the opinion to be weighed using specified factors with reasons articulated for discounting it.

King v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(c)(2)

In claims that were filed before 2017, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by sound medical evidence and a consistent record. ... If an ALJ determines controlling weight is not appropriate, then that treating physician’s opinion should be weighed based on the nature and extent of the treatment, the treating source’s area of specialty, the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record and supported by other evidence, and other factors Id. If the ALJ considers these factors and “minimally articulates” his reasons, his decision to discount the weight given to a treating physician will be upheld.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require the written decision to expressly discuss each factor if the ALJ explains why the opinion is unsupported and inconsistent with the record.

Phillips v. Saul · filed 2020-12-01(c)

Although an ALJ must consider all the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), she need not expressly discuss each factor in her written opinion. Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 Fed. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting claimant’s argument that the ALJ erred by not specifically addressing each factor). As long as she otherwise explains why the treating physician’s opinion is not supported by the medical record and is inconsistent with the rest of the record, that usually will suffice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it under the regulatory factors, explaining the weight assigned.

Firment v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-01-05(c)(2)-(6)

If [the Commissioner] find[s] that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) [(1)] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [(2)] is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [claimant’s] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527(c)(2); see also, SSR 96-2p, West=s Soc. Sec. Reporting Serv., Rulings 111-15 (Supp. 2018) (“Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions”). ... If the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the inquiry does not end. Id. A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified treatment-relationship and opinion factors when controlling weight is not given.

Deamer v. Saul · filed 2021-01-15(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018) (the treating physician rule governs claims filed before March 27, 2017). ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) identifies factors for weighing an opinion that is not controlling.

(SS) Chavez Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-16(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). When a treating physician’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, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). ... Thus, while the ALJ provides specific reasons, they are not legitimate in that none of the reasons given, or the citations to the record, cast doubt on the bases of Dr. Abordo’s opinion, i.e., pain, lack of range of motion, and weight-bearing difficulties. Given the legal standards above, the deference given to treating physicians, and especially in light of similar findings by state agency physicians, the Court finds that the ALJ’s reasons are not sufficiently legitimate and that the ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of the treating physician without providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for doing so. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and remand for further determinations in light of this order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Monroe v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-01(c)(2)

Even if the Court does not agree with the weight afforded to a treating physician’s opinions, the Court’s review is “limited to whether the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527” and “built an ‘accurate and logical bridge’ between the evidence and his conclusion.” Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013) (affirming the denial of benefits where the ALJ did not explicitly weigh each factor in discussing a treating physician’s opinion, but his decision clearly showed that he was aware of the factors and considered many of them, including the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, and the consistency of the physician’s opinion with the record as a whole) (quoting Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415–16 (7th Cir. 2008)). Like the Magistrate Judge concluded, “the ALJ clearly considered the supportability and consistency of Dr. Smith’s opinions. That conclusion is supported by substantial evidence given the ALJ’s consideration of Charles’ daily activities, his reported symptoms, the efficacy of his medications, and physical consultative examination results.” Doc. 17, at 19. Furthermore, despite Plaintiff’s insinuation, an ALJ interpreting a claimant’s daily activities or subjective symptoms, is not the same as an ALJ interpreting an MRI. See Doc. 18, at 14 (citing Kaminski v. Berryhill, 894 F.3d 870, 875 (7th Cir. 2018)). The ALJ also recognized Dr. Smith was a treating source with a long-term treatment history, which is a 404.1527(c)(2) factor. However, she also found inconsistent or contrary evidence in that “the diagnostic and clinical findings of record [were] not as severe as Dr. Smith indicate[d].” AR 34. In sum, the ALJ clearly was aware of and considered many of the (c)(2) factors and built a bridge between the evidence and her conclusions regarding the weight she gave to Dr. Smith’s opinions, which disagreed with his ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff could not sustain sedentary work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating-physician opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(c) requires non-controlling opinions to be evaluated using examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

(SS) Her v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(c)(2), (c)

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that more weight is generally given to the opinion of treating physicians, which are given controlling weight when well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Regardless of source, all medical opinions that are not given controlling weight are evaluated using the following factors: examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and consistent with other substantial evidence, while the treatment relationship and other regulatory factors inform the weight given.

LINK v. SAUL · filed 2020-08-26(c)(2)-(4)

The treating source rule generally requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[T]reating sources . . . provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.”). The rule also recognizes, however, that not all treating sources or treating source opinions merit the same deference. The nature and extent of each treatment relationship appreciably tempers the weight an ALJ affords an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). Moreover, as subsections (2) through (4) of the rule detail, a treating source’s opinion, like all medical opinions, deserves deference only if well-supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and consistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator evaluating a treating-source medical opinion to consider the specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Chambers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)(1)-(6)

Based on this record, the Court concludes that ALJ Grit did not give good reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Fomunung’s opinion as set out in Hargett, 964 F.3d 546, Blakley, 581 F.3d 399, and 20 C.F.R. §404.1527. In evaluating the doctor’s opinion, ALJ Grit did not address the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, or the nature and extent of the treatment relationship as required by § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified treatment-relationship and opinion factors in assigning weight.

