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) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the listed treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

Baker v. Saul · filed 2019-12-27(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record. ... When controlling weight is not assigned, the ALJ assigns an otherwise appropriate weight by considering the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion, whether the treating source is a specialist, and other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(6); 416.927(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an adjudicator weighing a treating physician’s opinion that is not given controlling weight to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradictory factors, but does not require expressly discussing every factor when partially rejecting an unsupported checklist opinion.

(SS) Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-06(c)(2)–(6)

Plaintiff cites Trevizo and contends that because the ALJ did not explicitly mention and analyze each of the factors in § 404.1527 in her partial rejection of Dr. Gonzalez’s opinion, this constitutes reversible error. ... The Court disagrees. First, the ALJ mostly accepted Dr. Gonzalez’s opinion, and only rejected a few portions, as opposed to the “outright rejection” in Trevizo. ... Finally, Dr. Gonzalez’s opinion was given in the form of a checklist, with no information as to why any particular box was checked. ... Thus, the ALJ properly rejected portions of Dr. Gonzalez’s checklist opinion that had no accompanying explanation for why a box was checked.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency, supportability, and the source's specialization, after determining whether a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight.

Pollic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-31(c)

In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, an ALJ must “evaluate all medical opinions” with regard to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s). ... In this instance, the ALJ erred by failing to specifically mention the applicable concept of controlling weight, analyze the controlling weight factors, or discuss the § 404.1527(c) factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, non-inconsistent opinion controlling weight and otherwise assess its weight using specified factors, including consistency with the record.

Negus-Wooldridge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-05(c)(2), (c)(4)

If an ALJ finds that a treating source’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, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the amount of weight it is given is determined by: the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, id. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i); the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, id. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii); how much relevant evidence the source provides to support its opinion, id. § 404.1527(c)(3); the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, id. § 404.1527(c)(4); and the source’s specialization, id. § 404.1527(c)(5). “If the ALJ discounts the physician’s opinion after considering these factors, [the court] must allow that decision to stand so long as the ALJ minimally articulate[d] his reasons—a very deferential standard that [the Seventh Circuit has], in fact, deemed lax.” ... Kym’s primary argument is that the ALJ erred in concluding that Dr. Arnold’s opinion was inconsistent with the record. See Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 14–17. It was certainly permissible for the ALJ to consider whether Dr. Arnold’s opinion was consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). And it is not the Court’s duty to reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See Butera v. Apfel, 173 F.3d 1049, 1055 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court must affirm the ALJ’s determination that the opinion conflicted with the record so long as she articulated her reasons and they are supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate the opinion using the factors in paragraphs (c)(2)-(6).

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2020-01-30(c)(2)-(6)

When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must then evaluate the opinion by following the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine first whether a treating-source opinion merits controlling weight, and only afterward apply supportability, consistency, and the other listed factors when assigning weight.

Bohannon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-07(c)(1)-(6)

The ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Aggarwal’s opinions did not meaningfully consider his opinions under the required legal criteria but instead collapsed the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by regulation into one by focusing on the “supportability” and “consistency” factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(1)-(6). This constitutes error because the “supportability” and “consistency” factors, along with the others listed in the regulations, “are properly applied only after the ALJ has determined that a treating-source opinion will not be given controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion that is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to apply the regulatory factors if controlling weight is denied.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-10(c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion if it is both "well-supported" and "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the case record. ... When an ALJ gives “good reasons” for not giving controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion, the opinion still has value in the disability determination and the ALJ must apply the regulatory factors to determine what lesser weight to afford the opinion. ... As with all opinions, the ALJ must look at a variety of factors, including: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) whether the physician was a specialist in the relevant area; and (6) other factors that validate or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to determine its weight using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

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

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 techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise consider the treatment relationship's length, frequency, extent, and nature in weighing it.

Pandya v. Saul · filed 2020-02-18(d)(2)

Treating source opinions are entitled to controlling weight if they are “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2). 416.927(d)(2); see also Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996). When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, ALJs must consider the length, frequency, extent, and nature of the treating relationship to determine how much weight to assign the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate treating-source opinions under specified factors and give controlling weight when the opinions are supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence.

Kowalczyk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c)

On remand, the ALJ must analyze the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating doctors as described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and should give controlling weight to these opinion if they are supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

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 supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence, while the regulation requires consideration of specified treatment and opinion factors if controlling weight is denied.

