20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires weighing it under the listed factors.

Iseminger v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-13(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” 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 claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). 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. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight and directs that noncontrolling opinions be weighed using specified factors.

Hansen v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-21(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” 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 claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). 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. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

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 can articulate good reasons for discounting it.

Fyffe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-16(c)

The regulations in place at the time Fyffe filed her application required the ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion unless he can articulate “good reasons” for discounting it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing specified factors.

Allvin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-07-26(c)(2)

But 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) 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; otherwise, the opinion's weight is assessed using the listed factors.

Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-29(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ does not give a medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ will assess the weight of the opinion based on several factors: (1) whether the opinion comes from a source that examined or treated Plaintiff; (2) the extent to which the source supports the opinion with evidence and explanation; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the rest of the record; (4) whether the source is a specialist; and (5) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Plaintiff argues that even if Dr. Jha’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ still should have given it deference. However, the factors used to weigh the value of a physician’s opinion do not support Plaintiff’s argument. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision to afford little weight to Dr. Jha’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must provide good reasons for discounting it.

Pullen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-08(c)(2)

Under the controlling regulations6 at the time Plaintiff filed his applications, the opinion of a treating physician must be accorded 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). If a treating physician’s opinion is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record; otherwise, the opinion still receives deference, must be weighed under the relevant factors, and requires sufficiently specific reasons for the assigned weight.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-24(c)

To receive controlling weight, treating physician opinions must be both supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record. If not, the opinions may not merit controlling weight but still must be given deference and must be weighed using the following six factors: ... However, not every factor is applicable in every case, nor should all six factors be seen as absolutely necessary. What is absolutely necessary, though, is that the ALJ give good reasons—reasons that are “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers”—for the weight that he ultimately assigns to the opinions. Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Eichenberger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-19(c)(2)

The regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s case require the ALJ to weigh medical opinions regardless of the source. ... Under these regulations, the ALJ is required to give “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 [claimant’s] case record.”2 Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and treating status assumes an established, long-term relationship providing a longitudinal view of the claimant.

MISTY SMARTT V. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-11-17(c)(2)

As long as a treating physician’s opinion “is well-supported … and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, we will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... This principle assumes that a treating physician has an established, long-term relationship with the claimant and can offer “a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairments,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), because the treating physician has been able “to observe and know the patient as an individual.” ... Here, the ALJ properly discounted the treating physician’s opinion by identifying specific reasons supported by substantial evidence. First, it bears noting that Smartt’s “treating” physician, Dr. Karandish, was not really her treating physician as that title would normally be understood. The ALJ observed that their relationship was limited to three visits over three years for the purpose of preparing three corresponding Social Security assessments or questionnaires. ... In short, Dr. Karandish functioned like a consultative examiner, not a treating physician. He had no broader context or “longitudinal” perspective, because he assessed her for the first time when she began the Social Security application process.

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 not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Acosta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-23(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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Langston v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-03(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that ALJs give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if that opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the 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 medical opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Coleman v. Saul · filed 2023-02-27(c)(2)

The rule stems from regulations directing the Commissioner to accord “controlling weight” to a treating source’s medical 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 record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The premise is that “a claimant’s treating physicians have great familiarity with [her] condition,” so their reports deserve “substantial weight.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, when a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, explicitly apply the listed factors and explain the weight assigned.

Austin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-03(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as Kimberly’s, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”). ... In fact, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... If an ALJ decides that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, then at step two “[he] must explicitly apply the factors listed in [sections 404.1527 and 416.927]; the failure to do so is procedural 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.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-05-31(c)(2)

A 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 CFR §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1132 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Wagner v. Astrue, 499 F.3d 842, 848 (8th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment only when the opinion is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Vasquez v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-05(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 addition, the ALJ reasonably found the treating providers’ highly restrictive opinions inconsistent with the treatment record and other medical opinion evidence. ... Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s assessment of the medical opinion evidence is supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law.

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 is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the claimant’s record.

Armstrong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-07(c)(2)

The regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s case require the ALJ to weigh medical opinions regardless of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Under these regulations, the ALJ is required to give “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 claimant’s] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hankins v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-20(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ need not give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (“When confronted with conflicting medical opinions, an ALJ need not accept a treating physician’s opinion that is conclusory and brief and unsupported by clinical findings.”). If medical evidence contradicts a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must provide “‘specific and legitimate reasons’ supported by substantial evidence in the record” for rejecting that physician’s opinion. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting Lester, 81 F.3d at 830); see also Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (explaining that when rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, “the ALJ must do more than offer his conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors’, are correct.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the pre-March 2017 rules, § 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.

Lyles v. Saul · filed 2023-09-26(c)(2)

Under the regulations governing Lyles’s application, which was filed before March 27, 2017,3 see R.293, 299, “a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a patient’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with ... other substantial evidence.’” Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 176 (5th Cir. 1995)); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (applicable to claims filed before March 26, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks support from acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or conflicts with other substantial record evidence.