Wiedrich v. Saul · filed 2021-03-17(c)(2)

“For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion” to determine how much weight to give the opinion. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating source’s medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Genna v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-28(c)(2)–(6)

There is no indication, however, that the ALJ properly applied the treating physician rule, which provides that a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments will be given “controlling weight” if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ provides no “good reasons,” based on the factors enumerated in the SSA’s regulations, for discounting Dr. Quyyumi’s opinion regarding the effects of Plaintiff’s long struggle with diabetes, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), and the ALJ fails to explain how his determination that Plaintiff is able to perform sedentary work requiring “frequent depth perception” (Tr. at 14) is consistent with Dr. Quyyumi’s findings and opinion, or other competent medical opinion in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source’s opinion to consider specified factors when declining to give it controlling weight and to provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Freundlich v. Saul · filed 2021-04-23(c)

The treating physician rule requires that when the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, “the ALJ must explicitly consider” a number of factors to determine the weight to assign to the opinion, including, “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and, (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)); see generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ then must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given the] treating source's [medical] opinion.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96 (quoting Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam)). Unless “a searching review of the record” provides assurance that “the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” an ALJ's failure to apply the factors set forth by the Second Circuit leaves the Court unable to conclude the error was harmless and requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source's medical opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record; if it does not receive controlling weight, the adjudicator must evaluate the prescribed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Figuereo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-18(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. See Tilley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 216, 222 (6th Cir. 2010) (indicating that, under Blakley and the good reason rule, an ALJ is not required to explicitly address all of the six factors within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for weighing medical opinion evidence within the written decision). ... The undersigned finds no error with the ALJ’s consideration and weighing of Dr. Cruzado’s opinions. The ALJ articulated the weight he afforded the opinions and properly declined to afford them controlling weight on the grounds that they were unsupported by objective evidence and inconsistent with the record as a whole.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Social Security Administration to explain the weight it gives to a treating physician's opinion, including why it rejects that opinion.

Pearl Snell v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Society Security · filed 1999-05-20(d)(2)

Under the applicable regulations, the Social Security Administration is required to explain the weight it gives to the opinions of a treating physician. ... Failure to provide “good reasons” for not crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is a ground for remand.

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

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while additional factors guide the weight assigned in other circumstances.

Caviness v. Apfel · filed 1998-04-22(d)(2)-(d)(5)

The ALJ must weigh conflicting medical evidence and decide which opinions are entitled to the greatest weight. Social Security regulations confirm that the ALJ has discretion to weigh conflicting medical opinions. See 20 C.F .R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. In some circumstances, the treating physician’s opinion should be given controlling weight, but those circumstances are not present here: ... If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your ease record, we will give it controlling weight. ... Here, the ALJ found that Dr. Dunkin’s assessment of Ms. Caviness’s limitations was not supported by his own treatment notes and clinical and other substantial evidence in the record and therefore should not be given controlling weight. ... The regulations set forth a number of factors to consider when deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion. These include the length of relationship and frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; support from medical signs and laboratory findings; consistency with the record as a whole; and the degree of specialization by the treating physician. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)— (d)(5), 416.927(d)(2) — (d)(5). ... Accordingly, it was not error for the ALJ to decline to give controlling weight to Dr. Dunkin’s conclusion in 1995.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an adjudicator does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, the adjudicator must apply the listed regulatory factors to determine the weight to give it.

Chartier v. Social Security · filed 1998-11-30(d)(2)

Nevertheless, aside from acknowledging Dr. Piscopo's opinion (transcript at 25), the ALJ failed to discuss it in any detail or ascribe any weight to it. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) ("When we do not give the treating source's opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed below, as well as the factors in paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(5) of this section in determining the weight to give the opinion.").

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by accepted clinical and laboratory techniques and is consistent with the record; otherwise, the opinion receives significantly less weight.

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

While 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) & 416.927(d)(2) both provide that a treating source's opinion on issues of the nature and severity of the impairments will be given controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and lab-oratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, "[b]y negative implication, if a physician's opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight." Craig v. Chater , 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996).

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

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the record; an unsupported or inconsistent opinion receives significantly less weight.

Justus v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1998-10-23(d)(2)

If a treating physician's opinion "is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight."

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an adjudicator to give good reasons in the determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Padgett v. Apfel · filed 1999-06-11(d)(2)

This conclusory rejection of Dr. O’Connor on the part of the ALJ is not consistent with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2) which direct “We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we' give your treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions greater weight and makes them controlling when they are well-supported by medically acceptable evidence and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Elias v. Apfel · filed 1999-06-30(d)(2)

[t]he method by which the Social Security Administration is supposed to weigh medical opinions is set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The regulations say that a treating physician’s report is generally given more weight than other reports and that a treating physician’s opinion will be controlling if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment when the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Craven v. Apfel · filed 1999-07-12(d)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and makes a treating physician’s opinion controlling when it is well-supported and consistent with the record.

Segarra v. Apfel · filed 1999-07-28(d)(2)

[t]he method by which the Social Security Administration is supposed to weigh medical opinions is set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The regulations say that a treating physician’s report is generally given more weight than other reports and that a treating physician’s opinion will be controlling if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

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

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the substantial evidence to receive controlling weight and requires the adjudicator to weigh the specified regulatory factors when it is not given controlling weight.

McGraw v. Apfel · filed 1999-12-29(d)

The Social Security Regulations state: Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairments) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed below, as well as the factors in paragraphs (d)(3) through (5) of this section in determining the weight to give the opinion.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) limits controlling weight to treating-source opinions, while a chiropractor’s opinion must still receive some consideration as an other-source opinion.

Falcon v. Apfel · filed 2000-03-23(d)(2)

Although there is authority ... that a chiropractor is not considered a “treating source,” whose opinion may be entitled to controlling weight under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the opinions of Dr. Caruso must be given at least some consideration, especially since he has been plaintiffs sole provider of medical care for the two years prior to plaintiffs application for disability benefits.

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion and permits little or no weight when the opinion lacks medical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Colavito v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-21(d), (d)(2)

The A.L.J. must “explain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source opinion supported by clear evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); ... As noted, the A.L.J. may give little or no weight to the treating physician’s findings if (1) they are not well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or if (2) they are inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); ... Here, the A.L.J. not only adequately explained why he rejected the opinions, citing an acceptable basis for according less weight to the opinions, but he also referred to other evidence in the record that supports his conclusion to the contrary.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and an ALJ may not deny controlling weight solely because objective clinical findings are absent.

Clint Smith v. Kenneth Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-11-03(d)(2)

For the same reason, we disagree with the ALJ that the absence of objective clinical findings was a sufficient basis not to afford Dr. Baraglia's opinion controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. sec. 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require controlling weight for a treating psychiatrist’s opinion when the record contains conflicting evidence.