POWELL v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2020-02-28(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule” which applies to Lori’s claim, an ALJ should give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion as long as it is supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that the treating physician rule applies only to claims filed before March 27, 2017). An ALJ is authorized, however, to reject a treating physician’s opinion, so long as she offers “good reasons” for doing so. ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... The ALJ was not permitted to discount Dr. Coleman’s Medical Statement because it was rendered in a check-the-box questionnaire format.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability.

Gajos v. Saul · filed 2020-03-10(c)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... Moreover, the ALJ adequately accounted for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when declining to afford Dr. Griffin’s opinion controlling weight and instead assigning it little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and good reasons plus consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied, while § 404.1527(c)(3) makes supportability relevant to the weight assigned.

Bellardine v. SSA · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2), (c)(3)

The Social Security Administration has set forth certain guidelines that an ALJ must follow when determining how much weight to assign a treating medical source. The regulations provide: If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. When we do not give the treating source's opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Other factors which must be considered when the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight include the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence in the record, and whether the treating source is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(c)(5); 416.927(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(c)(5). The regulations also contain a clear procedural requirement that an ALJ must give “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician's opinion, specific enough “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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (July 2, 1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the relevant factors and give sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor.

Young v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-02(c)

Moreover, and to address Plaintiff’s contention that an ALJ cannot rely on just one § 404.1527 factor, an ALJ need not explicitly discuss all of the relevant factors as long as the findings are “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight [he] gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reason for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating doctor's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed using treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, and related factors.

(SS) Duval v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(c)(2)–(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant's treating doctor is given “controlling weight” so l o ng 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 doctor's opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the n ature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). ... Contrary to plaintiff’s contentions, the undersigned finds the ALJ was within his authority to disregard the June 2015 assessment completed by Dr. Tarasenko (AT 319-23), and provided specific and legitimate reasons for doing so.

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, provide good reasons when declining to do so, and consider specified factors in determining the weight otherwise due.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). ... An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons” for doing so. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (the SSA “will always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s opinion). ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ considers the following factors to determine how much weight it should receive: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the source presented relevant evidence to support the opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether a specialist rendered the opinion in his or her area of expertise; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine the weight of a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion using specified factors and provide a sound explanation for that determination.

Bauer v. Colvin · filed 2018-06-29(d)(2), (c)

But, even if Dr. Khan was not accorded controlling weight, Plaintiff still argues that his opinion would be entitled to good weight using the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Generally, even where a treater's opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2010). ... In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to 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(c). The ALJ must then provide a “sound explanation” for that decision. Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011). ... Furthermore, even if the Court were to accept Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ did evaluate Dr. Khan’s opinion under the regulatory guidance. ... This discussion provides the discussion contemplated by the regulatory factors. As a result, the Court finds that the ALJ did not error when she assigned no weight to the opinion of Dr. Khan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors, including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, when deciding what weight to give a treating-source opinion that lacks controlling weight.

Cobb v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-10(d)(2)–(6)

First, although the ALJ is entitled to not accord controlling weight to Dr. Rude’s opinions, he still must address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinions. SSR 96-2p. SSR 92-2p states that 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.” (Id.). Here, the ALJ failed to minimally address several of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, the ALJ did not discuss the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, or whether Dr. Rude had a relevant specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-physician opinion, while § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Hernandez v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-13(c)(2), (c)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise consider specified factors and explain the weight assigned.

Middleton v. Colvin · filed 2018-09-14(c)

The opinion of a treating physician is afforded controlling weight if it is both “well supported” by clinical and diagnostic evidence and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). Because of a treating doctor’s “greater familiarity with the claimant’s condition and circumstances,” Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003), an ALJ must “offer ‘good reasons’ for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.” Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Stage v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 1121, 1127 (7th Cir. 2016). Even where the ALJ chooses not to give a treating opinion controlling weight, she must still determine what weight to give the treating opinion. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740; Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to 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)-(d)(6). The ALJ must then provide a “sound explanation” for that decision. Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011). ... The 2016 ALJ decision still fails to address the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s failure to follow the law of the case requires remand. See, e.g., Daniels v. Colvin, No. 15 C 9148 2016 WL 7116582, at *12 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2016) (finding that the ALJ’s violation of the law of the case doctrine was grounds for remand). On remand, the ALJ shall consider and discuss Dr. Hurley’s specialization as a neurosurgeon, length and frequency of treatment relationship with Claimant, and knowledge of Claimant’s impairments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors and explain the weight assigned.