Stedman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-02(c)(2)

An ALJ need not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if that opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Ford v. Saul, 950 F.3d 1141, 1154 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[an] ALJ may discount the treating physician's opinion by giving “specific and legitimate reasons” that are supported by substantial evidence in the record) (quoting Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)). In contrast with Dr. Dilcher’s opinion, the opinions of the consultative and non-examining doctors were persuasive because they were consistent and supported by the record as a whole. Tr. 16-17. The ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Dilcher’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Govia v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-26(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). ... The ALJ reasonably relied on these medical opinions when deciding not to afford full weight to Dr. Karimi’s assessment. (T at 1090-91). ... For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to discount the treating physician’s assessment must be sustained under the deferential standard of review applicable here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-03-12(d)(2)

Under the regulations in force at the time Plaintiff filed his claims, medical opinions by an individual’s treating physicians were “entitled to ‘controlling weight’ if they are not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence and are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion when it is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence, but permits the opinion to be discounted for good cause.

Albelo v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-13(d)(2)

If medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques support a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, and such opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In sum, ALJ Reynolds’s finding that Dr. Santana’s opinions were inconsistent with his own medical records provided her adequate grounds to discount his opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

HINES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-08-30(c)(2)

When evaluating medical evidence, an ALJ must give controlling weight to and adopt the medical opinion of a treating physician if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... As discussed in detail above, none of the medical opinions offered by Plaintiff’s treating physicians are entitled to deference as they fail to satisfy an important requirement—support from the medical record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner, absent good reasons to the contrary, to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Caitlin O'Hare v. Martin O'Malley · filed 2024-10-08(c)(2)

Applicable regulations and precedent require the Commissioner of Social Security, in the absence of “good reasons” to the contrary, to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Cox, 77 F.4th at 987; Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For applications governed by the former regulation, Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

David Watkins v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-02(c)(2)

SSA regulations in force at the time Watkins filed his application required an ALJ to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion if it was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with 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 treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh the opinion using the regulation’s listed factors.

Stolte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-27(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. Id. When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight it should be given by considering the factors identified above (the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with the other evidence, and the specialization of the physician). Id. ... The ALJ provided sufficient reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for assigning “little weight” to Dr. Dawood’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other record evidence.

Phachansiri v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-07-28(c)(2)

Still, an ALJ need not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is inconsistent with other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Winchel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, (11th Cir. 2011). ... Under the circumstances, the ALJ did not err in discrediting a one-time assessment which was out of step with other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For a DIB claim filed before 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when sound medical evidence supports it and it is consistent with the record, but well-supported contrary evidence permits the ALJ to weigh it like other evidence.

Love v. Bisignano · filed 2025-09-24(c)(2)

Because Jacquelyn L. filed her DIB claim before 2017, “the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by sound medical evidence and is consistent with the record.” ... If “well-supported contrary evidence is introduced, however, a treating physician’s opinion becomes just another piece of evidence of the ALJ to evaluate.” ... Here, the ALJ provided an adequate explanation for giving no weight to Dr. Rao’s opinion that Jacquelyn L. could not work, finding it inconsistent with Dr. Rao’s own notes and assessment, which stated at some points during Jacquelyn L.’s cancer treatments that she could perform light or sedentary work based on her functionality, and other times found that she could not.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Richison v. Astrue · filed 2012-02-07(d)(2)

But a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see Scott, 647 F.3d at 739; Punzio v. As-true, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir.2011). The ALJ did not err here in determining that Yoon’s opinion conflicted with other medical evidence, including his own treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by acceptable medical techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Taylor v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-21(d)(2)

The regulations provide that Dr. Del-port’s opinion is to be given controlling weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Therefore, the ALJ’s decision not to adopt Dr. Delport’s opinion as controlling in this case was not in error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s qualifying opinion; a contrary physician’s opinion alone is not an adequate reason to reject it.

Hensley v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-21(d)(2)

The only stated reason the administrative judge gave for rejecting the treating physician’s medical opinion that Hensley could not engage in repetitive pushing and pulling was that another physician had reached the opposite conclusion. That was not an adequate basis for rejecting Dr. Cross’ opinion. The governing regulation states that 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] case record,” it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when it lacks support from acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques or conflicts with other substantial evidence.