Dones-Vazquez v. Commissioner · filed 2000-10-16(d)(2)

The administrative law judge (ALJ) was not obligated to give controlling weight to the treating psychiatrist’s opinion, inasmuch as the record contained conflicting evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

The regulation generally gives greater weight to opinions from treating sources because they can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant's impairment.

Riley v. Massanari · filed 2001-04-11(d)(2)

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

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the SSA to give controlling weight to a treating source's opinion about the nature and severity of impairments when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Desrosiers v. Department of Human Services, 01-1578 (2002) · filed 2002-03-01(d)(2)

Although a treating physician's assessment is not always determinative, if the SSA finds that a treating source's opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, the SSA will give such an opinion controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2).

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

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

May v. SSA · filed 2002-05-16(d)(2)

To be entitled to "controlling weight," the medical opinions of a treating source must be "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and cannot be inconsistent with "other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In light of the record presented, the court concludes that the ALJ adequately discussed his reasons for discounting the opinions of claimant’s treating sources and the basis for his conclusion that those opinions were not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) does not make an unsupported treating doctor's assessment of a claimant's functional capacity controlling.

D'Aurelio v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-06-06(e)(1)

But the treating doctors’ unsupported assessments of a claimant’s functional capacity are not necessarily controlling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1) (1991). The ALJ properly weighed the evidence in the record as a whole.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to analyze specified factors when deciding whether to reject a treating physician’s opinion.

Barrientoz v. Massanari · filed 2002-03-29(d)(2)

Absent rehable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician, 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Reyes v. Barnhart · filed 2002-10-10(d)(2)

Under the Regulations, the ALJ was required to give some weight to these conclusions of the plaintiffs regular treating doctor, even if they were not given controlling weight in view of other medical evidence in the record. However, the ALJ was also required to articulate the weight that he gave to the treating doctor’s conclusions and to give good reasons for that weight. ... Under the Commissioner’s regulations, Dr. Inagami’s opinions were entitled to substantial weight, even if not controlling weight, and the failure of the ALJ to give “good reasons” for failing to give those opinions any weight was legal error.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(1)-(6) directs adjudicators to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion using factors including consistency, the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and objective medical support.

Fergueson v. Barnhart · filed 2002-11-27(d)(1)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion is considered in relation to factors such as its consistency with other evidence, the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the extent to which the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6). If the physician’s opinion is “brief, conclusory and unsupported by medical evidence,” that opinion may be rejected. ... Here, the ALJ pointed out that the primary care physician’s opinion did not provide an adequate discussion of or reference to any supporting clinical data. In fact, it did not even offer a diagnosis. The ALJ gave proper weight to the physician’s statements concerning Ms. Fergueson’s limitations.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a treating source’s opinion when it is inconsistent with the medical evidence of record.

Russell v. Barnhart, Comm · filed 2003-02-07(d)(2)

The treatment notes from Springhaven support the Magistrate’s conclusion. For instance, treatment notes dated December 10, 1997, less than one month before the appellant’s insured status expired, indicate that he was "doing pretty well at this time, at least from a psychiatric standpoint." (A.R. 161). Certainly then the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Robertson’s assessment as being inconsistent with the medical evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives treating-source opinions more weight and requires the adjudicator to give good reasons when declining to give such an opinion controlling weight.

Smith v. SSA · filed 2003-03-12(d)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from [the claimant's] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant's] medical impairments(s) . . . When we do not give the treating source's opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed [in this section] in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source's opinion. ... Here, in concluding that claimant could perform the full range of sedentary work, the ALJ did not account for several of the limitations from which Dr. Lavallee believes claimant suffers and failed to adeguately explain the basis for his (implicit) decision not to give controlling weight to those medical opinions. ... If he does so, however, he should discuss the reasons for ascribing less than "controlling weight" to those opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when the record contains conflicting evidence.

Cruz v. Barnhart · filed 2002-10-31(d)(2)

The ALJ was not required to give controlling weight to Dr. Fossas’ opinion, since the record contained conflicting evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Downey v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-09(d)(2)

In view of the clinical support, the ALJ should have based his opinion on Dr. Chamberlin’s diagnosis as required by the Social Security Administration’s rules. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairments) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.”).

Law changed since 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)(1)-(6) directs the ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion using factors including consistency, the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and objective medical support.

Falk v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2003-09-16(d)(1)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion is considered in relation to factors such as its consistency with other evidence, the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the extent to which the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation gives a treating source’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Calhoun v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-30(d)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is to be given controlling weight if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical . . . diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion under the listed regulatory factors and explain the weight assigned, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Robinson v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-06(d)(2)

Even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “‘[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. [§§] 404.1527 and 416.927.’” Id. (quoting Soc. Sec. R. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4). ... Contrary to the requirements of Soc. Sec. R. 96-2p, the ALJ did not discuss any of the relevant factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Zachary v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-14(d)(2)

A treating source opinion is to be given controlling weight only if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Watkins v. Barnhart , 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (outlining framework for ALJ’s controlling weight determination). ... The ALJ acknowledged this standard in his decision and then went on to find that Dr. Lewis’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight because it was unsupported by medical evidence and it was inconsistent with other evidence in the record. ... Based on the inconsistencies in Dr. Lewis’s examination and medical source statement, the lack of specific tests and objective evidence to support the opinion and the fact that the opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole, the ALJ found that Dr. Lewis’s opinion was entitled to little weight. Because the ALJ considered the appropriate factors and explained the reasons for the weight he was giving Dr. Lewis’s opinion, no legal error occurred. See Watkins , 350 F.3d at 1300-01.

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

The regulation requires a treating provider's opinion to receive controlling weight when supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Talat E. Sultan v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2004-05-13(d)(2)

A treatment provider's opinion is to be given controlling weight if it is supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Charles v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-07-26

The regulations further provide that "if we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Given these guidelines, we must first decide whether Dr. Rock's determination that Charles could stand no more than four hours in an eight hour day is supported by "medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques." The ALJ determined that it was not, and we agree. ... Dr. Rock's opinion was conclusory and unsupported by medical findings. The consultative physicians relied upon objective test results. Therefore, the ALJ had discretion to rely on the consulting physicians' opinions to determine Charles's limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source's opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment receives controlling weight only when it is medically well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence in the record.