Gago v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-10(c)(2)-(6)

Finally, even assuming the ALJ provided “good reasons” for not affording Dr. Adeoye’s opinion controlling weight, which the Court finds he did not do, the ALJ was required to address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. SSR 96-2p. SSR 96-2p states that 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.” SSR 96-2p; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Yurt, 758 F.3d at 860; Moss, 555 F.3d at 561. Here, the ALJ did not assign Dr. Adeoye’s opinion any discernible weight and failed to address many of the enumerated factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, the ALJ did not discuss the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, or whether Dr. Adeoye had a relevant specialty, which he did have in psychiatry. Multiple factors favor crediting Dr. Adeoye’s opinion, and “proper consideration of these factors may have caused the ALJ to accord greater weight to [Dr. Adeoye’s] opinion.” Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. Ata minimum, the ALJ was required to address these factors in some way and articulate how they impacted his opinion. Accordingly, remand is necessary for the ALJ to properly analyze and explain the weight to be afforded to the opinion of Dr. Adeoye.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes a treating physician’s opinion controlling only when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, requires good reasons for discounting it, and identifies factors for evaluating it.

Ortega v. Colvin · filed 2018-10-19(d)(2)

A treating physician's opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight only if it is (1) well-supported by medical findings, and (2) consistent with substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The SSR require that an ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the factors relevant to evaluating a treating physician's opinion are: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician's specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Wurst v. Astrue, 866 F. Supp. 2d 951, 962 (N.D. Ill. 2012). ... Here, we find that the ALJ adequately articulated her reasons for giving Dr. Kuptel’s opinion minimal weight. ... Because we find that the ALJ adequately articulated her reasons for giving Dr. Kuptel’s physical evaluation minimal weight, this is not grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to consider specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Thompson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-31(c)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight and to consider the listed factors when deciding what weight to give it, but failure to explicitly discuss those factors is harmless when they would not change the result.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-05(c)(2)–(6)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is both “well-supported” by medical evidence and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... In making this decision, the ALJ must consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) whether the physician was a specialist in the relevant area; and (6) other factors that validate or contradict the opinion. ... Lastly, Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ’s failure to explicitly discuss the applicable regulatory factors, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), in evaluating the statements from Drs. Gonzalez and Chen requires remand. ... In these circumstances, an evaluation of the relevant factors would not lead to a different result on remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating doctor's opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the record and requires a sound explanation before the opinion can be rejected.

Hardy v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-08(c)(2)

A treating doctor’s opinion generally is entitled to controlling weight if it is consistent with the record, and it cannot be rejected without a “sound explanation.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011); see also Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that the treating-physician rule applies only to claims filed before March 27, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise to weigh it using the listed factors, while providing good reasons for the weight assigned.

Covell v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-02(c)

Under the SSA, “[a] treating source opinion should be afforded controlling-weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with other evidence in the record.” ... If an ALJ does not afford an opinion “controlling weight,” she must consider the following six factors to determine what weight to give the opinion: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination; 2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) support of the opinion by medical signs and laboratory findings; 4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) specialization of the treating source; 6) other factors that may support or contradict the medical opinion. ... “[T]he regulations do not require an ALJ to expressly state how each factor was considered, only that the decision provide ‘good reasons’ for the weight given to a treating source opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tuttle v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-18(c)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimed impairment is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If the opinion of a treating source is not afforded controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding what weight is due: (1) the existence of an examining relationship; (2) the nature of the treatment relationship, such as length of treatment and frequency of examination; (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical evidence such as medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) consistency with the record; (5) the source’s specialty; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each and every factor, as long as he or she considers all the factors and gives good reasons for the weight assigned. ... The ALJ did not evaluate Dr. Ulrich’s opinions as required by § 404.1527(c). ... There is no question that the ALJ did not identify Dr. Ulrich as a treating source, nor did the ALJ consider whether Dr. Ulrich’s April and October 2015 opinions were entitled to controlling weight or apply the § 404.1527(c) factors to those opinions. The ALJ’s cursory statement that he “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of” § 404.1527 and applicable social security regulations (R. 21) is insufficient to meet his statutory obligations in weighing evidence from a treating medical source. Consequently, the matter must be remanded for consideration of Dr. Ulrich’s April and October 2015 opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

Nygaard v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-30(d)(2)-(6)

If the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight under 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2), it must be weighed considering the factors in 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

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 record, and otherwise weigh it using the regulation’s listed factors.