Qualls v. Cmsnr Social Sec · filed 2009-08-04(d)(2)

Because Dr. Steuer’s opinion was not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and was “inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ was not required to give his opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion may be denied controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-07-21(d)(2)

Thus, despite his erroneous conclusion that Dr. Adeyemo’s and Dr. Lee’s opinions were not supported by adequate clinical findings, the ALJ properly declined to accord their opinions controlling weight because they were “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-07-08(d)(2)

We hold that the medical opinion of claimant’s treating physician met the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) and should have been accorded controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by acceptable medical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Cruz v. Shalala · filed 1995-04-19(d)(2)

Therefore, because the record contains substantial evidence contradicting Dr. Gheissary’s opinion, ALJ Jacobs did not err by not giving Dr. Gheissary’s January 18, 1991 report controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well supported by accepted medical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Snead v. Chater · filed 1997-10-31(d)(2)

Our review of Dr. Reed’s office notes persuades us that the ALJ should not have given controlling weight to Dr. Reed’s conclusory opinion (offered before plaintiff’s suicide attempt) that she was restricted only from heavy lifting, and was not limited in her ability to sit, stand, walk, speak, travel, or perform mental activities.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an administrative law judge to give good, sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

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

The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. The ALJ must give reasons “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.” SSR 96-2p. An ALJ can reject a treating physician’s opinion only for reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it under the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

McDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

Since McDonald filed his applications prior to March 27, 2017, the rules in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 apply to the ALJ’s assignment of weight to the medical opinions in the record. The regulations require the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). 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 the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). If controlling weight is not assigned to the treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) of this section in deciding how much weight to accord each of the medical opinions in the record, including the medical opinion from the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination regarding the supportability and consistency of Dr. Hammer’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence. As such, the ALJ was not required to afford the opinion controlling weight. The ALJ, accordingly, was then required to examine the factors from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and give “good reasons” for her decision. Although the ALJ did not cite explicitly to the factors in the regulations, she mentioned information relevant to these factors in her analysis. ... While the ALJ could have been more detailed in assessing Dr. Hammer’s opinion, his analysis provides “good reasons” for assigning the opinion limited weight. Despite McDonald’s disagreement with how the ALJ evaluated the relevant factors, the ALJ’s decision to award limited weight to Dr. Hammer’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence and comports with applicable law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion after declining to give it controlling weight, but the ALJ need only minimally articulate the reasoning and need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor.

Clancy v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-09(c)

The ALJ adequately explained her reasoning for discounting Dr. Garcia’s opinion. An ALJ who does not afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must then determine what weight it does merit by considering the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s explanation thus considered the regulatory factors to conclude that Dr. Garcia’s opinion was not persuasive. [17-1] 21. ... But, while the ALJ must consider the relevant factors discussed above, the Seventh Circuit case law is clear that she need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor. ... The Court finds the ALJ satisfied the requirement that she consider the regulatory factors and minimally articulate her reasoning, and therefore her decision to find Dr. Garcia’s opinion not persuasive must stand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the examination frequency, treatment relationship, consistency, supporting explanation, and treating source’s specialty when weighing a medical opinion, but does not invariably require the ALJ to expressly document the source’s particular specialty.

Yokosh v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-20(c)

The agency’s regulations require an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). These factors include frequency of examination; “the treatment relationship’s length, nature, and extent; the opinion’s consistency with other evidence; the explanatory support for the opinion; and any specialty of the treating physician.” ... Here, the ALJ noted that Dr. Matusiak was a Ph.D., that Yokosh saw him for counseling twice a month beginning in June 2016 and continuing for one year and referred to Dr. Matusiak as a Doctor throughout the opinion. ... And, as previously noted, the ALJ explained the inconsistencies between Dr. Matusiak’s opinion and evidence in the record, as well as his own treatment notes. The Court will not remand the case back for the ALJ to document that Dr. Matusiak’s specialty is in pain-related mental health disorders.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to assess the regulatory factors, but failure to address them expressly is harmless when the ALJ gives good reasons and does not traverse the treating-physician rule’s substance.

Fontalvo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-01(c)

Where, as here, “the ALJ decided not to afford controlling weight to the treating physicians’ opinions, she [is] required to explicitly review the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what (if any) lesser weight to give those opinions.” Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 78 (2d Cir. 2022). Those four factors are referred to as the “Burgess factors”: “(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) (citing Burgess). If the ALJ does not “explicitly” apply these four factors, she commits procedural error and a potential ground for remand exists. See Schillo, 31 F.4th at 75; Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129–30. However, this error is harmless and will not result in remand if two conditions are met. First, if the ALJ has “otherwise provided good reasons for [the] weight assessment....” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 75. Second, if a “searching review of the record” indicates that “the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96. ... Consequently, since the ALJ advanced both “good reasons” for the weight ascribed to the treating physician’s opinions and did not traverse the treating physician rule, the ALJ made only a harmless error when not expressly analyzing the Burgess factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing a treating-source opinion but does not require a factor-by-factor articulation of those factors.

Stack v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2025-06-17(c)

The regulations provide factors to be considered in evaluating medical source opinions, but they do not require a factor-by-factor articulation of the factors. Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258; Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. ... While the ALJ did not discuss each regulatory factor, Plaintiff does not demonstrate he did not consider the regulatory factors. Moreover, the ALJ in fact accorded deference to Dr. Skiffington’s opinion concerning mild and moderate limitations and explained his bases for discounting Dr. Skiffington’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source’s medical opinion to consider the prescribed regulatory factors within the regulation’s multifactor framework, even if the ALJ need not expressly list every factor.