Randolph v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-13(d)(2)

Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ will give "a treating source's opinion on the issue[s] of the nature and severity of [an] impairment[]" controlling weight if such opinion "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) & 416.927(d)(2).

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

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

Spielberg v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-02(d)(2)

The ALJ considers all medical opinions received regarding the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the ALJ must evaluate treating sources as follows: ... If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... The ALJ applied the incorrect legal standard by not giving controlling weight to the opinions of Dr. Malowitzky and Mr. McKinley-Oaks.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wise v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-25(d)(2)

A treating source opinion is to be given controlling weight only if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Watkins v. Barnhart , 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (outlining framework for ALJ’s controlling weight determination).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions more weight and requires controlling weight when an opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence.

Dula v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-05-03(d)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Carson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-05(d)(2)

A treating source opinion is to be given controlling weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... Having meticulously examined the record, and viewing it in its entirety, Williams , 844 F.2d at 750, we conclude that the ALJ, in evaluating the opinions of Dr. Malati and Dr. Davis, considered the appropriate factors, gave good reasons for the weight he assigned the physicians’ opinions, and adequately explained his reasoning. See Watkins , 350 F.3d at 1300-01. We therefore concur with the district court’s determination that the ALJ did not commit reversible error in evaluating these doctors’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Masch v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-20(d)(2)

If the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent” with other substantial evidence the ALJ must afford it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and requires the Commissioner to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight or otherwise weigh it under the listed factors and explain the weight assigned.

Beauclair v. Barnhart · filed 2006-09-20(a)(2), (d), (d)(2)-(6)

“If [the Commissioner] find[s] that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) [ (1) ] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [ (2) ] is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [plaintiffs] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” ... A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... 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. ... Considering the factors, the Commissioner must give reasons for the weight given a treating source opinion. ... The court finds substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s findings regarding medical source opinions. ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err in failing to give weight to Mr. Cain’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, Section 404.1527 requires the adjudicator to apply the listed regulatory factors to determine what weight to assign it.

Sandoval v. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-18(d)(2)-(d)(6)

As M r. Sandoval points out, however, the ALJ w as then required to turn to the second step of the analysis, in w hich he considers the regulatory factors in order to decide what weight, if any, to assign to the treating physician’s opinion. The ALJ apparently rejected Dr. Vujan’s opinion altogether, without discussion of the relevant factors set forth in §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions, generally give greater weight to examining and treating sources, give controlling weight to a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion, and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Myatt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-10-16(d)

The SSA promises claimants that ALJs “will evaluate every medical opinion [they] receive.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Yet it also recognizes that not all medical sources need be treated equally, classifying acceptable medical sources into three types: nonexamining sources, nontreating (but examining) sources, and treating sources. Id. § 404.1502. When evaluating medical opinions, the SSA will generally “give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has not examined [the claimant].” Id. § 404.1527(d)(1). The SSA will attach the most weight “to opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” Id. § 404.1527(d)(2). Indeed, the SSA will give a treating source’s opinion “controlling weight” unless it is either not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. And the SSA pledges that it “will always give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using regulatory factors, give non-controlling treating-source opinions deference, and explain the weight assigned.

Ninemires v. Astrue · filed 2007-11-25(d)

In evaluating medical opinions, an ALJ must first determine whether the treating source(s) opinions are worthy of controlling weight. ... If not, the treating source(s) opinions are “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... All medical opinions may not be ignored and, unless a treating source opinion is given controlling weight, will be evaluated by the Commissioner in accordance with the regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d); ... After considering the regulatory factors, the ALJ must give reasons in the decision for the weight he gives the treating source opinion. ... “Finally, if the ALJ rejects [a treating source] opinion completely, he must then give ‘specific, legitimate reasons’ for doing so.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A well-supported treating source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence must receive controlling weight, while conflicting or less-consistent opinions receive less weight.

Loren v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-22(d)(2), (d)(4)

Under the regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, provided that it is well-supported in the record: ... If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). However, “[w]hen other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion ... that opinion will not be deemed controlling. And the less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given.” ... The Court also believes that the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical evidence, with regard to Plaintiffs ability to sit and stand. ... On this point, the ALJ gave controlling weight to Dr. Washington’s report (283-286), based on an examination performed in February 2001, which indicated that Plaintiffs ability to sit was not impaired by her back pain, and that she was able to stand and/or walk for six hours in an eight-hour workday. (18). ... Unfortunately, the ALJ did not explain why Dr. Washington’s opinion, rendered almost a year prior to Dr. Sirotenko’s, was entitled to more weight. Nor did the ALJ discuss the fact that Dr. Washington’s statement was inconsistent with other evidence in the record. ... Consequently, the Court finds that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight must still be given deference and weighed under the regulatory factors.

Cook v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-29(d)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.”

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

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

Johnson v. Comm Social Security · filed 2008-06-13(d)(2)

However, the treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight only when it is “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record .’” Id. at 43 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

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

A treating source’s opinion gets controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence; conflicting or less-consistent opinions receive less weight.

Keith v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-28(d)(2), (d)(4)

Under the regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, provided that it is well-supported in the record: ... If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). However, “[w]hen other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion ... that opinion will not be deemed controlling. And the less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given.” ... Accordingly, on remand the ALJ should evaluate Nanavati’s notes and reports, including any notes by Kubrich which Nanavati co-signed, in accordance with 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) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion on the nature and severity of impairments when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Walterich v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-18(d)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairments) is well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.

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

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence; claimant noncompliance may be considered as evidence inconsistent with the opinion.