Brock v. Saul · filed 2019-07-31(c)

Opinions by treating physicians receive controlling weight unless they are inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record or they are not well-supported by medical evidence. Walker v. Comm’n, Social Security Admin. 911 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Ifa treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, then the treating physician’s opinion typically still receives substantial weight. Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1132 (8th Cir. 2015). When not given controlling weight, the weight an ALJ should give to medical opinions depends on a number of factors, including: (1) whether the medical source has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, extent, and frequency of the treatment relationship, (3) the extent to which the relevant evidence is consistent with other medical evidence, (4) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the whole record; (5) whether the opinion is related to the medical source’s specialty area; and (6) other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. Owen v. Astrue, 551 F.3d 792, 800 (8th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Finally, the ALJ did not address any of the other listed factors to determine the weight of a medical opinion. Therefore, the ALJ erred in failing to support the little weight assigned to Dr. Pak’s opinion. Reversal is necessary to reevaluate Dr. Pak’s opinion. In doing so, the ALJ shall consider whether Dr. Pak’s opinion should receive controlling weight. If Dr. Pak’s opinion should not receive controlling weight, then the ALJ should reconsider the weight given to Dr. Pak’s opinion, addressing all the factors noted above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to weigh it using all regulatory factors and explain the assigned weight with good reasons.

Panas v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2019-08-05(c)(2)-(6)

If “a treating [psychologist’s] opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain what weight, if any, was assigned to the opinion using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.” Id. at 1176-77 (internal quotation marks omitted). This requires the ALJ to “give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion, and if he rejects the opinion completely, he must then give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.” Id. at 1177 (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Therefore, on remand the ALJ should evaluate Dr. Davies’ opinion using the appropriate factors and provide good reasons for the weight he assigns the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the regulation requires the ALJ to consider specified factors in assigning weight.

Clark v. Saul · filed 2019-08-19(c)(2), (c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)–(6)

Opinions from her treating physicians, Dr. Masten and Dr. Dibble, “as to the nature and severity of the impairment[,] [are] given ‘controlling weight’ so long as “[they are] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... Nevertheless, even when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must consider factors including the opinion’s consistency with the record.

Gibbons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-22(c)(2), (c)(4)

Before the ALJ discussed specific opinions, he laid out the standard for evaluating opinions. He correctly observed that, if a treating source’s opinion is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it must be given controlling weight. (Doc. #5, PageID #66); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider several factors, including consistency. (Doc. #5, PageID #66); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with the record, but an ALJ need not expressly discuss every weighing factor when the explanation reflects those factors and gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hutcherson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(c)(2), (c)(4)

Here, the ALJ’s opinion contained sufficient information to make clear that her reasons for not affording controlling weight to Dr. Watson’s and Dr. Smith’s opinion were their inconsistency with the record as a whole. Accordingly, the ALJ’s opinion included a sufficient basis for meaningful review and is not deficient for failure to cite each and every regulatory factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to decide whether a treating source's opinion merits controlling weight before applying the regulation's other weighing factors, including the treatment relationship, consistency, supportability, and specialization.