White v. Bisignano · filed 2025-08-08(c)

The regulations specifically state that ALJs “consider all of [these] factors in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (emphasis added). ... Although courts “will not vacate or reverse an ALJ’s decision based solely on a failure to expressly list every checklist factor, we do expect the ALJ to analyze the treating source’s medical opinion ‘within the multifactor framework delineated’ in the regulation.” Ray, 861 F. App’x at 105 (citing Karr, 989 F.3d at 512; Gerstner, 879 F.3d at 263). And the Court is not convinced that “the ALJ’s reasoning sufficiently accounted for the substance of the prescribed factors.” Id. at 106. Rejecting a treating physician’s opinion “without considering the regulatory factors” is “a reversible error in itself.” Deborah A. M. v. Saul, No. 19 C 2380, 2019 WL 6893006, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2019).

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 well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and to explain any rejection.

Punzio v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-21(d)(2)

An ALJ must give “controlling weight” to a treating source’s opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” ... And whenever an ALJ does reject a treating source’s opinion, a sound explanation must be given for that decision.

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 consideration of all medical opinions and identifies non-exclusive factors for weighing them, including examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

O'Connor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-06-03(b), (d)(2)

All medical opinions are to be considered in determining the disability status of a claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). Courts evaluate and weigh medical opinions pursuant to the following non-exclusive list: (1) whether the physician has examined the applicant; (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant; (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source's opinion receives controlling weight when well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with substantial record evidence; otherwise the ALJ weighs it using listed factors and explains the weight assigned.

Robar v. SSA · filed 2011-07-13(d)(2)

A treatment provider=s opinions will be given controlling weight if the Atreating source=s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the applicant=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(d)(2). When a treating source=s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ determines the amount of weight based on factors that include the nature and extent of the source=s relationship with the applicant, whether the source provided evidence in support of the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the source is a specialist in the field. 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527(d)(1-6). In addition, the ALJ must give reasons for the weight given to treating source opinions. Id.; see also Soto-Cedeno v . Astrue, 380 Fed. Appx. 1-2 (1st Cir. 2010).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the record and requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned when controlling weight is not given.

Wyvonnia Brooks v. Social Security Administration · filed 2011-07-15(d)(2)

Treating-physician opinions that are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other record evidence are entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In the event that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to that high level of deference, an ALJ must present good reasons, as articulated in the applicable regulations, not only for the lack of controlling weight afforded the treating physician, but for the weight afforded to the agency physician or other competing opinion. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to give good reasons for the weight assigned to that opinion.

Young v. SSA · filed 2011-09-15(d)(2)

Where an ALJ's RFC assessment is at odds with a medical source opinion, he must explain his reasons for disregarding that opinion. ... When an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight, he is required to "give good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] your treating source's opinion." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The ALJ did not err in giving little weight to Dr. Windier.

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 and not inconsistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Chambers v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-13(d)(2)-(6)

Under Section 404.1527(d)(2), a treating physician’s medical opinion is given controlling weight if it is (1) “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent” with the other evidence in the record. ... However, because the ALJ did not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he was required to subsequently analyze certain factors. ... A treating source’s medical opinion that does not meet the requirements for controlling weight is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 CFR 404.1527.” ... At bottom, this ease must be remanded because ALJ failed to properly evaluate Dr. Winders’ opinion by applying the required factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Johnstone v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-23(d)

However, an ALJ may not cast a treating' physician’s opinion aside if the ALJ decides that the opinion is not controlling. Instead, an ALJ must weigh the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) and provide good reasons for the weight ultimately assigned to the treating physician’s opinion. Here, the ALJ did not weigh the factors provided in § 404.1527(d) when discounting Dr. Boyd’s opinion. There are reasons to provide Dr. Boyd’s opinion more than little weight, which may have been revealed had the ALJ completed an analysis of the factors. Specifically, although the majority of Dr. Boyd’s treatment of Johnstone involved mental impairments, Dr. Boyd was John-stone’s primary care physician. Additionally, she maintained regular office visits with Dr. Boyd from March 2004 through the' present. The ALJ failed to evaluate Johnstone’s frequent visits and long-lasting relationship with Dr. Boyd. This type of relationship warrants consideration when determining the type of weight ultimately assigned to a doctor’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ need not give an examining or treating source's opinion controlling weight unless it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

David R. Costa, Claimant v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant · filed 2012-03-21(c)(2)

Importantly, however, there is no per se rule requiring the ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinion of an examining, or even a treating source; to be entitled to such weight, a medical source’s opinions must be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [cannot be] 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) permits an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion less than controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Fawcett v. SSA · filed 2012-05-16(c)(2)

In short, the ALJ did not err in giving less than controlling weight to Dr. Fecteau's opinion, since the opinion was "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.