Owen v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-29(d)(2)

The Social Security regulations provide that a treating source’s opinion regarding “the nature and severity” of a claimant’s condition is entitled to “controlling weight” if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... But a claimant’s noncompliance can constitute evidence that is inconsistent with a treating physician’s medical opinion and, therefore, can be considered in determining whether to give that opinion controlling weight. ... In light of Owen’s failure to attend his physical therapy appointments, stop smoking, and follow regular exercise and dietary plans, the ALJ did not err in considering Dr. Paulsrud’s failure to account for Owen’s noncompliance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Eskridge v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-07(d)(2)

More specifically, the regulations state that a treating source’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.”

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

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

Pethers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-10-01(d)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... Whenever the Commissioner elects not to give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion, the regulation obligates the Commissioner “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight” given to the treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but requires good reasons when controlling weight is denied.

Green v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-05(d)(2)

The hearing officer may opt to give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... If the hearing officer decides not to give controlling weight to the treating source, however, he must always provide “good reasons” for his decision. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dewald v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-10(d)(2)

The ALJ, however, must “always give good reasons” for the weight afforded a treating physician’s evaluation.

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

A treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment, including symptom severity, is a medical opinion entitled to controlling weight.

Beck v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-15(a)(2), (d)(2)

While his opinion that the plaintiff “is completely disabled” might be considered to be an issue reserved for the Commissioner, his opinion that the plaintiff suffered from severe neck pain certainly qualifies as a medical opinion under the Commissioner’s regulations. ... Medical opinions are statements from physicians ... that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms .... 20 CFR § 404.1527(a)(2)(emphasis added). ... Dr. Hash’s opinion about the severity of the plaintiffs neck pain is a medical opinion under the Commissioner’s Regulations. ... 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2) Doctor Hash’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [plaintiffs] case record.” Therefore, it was error for the ALJ not to credit Dr. Hash’s judgment that the plaintiff suffered from severe neck pain. Under the Commissioner’s regulations Dr. Hash should have been given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires treating-source medical opinions to be given deference and weighed using all of the listed regulatory factors.

Crismore v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-30

“Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighted using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.”

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and to consider specified factors and give specific reasons when assigning it lesser weight.

Nejat v. Commissioner of Social Securit · filed 2009-12-22(d)(2)

The treating source regulation requires an ALJ to accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ accords more weight to opinions from treating sources because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s) . . . .” Id. In declining to assign controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must have considered “certain factors—namely, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source—in determining what [other] weight to give the opinion.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2)). Thus, a decision denying benefits “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion.” Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Robinson v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-19(d)(2)

SSA regulations provide that a medical opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... Under our precedent, the Appeals Council was free to discount the treating physician’s opinion concerning Robinson’s walking limitation because that opinion was inconsistent with the physician’s other assessments and with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; the ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor in § 404.1527(d) if the decision gives sufficiently specific good reasons for the assigned weight.

Armijo v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-16(d)(2)

A treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Next, in determining that Dr. Yamamoto’s opinion was only entitled to little weight, the ALJ did not expressly apply each of the six regulatory factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). However, we do not require express application of each factor; indeed, not all the factors “will apply in every case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Whitzell v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-29(d)(2)

Because the opinions of the two treating psychiatrists regarding the severity of Whitzell’s symptoms are inconsistent with each other, neither of them can be said to be “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record” as section 404.1527(d)(2) requires. Thus, the Commissioner was not obliged to give controlling weight to either of the treating physicians’ opinions, but rather had to weigh them considering other evidence in the record.

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

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight, requires good reasons for declining that weight, and requires consideration of the treatment relationship and other listed factors.

Larson v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-03(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “con- trolling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010); Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 424 (7th Cir. 2010). An ALJ who does not give con- trolling weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician must offer “good reasons” for declining to do so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see Schaaf, 602 F.3d at 875; Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Roat v. Barnhart · filed 2010-06-07(d)(2)

Generally, more weight is given to a treating source. Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2005); ... Before a treating physician’s opinion can be discounted, the ALJ must provide “good reasons.”

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and directs the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, support, and consistency.

HEEMAN v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-16(d)(2)

Under Social Security Regulations, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ considers the length of the treating relationship, the extent of the treating relationship, whether the treating source’s opinion is supported by medical evidence, and whether the treating source’s opinion is consistent with the entire record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Douglas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-08(c)(2)-(6)

Second, if the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider various factors and provide “good reasons” for the weight given. 20 CLFLR. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6); see also Greek v, Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015). These “nonexclusive Burgess factors linclude]: (1) the frequen{cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For pre-March 2017 claims, § 404.1527 treats qualifying judgments by acceptable medical sources as medical opinions and gives a treating source's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, subject to consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

HOUNSHELL v. O'MALLEY · filed 2021-08-02(c)(2), (a)(1)

Because Claimant filed her applications for benefits before March 2017, the applicable law provides that a treating source's opinion4 is entitled to controlling weight if it is: "(1) "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and (2) "not inconsistent with other substantial evidence." ... If an ALJ does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider "the treatment relationship, frequency of examinations, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion." ... This post hoc justification for the ALJ's omission is not sufficient particularly because it is unclear to the Court how a recommendation on how to control Claimant's edema is not a judgment on the Claimant's condition and thus a medical source opinion. ... The ALJ's failure to provide any weight to the treating physician's medical opinion necessitates remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; if it is not given controlling weight, the adjudicator must weigh it under the listed factors and give good reasons.

Gore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-19(c)(2)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, id., as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence, id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, physician specialty, tests performed, and the opinion’s consistency and supportability when deciding its weight.

Jacoby v. Saul · filed 2021-09-01(c)

If an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ did, however, acknowledge that Dr. Painter was part of the Lundholm Orthopedics department, meeting the TPR factor requiring an ALJ to consider a physician’s specialty. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). R. 1912, 1929. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in her consideration of Dr. Painter’s specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless the ALJ articulates good reasons for discounting it, and then to explain the opinion’s weight using the regulatory factors.