Hosea v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-08-26(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ merely assigned the opinion of Dr. Moore’s MSS little weight and explained that finding by the secondary criteria set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(i)-(ii), (3)-(6) of the regulations, specifically the inconsistency between the opinion and Dr. Moore’s own treatment notes. In doing so, the ALJ collapsed the two distinct analyses explained in Gayheart. The first required analysis considers whether the treating source’s opinion should receive controlling weight based on it being well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. The second analysis, which is to be conducted only if the ALJ decides not to give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, considers what weight to assign the opinion based on the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence. Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. In collapsing the analyses, the ALJ shortcut the process in not assessing Dr. Moore’s opinion for controlling weight before moving into the regulatory balancing factors. While the ALJ found Dr. Moore’s opinion to be inconsistent with his own treatment notes, this factor would be properly applied only after the ALJ has determined that a treating-source opinion will not be given controlling weight. Gayheart, 710 F. 3d at 376. Therefore, the ALJ’s conclusory finding that Dr. Moore’s opinion was not supported by his treatment notes of record is not an adequate basis for rejecting Dr. Moore’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise requires the adjudicator to weigh the opinion under the specified regulatory factors.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(c)(2)-(6)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, id., as well as the treating source's area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence, id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... The ALJ considered those findings in assessing the opinions of Dr. Mutschler and Ms. Rice that restricted Plaintiff to less than even sedentary work (Tr. 20, 579-85, 586-91). From her discussion, it is apparent the ALJ did not assign controlling weight to these opinions because they are not well supported by medically acceptable clinical or diagnostic techniques and are inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record (Tr. 20). The ALJ also weighed the opinions based on the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c)(2)-(6) (Id.). For example, she concluded the opinions were inconsistent with the overall objective medical findings (Id.). Further, the ALJ pointed out that Dr. Mutschler’s opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment note prepared on the same day that indicated Plaintiff’s “physical exam is satisfactory” (Tr. 20, 621). Finally, the ALJ appropriately noted that the regulations do not consider Ms. Rice an acceptable source to give a medical opinion (Tr. 20). Notwithstanding, the ALJ made clear that she assigned little weight to the opinions of Ms. Rice and Dr. Mutschler (Id.).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Roden v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-08-13(c)(2)

A treater's opinion must be given "controlling weight" if "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and ... not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." ... Even if a treater's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, "the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including 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 any specialization of the treating physician."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight, while §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) require the ALJ to consider regulatory factors when controlling weight is not given.

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

The ALJ was required to consider all the medical source opinions regarding Plaintiff’s claimed impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, [the ALJ] will evaluate every medical opinion [he] receive[s].”). ... Under § 404.1527(c)(2), [i]f [the 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 [the] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight. ... “Unless [the ALJ] give[s] a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight . . ., [the ALJ will] consider [six regulatory] factors in deciding the weight . . . [to] give to any medical opinion,” § 404.1527(c), including a treating source’s opinion. ... Instead, if the ALJ determines the treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors in § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) to determine what weight to assign to the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ implicitly declined to give Dr. Switzer’s opinion controlling weight. Because the court can tell the ALJ declined to give controlling weight to this opinion, the court moves on to the ALJ’s consideration of the regulatory factors. ... The record shows the ALJ listed and adequately considered the 20 C.F.R. § 1527 factors. AR 25-29. ... the court finds the ALJ gave “specific, legitimate reasons” for his decision to give Dr. Switzer’s RFC assessment little weight. ... The ALJ did not commit legal error.

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 medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires consideration of relevant factors when deciding its weight.

Capizzi v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-04(c)(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.’” ... After deciding not to give Dr. Aidlen’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ appropriately considered the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) factors to determine what weight to accord the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine whether a treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight before applying the treatment-relationship, consistency, and other regulatory factors to decide its remaining weight.

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

Instead, the factors found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (2)(i) and (c)(3) are “applied after the ALJ decides to ‘not give the treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion under the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Paris v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-06(c)(2)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion carries 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. ... Even if the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must still give the opinion deference and weigh it using all of the factors set forth in the regulations. ... In particular, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which relevant evidence supports the physician’s opinion; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... After considering the factors, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight he gives the treating source opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight to evaluate six specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Burks v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-11(c)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ will consider six factors to determine the weight to give the opinion: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) specialization of the medical source; and (6) any other factors that may support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight, but requires the ALJ to weigh it using specified factors when controlling weight is not warranted.

Patey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(c)(2)

With regard to a treating physician, the Regulations instruct ALJs how to properly weigh such a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise apply specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hernandez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-18(c)(2)

When a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ applies the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(c)(6) of §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 in determining what weight to give the opinions and provides “good reasons” for the weight given. Id. at §$§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that even if the ALJ was required to address the §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) factors, he did so as described above. Moreover, the ALJ gave “good reasons” to give little weight to Dr. Monsivais’s opinion in his analysis of the inconsistencies in Dr. Monsivais’s opinions and Plaintiff's self-reporting when compared to the medical record evidence, in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed using the listed factors.