A treating source's opinion about the severity of an impairment 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 record, and the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Polanco-Quinones v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-01(d)(2)

Under the relevant regulation, a treating source's opinion on the question of the severity of an impairment will be 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] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Section 404.1527(d)(2) also provides that an ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight accorded to a treating source's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) 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 the other substantial evidence in the record; when controlling weight does not apply, subsection (d) directs the ALJ to consider factors such as the treatment relationship and specialization in weighing the opinion.

Fuchs v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-06(d)(2), (d)

A treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... In deciding how much weight to accord a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ should consider various factors, like how often the treating source has examined the claimant, whether the source is a specialist in the condition claimed to be disabling, and so forth.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-13(d)(2)

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 consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires applying the listed factors to determine its weight.

Andrews v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-09(c)(2)

The regulations require an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion 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), 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must apply the factors listed in sections 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) to determine what weight to give to the opinion. 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) requires an ALJ to give a treating source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Agrusso v. SSA · filed 2013-01-15(c)(2)

When determining a claimant's eligibility for disability benefits, an ALJ must consider all medical opinions in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). The ALJ must articulate "good reasons" for the weight given to each treating source's opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ will give a treating source opinion controlling weight if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the . . . record." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source medical opinion deference, weigh it using the listed regulatory factors, and explain the weight assigned with good reasons.

Rhodes v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-07

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.” Id. (quotation omitted). Those factors are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. at 1301 (quotation omitted). After considering these factors, “the ALJ must give good reasons in [the] . . . decision for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Id. (quotation omitted)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating-source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight must still be evaluated and given deference under the factors listed in the regulation.

Friend v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-04-28(d)(2)–(6)

Even when inconsistent with other evidence, a treating source’s medical opinions remain entitled to deference and must be weighed using the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927. Id. Put simply, it is not enough to dismiss a treating physician’s opinion as “incompatible” with other evidence of record; there must be some effort to identify the specific discrepancies and to explain why it is the treating physician’s conclusion that gets the short end of the stick.

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 consistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

Cumella v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-26(d)(2)-(6)

“A treating physician’s opinion is 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.” House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir.2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). However, “while entitled to special weight, it does not automatically control, particularly if the treating physician evidence is itself inconsistent.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). If the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight under 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2), it must be weighed considering the factors in 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) and 416.927(d)(2)-(6). See Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir.2003) (“Where controlling weight is not given to a treating source’s opinion, it is weighed according to the factors enumerated .... ”). The ALJ must “give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.” Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878-79 (8th Cir.2002). The court must “defer to an ALJ’s credibility finding[s] as long as the ALJ ... gives a good reason [for those findings].” Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir.2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Sibley v. SSA · filed 2013-02-15(c)(2)

Generally, the ALJ must give a treating source's opinion controlling weight if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence [in the record.]"

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a qualifying treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight, and otherwise requires its weight to be determined using the listed factors in subsections (c)(3) through (c)(6).

Misener v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-20(c)(2), (c)(3)-(6)

If it is, it must be given “controlling weight.” If it is not, however, the ALJ must ask just how much weight to give it relative to the other record evidence, guided by the factors listed at §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(i)-(ii) and §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the regulation’s factors.

Anderson v. Astrue · filed 2013-04-04(c)(2)

In evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must first consider “whether the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques [and, if so, whether it] is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If so, the ALJ must give the opinion “controlling weight.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. If the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ should next weigh the opinion “using all of the factors provided in . . . § 404.1527 and 416.927.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Importantly, the ALJ does not need to discuss each and every factor outlined in Watkins. See Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). All that is required is that “the ALJ’s decision 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence must receive controlling weight.

Petty v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-20(c)(2)

If the treating source’s opinion “is well-supported by medically and acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); § 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of medical opinions with the relevant evidence and permits a well-supported treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is consistent with the record as a whole.

Shew v. Colvin · filed 2013-07-01(c)(2)

In deciding whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ considers medical opinions along with “the rest of the relevant evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The opinion of a treating source may be given controlling weight where it is well-supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Myers v. Colvin · filed 2013-07-18(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is not “inherently entitled” to controlling weight. ... Because the regulations only accord such weight to source opinions if they are “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), we have upheld an ALJ’s decision to discount a treating physician’s opinions where those opinions were internally inconsistent, see Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1013, and where the physician’s opinion was inconsistent with the claimant’s own testimony. See Hacker, 459 F.3d at 937-38.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh it using the listed factors.