Stevens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-02(c)(2)-(6)

The regulations4 in place at the time Stevens filed her application required the ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion unless she can articulate “good reasons” for discounting it. ... If the ALJ decides to discount a treating physician’s opinion, she must then proceed to articulate what ultimate weight that opinion received based on several regulatory factors. ... The regulations don’t require the ALJ to specifically discuss any particular factor. ... But if the ALJ’s explanation isn’t sufficient to explain the ultimate weight given to the opinion or otherwise fails to give “good reasons” for discounting the opinion, remand is appropriate. ... The ALJ applied proper legal standards in evaluating Dr. Dodson’s treating physician opinion. ... Instead, the ALJ complied with the “good reasons” requirement by stating that Dr. Dodson’s opinion was given discounted weight because it wasn’t supported by his own treatment notes and was inconsistent with other objective medical evidence in the record. ... The ALJ also acknowledged the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and adequately articulated that Dr. Dodson’s opinion was still entitled to “some weight” because he was a treating source and had significant history with Stevens.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to consider the treatment relationship, examinations and testing, specialty, supportability, and consistency.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(c)(2), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3)-(5)

In the present case, the ALJ failed to consider the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s treatment relationship with Dr. Ho. Under 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), the ALJ “will look at” the treatment that the treating source provided and the type of examinations and testing that the treating source has performed or ordered from specialists. Here, in weighing the treating physicians’ opinion, the ALJ did not mention any techniques or exams conducted by Dr. Ho. (R. 29). ... Nor did the ALJ expressly consider the specialty, or frequency of treatment, when weighing the opinion of Dr. Ho, a pain management specialist. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(5). The ALJ also failed to discuss the supportability and consistency of the opinions of Dr. Ho in her analysis of his opinion. See 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4). ... In this case, the ALJ did not address supportability or consistency when weighing the opinion of Dr. Ho.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating provider’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; if it is not controlling, the opinion is weighed using factors including the treatment relationship and consistency with the record.

Begzad v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-13(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider 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); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654. ... It will not be necessary to determine whether or not the later-rendered findings and opinions of Dr. Bhandari were “contradicted” by the earlier-rendered opinion of the consultant psychologist (Dr. Martin) or the consultant internist (Dr. Masood) because the ALJ’s explanations for rejecting Dr. Bhandari’s opinions did not even rise to the standard of specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. ... Or, put another way, it is simply not possible to reasonably contend that “the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of [Dr. Bhandari’s] opinion with the [overall] record” (see Revels, 874 F.3d at 654), allowed for the ALJ to reject that opinion in favor of Dr. Martin’s earlier-rendered and internally inconsistent opinion that seems to have been based on an incorrect focus on Plaintiff’s cognitive, rather than emotional, impairments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-physician opinion and consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Priester v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-27(c)(1)-(6)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... 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. ... Instead of considering the relevant statutory factors, the ALJ summarily rejected Dr. Rifkin’s treating physician opinion. Accordingly, remand is required because Plaintiff is entitled to a proper analysis of Dr. Rifkin’s opinion and, if appropriate, good reasons why it must be rejected.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires explicit consideration of treatment and evidentiary factors when less than controlling weight is given.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial case evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). In assessing less than “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the factors announced in Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). The “Burgess factors” include: ... “(4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... Here, a searching review of the record reveals that the ALJ plainly did not address the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating providers.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Malone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-27(c)(2)

Because treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s medical opinion is to be afforded controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, non-inconsistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors when it does not receive controlling weight.

Williams v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-12(c)(2)

Section 404.1527(c)(2) sets out two rules an ALJ must follow when evaluating a medical opinion from a treating physician. First, it establishes the “treating physician rule,” under which the medical opinion of a treating physician is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Second, if a medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must consider each of the following factors to determine the weight the opinion should be afforded: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability,” i.e., the extent to which the treating physician “presents relevant evidence to support [the] medical opinion”; (4) “[c]onsistency,” i.e., the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the evidence in the record; (5) the extent to which the treating physician is a specialist opining as to “issues related to his or her area of specialty”; and (6) any other factors raised by the parties “which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” ... Here, the ALJ stated that he had considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. R. at 21. However, even if Dr. Hanna’s opinions were not entitled to controlling weight, it does not appear that the ALJ meaningfully considered each of the factors under §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) before deciding how much weight to give his opinions. ... In failing to acknowledge and apply each of these six factors, the ALJ erred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by this regulation, a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion receives controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must evaluate it using the listed treatment-relationship, support, consistency, and specialization factors.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-29(c)(2)-(6)

Under the regulations applicable to Johnson’s claim, if the Social Security Administration finds that a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments “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,” the Social Security Administration will give that opinion “controlling weight.” ... Where the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion based on several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the level of specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... To the extent that the ALJ did discount Dr. Habib’s opinions, the Court finds that the ALJ gave good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, that brought the ALJ’s decision within the available “zone of choice.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, requires explicit consideration of treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors when assigning less weight, and reserves disability and ability-to-work determinations to the Commissioner.

Lloyd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-09(c)(2), (d)

The opinion of a treating source will be given controlling weight if it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)1. ... Those factors, referred to as “the Burgess factors,” are “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96 (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ultimate finding of whether Plaintiff was disabled and cannot work is “reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before 2017, a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ must give good reasons and consider the prescribed factors when discounting it.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2021-12-14(c)(2)

Claimant filed his claim before 2017, meaning his treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ, however, still must provide “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Fair v. Saul, 2021 WL 1711810, at *3 (7th Cir. 2021), and in so doing, must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and consideration of treatment, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when assigning its weight.

Michaels v. Saul · filed 2022-02-08(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it so long as she provides an adequate explanation for doing so. ... That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, ... and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515. ... Viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ did not err in giving little weight to Dr. Slack’s opinion. Plaintiff’s request to remand the case for further consideration of this issue is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the prescribed factors and give good reasons when assigning weight to a treating source's medical opinion, including whether controlling weight is warranted.