Hutcherson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-18(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion will 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 of record. ... When a treating physician’s opinions are not given controlling weight, “the opinion is weighed based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions under the regulation’s factors and does not bar discrediting a treating physician’s medical source statement when those requirements are followed.

Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c)

Stated simply, Ripley did not bar an ALJ from discrediting a treating physician’s medical source statement consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404-1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives examining-source opinions more weight than nonexamining-source opinions but permits an ALJ to reject an examining opinion after weighing its supporting evidence and explanation.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-28(c)

The Claimant argues Judge Mahoney erred by relying on Bowers v. Kijakazi, arguing that case relied on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(c), while 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 applies to his application. ... Even under the prior rules, an ALJ was entitled to reject an examining opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (describing how medical opinions are to be weighed). While examining opinions were generally given greater weight than non-examining opinions, they were considered and weighed in light of the supporting evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to an examining source, but permits an ALJ to give greater weight to a supported nonexamining specialist’s opinion than to an examining consultative physician’s opinion.

Pabon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-05(c)(1)

Although the regulations “give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined” a claimant than one who has not, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), “[t]here is no requirement that the agency accept the opinion of a consultative examiner concerning a claimant’s limitations.” Pellam v. Astrue, 508 F. App’x 87, 89-90 (2d Cir. 2013). ... But ALJ Solomon was entitled to accord greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Levine, whose expertise in orthopedics was particularly relevant for assessing Pabon’s ability to walk without a cane and his functional limitations, after concluding that those opinions were supported by the medical record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1),(2) requires ALJs to give more weight to opinions from examining physicians than to opinions from non-examining physicians.

Elliott v. SSA · filed 1998-09-29(d)(1),(2)

While weighing the evidence is the ALJ's responsibility, SSA regulations direct the ALJ to give more weight to an examining physician than to a non-examining physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1),(2); Morin, 835 F. Supp. at 1427.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) generally requires an examining physician’s report to receive more weight than a nonexamining physician’s report.

Hall Ex Rel. Lee v. Apfel · filed 2000-12-05(d)(1)

Generally, an examining physician’s report is to be afforded more weight than a nonexamining physician's. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) generally directs adjudicators to give more weight to opinions from sources who examined the claimant than to opinions from sources who did not.

Barbee v. Barnhart · filed 2002-10-29(d)(1)

The ALJ thoroughly discussed Barbee’s alleged mental impairment in his decision and properly relied upon the more recent reports of physicians who actually examined him. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to medical sources who have examined the claimant than to sources who have not.

Blackwell v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-23

Furthermore, more weight is generally given to medical sources who have examined the claimant than to sources who have not examined her. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... In this case, Dr. Rizzo completed an examination of the Claimant lasting over three hours and including a psychological personality test, an IQ test, and a mental functioning test. R. 183-91. Dr. Fischer never examined the Claimant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) and (d)(5) generally favor giving more weight to medical opinions from examining physicians and specialists.

Rallis v. Social Security Admin. · filed 2004-01-20(d)(1), (d)(5)

He did not rely on D r . Frank Graf’s assessment, done following an examination on September 1 5 , 2000, and a review of Rallis’s medical records, because his findings were based on only one examination a year and a half after the expiration of her insured status. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (generally opinions of examining physicians given more weight). The ALJ failed to note, however, that D r . Graf, like the state agency consultants, based his RFC assessment in part on Rallis’s medical records, and that D r . Graf is an orthopaedic surgeon, a specialist in the relevant medical field. See § 404.1527(d)(5) (generally opinions of specialists given more weight). The ALJ ignored the assessment of Rallis completed by David R. Camlin, a vocational consultant. Therefore, the ALJ failed to consider or properly distinguish material record evidence in making his RFC assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) recognizes that a consultative examiner's opinion is usually entitled to less weight than a treating physician's opinion.

Dykes Ex Rel. Brymer v. Barnhart · filed 2004-10-12(d)

The present case involves the opinion of a consultative examiner, whose opinion is usually entitled to less weight than that of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician, § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii) requires the ALJ to consider non-examining state psychologists’ opinions and explain the weight assigned to them.

Vuxta v. Comr. of Social Security · filed 2006-09-08(f)(2)(ii)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2), the ALJ must consider non-examining state psychologists’ opinions and, when the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician, must explain the weight given to their opinions. Failure to explain the weight given to different medical opinions is reversible error. See Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally favors opinions from treating or examining sources, but that preference is not dispositive when a supported contrary opinion from a non-examining source is adopted.