Wojciechowski v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-26(d)(2), (d)(1)-(6)

Under the “treating physician’s rule,” the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion when 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(d)(2); ... Even if a treating physician’s opinion is deemed not to be deserving of controlling weight, an ALJ may nonetheless give it “extra weight” under certain circumstances. In this regard, the ALJ should consider the following factors when determining the proper weight to afford the opinion if it is not entitled to controlling weight: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of opinion, (4) consistency, (5) specialization of the treating physician, and (6) other factors that are brought to the attention of the court. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1-6); ... This Court finds that the ALJ did not properly apply the treating physician’s rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Cichocki v. Astrue · filed 2013-09-05(c)(2)

Rather, “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)” will be given “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 claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (noting that it is the Commissioner’s role to resolve “genuine conflicts in the medical evidence,” and that a treating physician’s opinion is generally “not afforded controlling weight where the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with the opinions of other medical experts” (internal alterations, quotation marks, and citation omitted)). ... A careful review of the record reveals that the ALJ properly applied the treating physician rule. Because Dr. Gupta’s medical source statement conflicted with his own treatment notes, the ALJ was not required to afford his opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight unless it lacks adequate medical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Banks v. Astrue · filed 2013-12-10(c)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating-source opinion unless that opinion is not supported by medically acceptable clinical techniques or is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must give reasons for declining to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported treating source’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rugless v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-12-19(d)(2)

“SSA regulations advise claimants that a treating source’s opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of [their] impairments will be given ‘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.” ... The ALJ gave only a conclusory explanation of why Dr. Carroll’s opinion regarding appellant’s ability to lift 10 lbs. is inconsistent with the record. ... We have “consistently held that the failure to provide good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is a ground for remand.” ... We need a more elaborate explanation of the reasons why the ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Carroll’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) 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 in the record.

Alker v. SSA · filed 2014-02-20(d)(2)

"[A] treating source's opinion on the question of the severity of an impairment will be 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] record.'"

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Blackburn v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-31(c)(2)

We conclude it is not necessary to address Blackburn's arguments regarding Justmann's status because even a treating physician's opinion is "not inherently entitled" to controlling weight. Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). A treating source's opinion will be given controlling weight only if the ALJ finds that it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Myers, 721 F.3d at 525. Furthermore where a treating source "renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions," the treating source's opinion may be discounted or disregarded. Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2000).

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 supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Thompson v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-04(c)(2)

An ALJ must accord controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion if it is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

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.

Phillips v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-16(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give more weight to an examining source and controlling weight to a treating-source opinion that is well-supported and consistent with the record, while adequately explaining any contrary weight decision.

Minnick v. Colvin · filed 2015-01-07(c)(1), (c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), an ALJ should “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]” because of his greater familiarity with the claimant’s conditions and circumstances. Section 404.1527(c)(2) further provides “[i]f [the ALJ] find[s] that a treating source’s 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 claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... In discounting Dr. Kachmann’s opinion that Minnick could not bend or twist, the ALJ stated the limitation to occasional stooping in the RFC was better supported by the record as a whole. The ALJ failed to explain why Dr. Kachmann’s opinion that Minnick could not bend or twist was not supported by the record, particular as to twisting. This was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to address the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors, and failure to do so sufficiently requires remand.

McCrea v. Saul · filed 2023-05-25(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(5)

Second, when the ALJ ascribed less than controlling weight to Dr. Noparstak’s opinion, he was required to review the statutory factors to determine what weight to afford that opinion, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability and consistency of the medical opinion with the record, and the physician's specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(5). Here, there was no such discussion regarding the decision to afford Dr. Noparstak’s opinion “little weight.” The ALJ was required to explain his decision with reference to the nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s treatment and Dr. Noparstak’s area of specialty, but he did not. Under the treating physician rule applicable to this case, if an ALJ fails to sufficiently address these statutory factors in declining to afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the case requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion; if controlling weight is not given, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs the ALJ to weigh it using the treatment relationship, support, consistency, expertise, and other relevant factors.

John P. Chippendale, Claimant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant · filed 2015-01-15(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ was entitled to afford Dr. Mehl’s opinion great, but not controlling, weight. As claimant recognizes, the opinion of a treating physician 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 claimant’s] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, she must determine what weight, if any, to give it in accordance with the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by relevant medical evidence and explanations; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is expressing an opinion in her field of expertise; and (6) other factors claimant or others bring to the ALJ’s attention, or of which the ALJ is aware, which tend to support or contradict the opinion. See id. at § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’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 case record.

Littlefield v. SSA · filed 2015-02-17(c)(2)

The 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 [a claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2). ... Moreover, the ALJ did not explain his decision not to give Dr. Stein’s opinion controlling weight in the manner required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every listed factor when the rationale is discernible and supported by good reasons grounded in substantial evidence.