Koschnitzke v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-03(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ must both consider the factors and provide “good reasons” for the weight he or she ultimately affords the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ performed the required analysis for a treating-physician opinion. He articulated that he gave Dr. Calvin’s 2015 opinion “little weight” rather than “controlling weight.” Indeed, he found that the opinion was supported solely by Plaintiff’s subjective complaints, i.e., not by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Moreover, the ALJ found the 2015 opinion inconsistent with the medical opinion of Dr. Jenkins. The lack of evidentiary support for the opinion and its inconsistency with other record evidence, along with the vagueness of the limitation as to time parameters, were factors that the ALJ considered and sufficiently specific reasons he provided for affording the opinion “little weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and record-consistent treating-source medical opinion controlling weight and requires good reasons plus specified factors when it is not given controlling weight.

Telias v. Saul · filed 2022-04-14(c)

Under the “treating physician rule” applicable to claims filed before March 27, 2017, certain medical opinions are given special consideration: “If [the Commissioner] find[s] that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). 11 The ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion, and considers certain factors if declining to give it controlling weight, including whether the source examined the claimant; the length of the relationship; the nature of the treatment (including whether the source treated the claimant for the impairment in question); the supportability of the opinion (including reliance on medical signs and lab findings); consistency with the whole record; whether the treater has a relevant specialty; and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence; if it is not, the ALJ must give good reasons and weigh it using the listed factors.

Kennedy v. Saul · filed 2022-05-23(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it so long as she provides an adequate explanation for doing so. ... That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, ... and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to treating-physician opinions, but when an opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Nipper v. SSA · filed 2022-06-08(c)(2)–(6)

Under the treating physician rule, “the ALJ gives greater weight to medical opinions of physicians who have treated a claimant than to opinions of non-treating physicians, because treating physicians are ‘most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s medical impairments.’” Tipton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 847 F. App’x 290, 294 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).2 However, “the ALJ is not bound by a treating physician’s opinion if there is substantial medical evidence to the contrary.” Id. If the ALJ decides not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she must determine what weight to give it by looking at various factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability of the opinion; its consistency with the record as a whole; the specialization of the physician or doctor rendering the opinion; and other factors that support or contradict the opinion. ... Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 535 F. App’x 498, 505 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source's medical opinion that is not given controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship's length, frequency, nature, and extent and the physician's area of specialty.

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

In giving the treating physicians’ opinions little weight, the ALJ failed to consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the physicians’ treatment relationships with Boettcher, and ignored the physicians’ areas of specialty, all in violation of applicable regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (listing all factors considered if a treating source's medical opinion is not given controlling weight). While an ALJ may give a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight, there is nothing in this ALJ's decision to indicate that he considered the requisite factors when assessing the weight of the treating physicians’ medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, but permits less weight when substantial evidence conflicts.

Almanzar obo DA v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-02(c)(2)

An opinion from a treating physician is afforded controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment, provided the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when a treating provider’s opinion is not given controlling weight.

Barton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-12(c)(2)-(6)

Finally, the decision does not include any indication that, in assessing Dr. Zuniga’s opinion, the ALJ weighed the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)—a requirement where a treating doctor’s opinion is not given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source medical opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and otherwise requires consideration of the listed relationship and opinion factors.

Cervantes v. Saul · filed 2023-09-14(c)(2)

Controlling weight is given to a treating source’s medical opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the treating physician’s opinion is not “well supported” or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, factors including the length of the treatment relationship, the nature of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors will be considered. Id. at § 404.1527(c)(2) (i–6). ... Additionally, the ALJ did not mention the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), and did not indicate that he considered them in his decision to discount the opinions of Drs. Javidan and Casillas. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017) (providing that the ALJ’s failure to “consider factors such as length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship or the supportability of the opinion . . . constitutes reversible legal error”). Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding does not set forth the requisite specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence for discounting the opinions of Drs. Javidan and Casillas that Plaintiff requires a cane to ambulate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the prescribed factors before assigning less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion.

Zimmerman v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-23(c)

Notably, the record is incomplete insofar as the ALJ did not consider the necessary factors in according Dr. Creekmore’s opinion less-than-controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b)-(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record and forbids the ALJ from ignoring a treating source’s opinion.

(SS) Howell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-12(b)-(c)

An ALJ commits legal error when she disregards treating source opinions and makes contrary findings, effectively rejecting the opinions. Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1286 (9th Cir. 1996). An ALJ is required to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b)-(c), 416.927(b)-(c). Medical opinions are “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a), 416.927(a)(1). Here, Defendant does not argue that the opinion by Dr. Xue at issue is not a medical opinion (see Def. MSJ) and both parties agree that Dr. Xue was a treating source (Pl. MSJ at 32-33; Def. MSJ at 23-24). Accordingly, the ALJ was required to address this treating source opinion. Because an ALJ must give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting a treating source’s opinions, an ALJ may not ignore a treating source’s opinion. See Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir. 2015); Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). The Court finds that the ALJ committed error by not addressing Dr. Xue’s opinion. Further, the Court finds that the ALJ’s failure to address this treating source opinion is not harmless. See Marsh, 792 F.3d at 1173 (holding the ALJ’s failure to mention a treating source’s opinion was not harmless error).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lucas v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

In any event, when the opinion of a treating physician is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence it is controlling.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and explain the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, including when evaluating an earlier period.

Peters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-29(c)(2)

The governing regulations require that the ALJ consider all medical opinions in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“[W]e will always consider the medical opinions in your case. . . .”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[W]e will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). This includes a discussion of the weight assigned to such opinions. ... Because the ALJ failed to either give Dr. Rajaratnam’s opinion controlling weight or explain how, consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, she evaluated Dr. Rajaratnam’s opinion for the period prior to July 17, 2018, the Court is unable to engage in meaningful review of the ALJ’s determination of plaintiff’s capabilities prior to July 17, 2018. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. As such, the agency violated its own regulations and that error prejudiced plaintiff for the period prior to July 17, 2018. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 545-46. Therefore, plaintiff’s first and second assignments of error should be sustained.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Durant v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-09(c)(2)

Pursuant to the so-called “treating physician rule,” the ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinions controlling weight if those opinions are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with the substantial evidence, and otherwise directs the adjudicator to weigh specified factors.