Monroe v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-10(d)(1)-(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(l)-(2), the hearing officer should “generally” give more weight to a source who has treated the claimant as a patient or examined the person. Treating physicians’ opinions are preferable because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” ... This principle, however, is not dispositive. ... Therefore, if the hearing officer comes to a conclusion contrary to that of the treating physician and alternatively adopts the opinion of a non-examining source, then this Court must uphold his decision as long as a “reasonable mind, reviewing the record as a whole, could accept it as adequate to support his conclusion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation provides that an examining physician's opinion is entitled to greater weight than a non-examining physician's opinion.

Wagner v. Barnhart · filed 2006-11-28(d)(1)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (2006) (prescribing that examining physician opinion is entitled to greater weight than a non-examining physician).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) generally gives more weight to the opinions of examining or treating physicians than to those of non-examining or non-treating physicians unless good cause supports doing otherwise.

Carman v. Astrue · filed 2009-11-13(d)

The opinions of examining or treating physicians generally are given more weight than non-examining or non-treating physicians unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Good cause exists to discredit a physician’s testimony when a physician’s opinion is conclusory, inconsistent with his own medical records, or contrary to the evidence contained in the record. Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) requires an ALJ to give greater weight to an examining physician's opinion than to a non-examining physician's opinion, or explain why the examining opinion is not entitled to more weight.

Havenar v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-09(d)(1)

To be sure, the ALJ was entitled to rely on the consulting physicians’ opinions, see SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *1-2, but neither doctor examined Mr. Havenar, and as a consequence, their opinions were entitled to less weight, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1) & 416.927(d)(1). ... The regulations require an ALJ to give greater weight to the opinion of an examining physician, such as Dr. LaGrand, than that of a non-examining physician, or explain why the examining physician’s opinion is not entitled to more weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to an examining source's medical opinion than to one from a source who has not examined the claimant, but it does not prevent the ALJ from crediting a non-examining opinion when the record better supports it.

Holtsclaw v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-02(c)(1)

Mr. Holtsclaw is correct that an examining physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a non-examining physician’s. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(C)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.”). But this general guideline doesn’t arrest the ALJ’s duty to independently weigh all evidence. And if, as here, an ALJ determines that record evidence better supports a non-examining physician’s opinion than an examining physician’s opinion, that isn’t reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to an examining physician’s opinion than to a non-examining physician’s opinion, but that preference may yield to a contrary later review or other compelling evidence.

Delong v. Saul · filed 2021-02-03(c)(1)

We see no such flaw in the ALJ’s opinion. She explained cogently why she was disregarding the opinion of her agency’s examining physician, Dr. Blake. See Beardsley v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 834, 839 (7th Cir. 2014); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (examining physician’s opinion generally given more weight than non-examining). An ALJ is “not required to credit the agency’s examining physician in the face of a contrary opinion from a later reviewer or other compelling evidence.” Beardsley, 758 F.3d at 839.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to an examining physician's opinion than to a consultative physician's opinion, but that preference is not absolute when specific legitimate reasons support discounting the opinion.

Deherrera v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2021-03-12(c)(1)

While the Commissioner’s regulations provide that the opinions of examining physicians like Dr. Jendry are generally entitled to more weight than the opinions of consultative physicians like Drs. Canham and Weaver, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(3), that rule is not absolute, see Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (“An ALJ may decline to give controlling weight to the opinion of a . . . physician where he articulates specific, legitimate reasons for his decision, finding, for example, the opinion unsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c)(1) generally gives more weight to an examining source’s opinion than to a non-examining source’s opinion, but it does not make that preference absolute.

WALLACE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-29(c)(1)

Dr. Lace did not examine Plaintiff, but it is only generally the case that examining sources’ opinions are afforded more weight than opinions of non-examining sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1). And in this case the ALJ adequately explained her findings of lesser weight for other opinions, e.g., the ALJ explained that some of Dr. Marston’s opinions were unsupported and, thus, not entitled to as much weight as Dr. Lace’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives greater weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues within the specialist’s field.