Gregoire v. CV · filed 2015-02-25(c)

But an ALJ need “not explicitly take account of all the factors articulated in” § 404.1527(c), so long as the court is “able to discern the rationale the ALJ used to reach his determination and that determination is founded on ‘good reasons’ that are supported by substantial record evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ramos-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-03-10(c)(2)

The opinion of such a treating physician can be rejected if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, but also when it is not supported by the physician’s own medical findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stepp v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-31(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating source’s opinion should receive controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Here, not only is Dr. McCormick’s entirely work-preclusive opinion inconsistent with the opinions of other physicians (including Dr. Dobson and Dr. Ritter), but the opinion is also internally inconsistent given its express statement that Dr. McCormick expected Stepp’s condition to improve. We therefore conclude that the ALJ articulated sufficiently compelling reasons for electing to give Dr. McCormick’s work-preclusive evaluation little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while allowing reduced weight for specific, legitimate reasons.

Brandon v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-14(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... A treating source opinion may not be rejected absent good cause for specific and legitimate reasons clearly articulated in the hearing decision. ... Because I conclude that the ALJ articulated specific, legitimate reasons tied to the evidence of record for the reduced weight he assigned to Dr. Slater’s opinion,' however, I affirm.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from a treating-source opinion when it lacks support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Westfall v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-07(c)(2)

The ALJ typically has a duty to give controlling weight to the opinions of plaintiffs treating sources. However, if a treating source’s opinion is not supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or it is inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ does not have to give the opinion controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Downs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-01-08(c)(2)

Although under the “treating source rule,” an ALJ is required to give 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 record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931, 937 (6th Cir. 2011), the ALJ here offered sufficiently “good reasons” for discounting Dr. Watson’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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 not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Morr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-10-09(d)(2)

“An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and an ALJ may not reject it based only on lay reinterpretation of medical evidence.

Burns v. Colvin · filed 2016-01-13(c)(2)

However, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) retains, rather than abrogates, the common law that an ALJ’s lay reinterpretation of medical evidence is insufficient to reject a treating source medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is otherwise supported by the medical evidence.

Moss v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-16(c)(2)

If the opinion comes from a treating source and is otherwise supported by the medical evidence, then that opinion is given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant treating-source factors, and discussing those factors in substance rather than by name can satisfy that requirement.

Retzloff v. Colvin · filed 2016-12-23(c)

This was harmless, as the ALJ did discuss the relevant points, even if not by name. The ALJ evaluated the treatment relationship, in his discussion of Dr. Floren’s medical opinions from February 20Í0 through May 2013, all of the treatment given to Retzloff, and the relevant physical exams and tests, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii).

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; if it is not controlling, § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires weighing factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Trevizo v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-14(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the listed regulatory factors, even when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Segerstrom v. Colvin · filed 2017-12-19(c)

Finally, although the ALJ is not required to give the opinions of Drs. Kohn and Bidwell controlling weight, he still must address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ failed to minimally address many of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, the ALJ did not analyze the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the supportability of the decision, or whether Drs. Kohn and Bidwell had a relevant specialty. ... The ALJ’s failure to do so prevents this Court from determining the reasonableness of the ALJ’s decision in light of the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. For the reasons described herein, the ALJ did not offer substantial evidence for rejecting the opinions of Drs. Kohn and Bidwell, which is an error requiring remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to it.

Sunshine v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-29(c)(2)

Medical opinions are evaluated based on the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the consistency of the opinion with the other record evidence, the medical source’s specialty, and other factors that may be brought to the ALJ’s attention. ... A treating medical source’s opinion about the claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... An ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion. ... If the ALJ satisfies that standard, the court will uphold the decision to discount a treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating physician's opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires consideration of specified factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Akins v. Berryhill · filed 2018-04-10(d)(2)–(6)

A treating doctor’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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician’s specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6); see also Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011). ... This failure to “sufficiently account [ ] for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527,” Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013), prevents this Court from assessing the reasonableness of the ALJ’s decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight or provide good reasons for declining to do so, and then to determine its appropriate weight using the specified regulatory factors.

Busse v. Colvin · filed 2018-05-02(c)(2), (c)

An ALJ must provide “good reasons” for declining to give controlling weight to a claimant’s treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2017). Even if the ALJ provides good reasons for refusing to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulation requires the ALJ to determine the appropriate weight due based on “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.” ... Moreover, even assuming inconsistency with treatment records was a “good reason” for refusing to give Dr. Goldin-Mertdogan’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ nevertheless erred by assigning his opinions little or no weight without considering the required regulatory factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), such as: neglecting to consider the length, nature, and extent of Dr. Goldin-Mertdogan’s regular treatment over nearly a decade with Mr. Busse; explanatory support for the opinion; and the doctor’s specialty as a psychiatrist. Gerstner, 879 F.3d at 263. Instead, the ALJ focused almost exclusively on one factor: a perceived inconsistency between Dr. Goldin-Mertdogan’s opinions and the treatment records (R. 26). The regulation requires more, and that failure adds a second ground for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the record, and otherwise to weigh it using specified factors.

Mendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)

“If [th]e [ALJ] 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, [sh]e will give it controlling weight.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, she must consider the following factors in determining how much weight to give it: length and extent of the treatment relationship, id. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(ii); how much relevant evidence is presented to support the opinion, id. § 404.1527(c)(3); how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, id. § 404.1527(c)(4); whether the source is a specialist in the area of her opinion, id. § 404.1527(c)(5); and any other factor brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention, id. § 404.1527(c)(6). “[T]he ALJ must provide some explanation for her decision to discount a treating physician’s opinion, [but the court’s] review is deferential: the ALJ’s decision must stand as long as she has ‘minimally articulated’ her reasons for rejecting the treating doctor’s opinion.” Henke v. Astrue, 498 F. App’x 636, 639 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh the listed regulatory factors.

Bhamidipati v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)

“Treating-source opinions must be given ‘controlling wei ght’ 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.’” ... If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to decide what weight to give the opinion; specifically, 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. ... The ALJ’s decision giving little weight to Dr. Montecalvo’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ gave good reasons for this decision. ... The length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination is a valid consideration in assessing the weight to give a treating physician’s opinion. 20C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. ... The ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Montecalvo’s opinion is substantially supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight if it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it using specified factors in the proper sequence and give specific reasons.

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

There is a significant difference between requiring an opinion be not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requiring an opinion to be consistent with substantial evidence. The Social Security Administration’s definition of “not inconsistent” illustrates the significance: “This is a term used to indicate that a well-supported treating source medical opinion need not be supported directly by all of the other evidence (i.e., it does not have to be consistent with all the other evidence) as long as there is no other substantial evidence in the case record that contradicts or conflicts with the opinion.” ... By requiring Dr. Patel’s opinion be consistent with other substantial evidence, the ALJ required more of her opinion than is set forth in the Regulations. ... Even if the ALJ did not error in applying the treating physician rule, the ALJ failed to consider Dr. Patel’s opinion under the factors. ... Treating 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. ... To the extent that the ALJ was discussing the consistency factor (rather than the second condition of the treating physician rule), this also constitutes error because “these factors 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(c) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires evaluation under specified factors with good reasons for the assigned weight.

Howard v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)

Under the “treating physician rule,” a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to significant weight in the determination of disability. See Mitchell v. Schweiker, 699 F.2d 185, 187 (4th Cir.1983) (stating that treating physician’s opinion must be accorded great weight because “it reflects an expert judgment based on a continuing observation of the patient's condition for a prolonged period of time”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... In fact, regulations require that a treating physician’s opinion be given controlling weight if that 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); see Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). ... Moreover, even if the court assumed that under the treating physician rule Dr. Fermo’s opinion did not merit controlling weight, the ALJ’s decision to accord his opinion little weight was nonetheless error. If a treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, the ALJ is to evaluate it using the following evaluation factors: (1) whether the physician has examined the applicant; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant medical evidence; (4) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) the relevance of the physician’s medical specialization to the opinion; and (6) any other factor that tends to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see SSR 96–2p; Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 563 (4th Cir. 2006).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-physician opinion consistent with the record and specifies factors for determining its weight when controlling weight is not given.

(SS) Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-15(c)(2)–(6)

“If . . . a 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] record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... “If there is ‘substantial evidence’ in the record contradicting the opinion of the treating physician, the opinion of the treating physician is no longer entitled to ‘controlling weight.’” ... “If a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling weight’ because it is not ‘well-supported’ or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the [Commissioner] considers specified factors in determining the weight it will be given.” Id. at 631. These factors include ... “any other factors [the claimant] or others bring to [the ALJ’s] attention, or of which [the ALJ is] aware, which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to first decide whether a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion receives controlling weight and, if not, weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

McGehee v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-21(c)

Indeed, a treating source’s opinions are entitled to controlling weight if they are well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). As such, when the record contains opinions from a treating source, the weighing of medical opinions proceeds through a sequential process: the ALJ must first determine whether the treating source’s opinions deserve controlling weight. See Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (describing the analysis as “sequential” and explaining that “[i]n deciding how much weight to give a treating source, an ALJ must first determine whether the opinion qualifies for ‘controlling weight’”). Even if not entitled to controlling weight, a treating source’s medical opinions are “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the relevant factors.” Langley, 373 F.3d at 1120 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (setting forth the factors to be weighed, comprising (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ, absent good cause, to consider the six Newton factors before declining to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.

Bennett v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-22(c)

In the absence of good cause, an ALJ is required to consider the Newton factors, outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), before declining to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion. ... Here, there is no indication that the ALJ undertook her obligation to fully consider each of the six Newton factors. ... Thus, the ALJ’s failure to engage in a concise six factor analysis was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to explicitly consider the treating relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization before assigning less weight.

Dukes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-22(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (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.” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotations and alterations omitted). These are the so-called “Burgess factors” from Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). “An ALJ’s failure to ‘explicitly’ apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight” to a treating source opinion “is a procedural error.” Id. at 96 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). ... Ignoring these Burgess factors and then assigning less-than-controlling weight to those treating sources’ opinions was procedural error. See Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95.