Pistole v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-11-10(c)

In considering a claim of disability, the ALJ generally must give the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment must be given “controlling weight” only if it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)(2). When an opinion does not garner controlling weight, the appropriate weight to be given to the opinion will be determined based upon the length of treatment, frequency of examinations, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, the specialization of the source, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pena-Maldonado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-15(c)(2)

Regulations provide that the opinion of a treating physician is presumed to carry controlling weight as long as it is well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). As discussed above in the RFC assessment analysis, the VE record does not contain treating doctors’ restriction assessments, and the ALJ made a more restrictive RFC determination than that offered by any medical source. I find that the ALJ acted properly.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, requires good reasons to deny that weight, and directs consideration of treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors, whose omission may be harmless when the same result is clear.

Wiley v. Saul · filed 2021-11-30(c)(2)-(6)

The district court’s remand order follows the Social Security regulations, which state that for claims filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ will give a treating source’s medical opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ must provide “good reasons” for not giving controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, including considering the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the treating physician’s medical opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole and the treating physician’s specialization. Id. at (c)(2)(i-ii), (c)(3-6). ... In other words, Dr. May did not “present[] relevant evidence to support [his] medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings,” nor did he provide “an explanation” for his opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). This is another good reason to discount Dr. May’s opinion. ... While the ALJ did not “march[] through the factors referenced in § 404.1527(c)(2)” in analyzing Dr. May’s opinions, any error in failing to do so was harmless because the Court is “convinced that the ALJ would reach the same result on remand” as “the ALJ stood on firm ground in finding [Dr. May’s] opinion . . . at odds with the weight of the other medical evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Ruggieri v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-04(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,” for disability benefits claims filed, like the instant claim, prior to March 27, 2017, an opinion from a treating medical source is entitled to controlling weight so long as the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fritz v. Saul · filed 2021-12-17(c)(2)

As part of this “affirmative obligation to develop the record adequately,” the opinion of a treating physician2 will receive “controlling weight”, if the ALJ finds that it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with [ ] other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2017). ... The ALJ’s decision therefore did not appropriately assess the weight to be given to the treating physicians’ opinions, as required by agency regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Aponte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-22(c)(2)

“Regardless of its source, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in determining whether a claimant is disabled under the [Social Security] Act.” Pena ex rel. E.R. v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-1787 (KAM), 2013 WL 1210932, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(d) (2020)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A “treating physician” is the claimant’s “own physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical source who provides [the claimant] ... with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502. An opinion from a treating physician is afforded controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment, provided the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(d)(2). However, treating physician opinions are not always dispositive.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hickman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(c)(2)

First, opinions from treating physicians are entitled to controlling weight if the opinion is (1) ‘“wellsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight on the nature and severity of an impairment unless it conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record.

Felciano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-17(c)(2)

An opinion from a treating physician is afforded controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment, provided the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(d)(2). ... In the present case, this Court concludes that the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Nwokeji’s opinions cannot be sustained.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dieker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(d)(2)

The ALJ must give the opinions of a treating physician controlling weight if the opinions are supported by objective evidence and are not inconsistent with other evidence in the record. ... The ALJ found that no objective medical evidence supported the limitations that Dr. Seaman found. ... The Court agrees that medical evidence did not support Dr. Seaman’s opinions that during an eight-hour workday Dieker would need to lie down 16 times and walk around 16 times, or his opinions that she was limited in reaching, handling, fingering, and feeling. The Court also agrees that objective medical evidence did not support his opinion on work absences, unscheduled breaks, and off task behavior. The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Seaman’s opinions. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (The opinions must be consistent with the other evidence in the record to be given controlling weight). ... The Court sees no error in the ALJ’s consideration of the evidence that Dieker was rearing a foster child.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Anrisani v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(c)(2)

First, ALJ Smith’s failure to appropriately weigh the treating physician Dr. Guy’s opinion requires remand. Under the treating physician rule, when a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of an individual’s impairments is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ will credit that opinion with “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d at 90, 96 (2d Cir. 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and subsection (c) requires consideration of specified treatment and opinion factors when it is not given controlling weight.

Lyons v. Saul · filed 2022-04-05(c)(2)

Under the regulations in force when plaintiff filed her application, the ALJ is required to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Though the ALJ correctly noted that Dr. Seymour is not a specialist, she failed to consider that he had treated plaintiff every six months for more than fifteen years. ... In short, the ALJ’s stated reasons for rejecting Dr. Seymour’s opinions are not supported by the record. Accordingly, this case must be remanded for reconsideration of the medical opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the regulatory factors.

Givens v. Saul · filed 2022-04-21(c)(2)

More specifically, for a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ is required to evaluate that opinion in two steps. At the first step, the ALJ must give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2); see Bates v. Colvin, 736 F.3d 1093, 1099 (7th Cir. 2013); Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). If the ALJ decides a treating physician’s opinion should not be given controlling weight, then at a second step, the ALJ must determine what weight to afford the opinion in light of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hudak v. Saul · filed 2022-04-25(c)(2)

Under Section 404.1527, the Administration will give “controlling weight” to a treating source’s medical opinion on the issues of nature and severity of impairments as long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to address the regulation and provide good reasons before declining to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.

HAND v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-05-02(c)

Finally, Plaintiff is correct –the ALJ failed to address and provide good reason, as required by the regulations, in her decision not to provide Dr. Montero-Pearson’s medical opinion controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s decision is silent on whether the ALJ considered and applied the dictates of section 404.1527(c) in determining the ultimate weight to assign Dr. Montero-Pearson’s opinion. This is an error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

James v. Saul · filed 2022-05-27(c)(2)

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