Downs v. Colvin · filed 2025-08-14(c)(5)

Moreover, the mental health status examinations at issue have less weight because they were not conducted by mental health specialists. “[G]reater weight is due to the ‘opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.’” Jeanne R. v. Saul, No. 19-cv-09809, 2020 WL 4673460, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 makes a medical source's specialization a factor, but not a controlling one, and requires consideration of the examinations and testing performed or ordered by a treating source.

Leusch v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-11(c)(2)(ii), (c)(5)

While specialization in the relevant field is a factor in determining a medical opinion’s weight, it is not controlling. ... Board certification was not required for Dr. Kearney to offer an opinion on Plaintiff’s condition, and the ALJ could not discredit Dr. Kearney’s opinion for this reason alone, with no discussion of the examinations and tests on which Dr. Kearney relied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally gives more weight to the opinions of specialists than to those of treating physicians.

58 soc.sec.rep.ser. 562, unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 16102b, unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 16146b Linda Qualls v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-16(d)(5)

More importantly, although a treating physician's opinion is considered to be significant, specialists' opinions are generally afforded more weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5); Hinchey, 29 F.3d at 432.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) directs adjudicators to give more weight to opinions from specialists about matters within their specialty than to opinions from nonspecialists.

Davis v. Apfel · filed 2000-01-28(d)(5)

The opinions of specialists related to their area of specialty are entitled to more weight than that of a physician who is not a specialist in the area involved. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally gives more weight to the opinion of a medical specialist than to the opinion of a non-specialist.

Wolfe v. Social Security Administration · filed 2002-07-23(d)(5)

A specialist’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a non-specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues within the specialist’s area than to a non-specialist’s opinion.

Liessmann v. Barnhart · filed 2002-11-04(d)(5)

Likewise, with respect to the conflict in the medical record concerning whether Ms. Rutledge suffered from multiple sclerosis, we cannot say the ALJ erred in agreeing with the specialist, Dr. Burnbaum, who reported “there isn’t anything on my examination today to suggest Multiple Sclerosis.” Id. at 432. The governing regulations generally require the ALJ to “give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C. F. R. §§ 404.1527(d)(5); 416.927(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions because they provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the impairment, and to specialists’ opinions on issues related to their specialty.

Bruet v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-31(d)(2), (d)(5)

When considering a treating physician’s testimony, the ALJ must ordinarily give substantial or considerable weight to such testimony unless good cause is shown to the contrary. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Furthermore, the ALJ must specify the weight given to the treating physician’s opinion or reasons for giving the opinion no weight, and the failure to do so is reversible error. ... Such a preference is given to treating sources because such sources are likely to be best situated to provide a detailed and longitudinal picture of the medical impairments. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5) (stating that specialists’ opinions on medical issues related to their area of specialty are generally given more weight).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) gives greater weight to supported treating-physician opinions and generally favors specialist opinions within their specialties.

Robinson v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-03-03(d)(2), (d)(5)

The opinions of treating physicians are accorded great weight if supported by sufficient clinical findings. Cutlip v. Secretary of H.H.S., 25 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 1994); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). A treating physician’s opinion may be rejected if that opinion is unsupportable or contrary to objective medical evidence. More weight is generally given to a specialist whose opinion is within his or her specialty, as compared to the opinion of a physician who is not a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 ordinarily gives greater weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is supported by credible and persuasive evidence and generally gives greater weight to a specialist's opinion on medical issues within the specialist's area.

Thomas v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-18(d)(2), (d)(5)

However, a treating physician's opinion must be supported by credible and persuasive evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Greater weight is generally given to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues in the area of specialty, than to the opinion of a non-specialist. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(5); 416.927(d)(5) (2003); 29 F.3d 428, 432 (8th Cir. 1994); see also Hinchey v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 428, 432 (8th Cir. 1993).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues within the specialist’s area than to a non-specialist’s opinion.

Davis v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-25(d)(5)

“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a medical specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally gives greater weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues within the specialist’s area than to an opinion from a non-specialist.

Carlisle v. Barnhart · filed 2005-10-03(d)(5)

The ALJ rejected the only PCE and pain assessment in the record. These were from Dr. Floyd, a treating physician and orthopaedic specialist whose opinions are, therefore, entitled to more weight. ... "We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a medical specialist." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) supports giving greater weight to a medical opinion because the physician is a specialist in the relevant field.

Paulin v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-18(d)(5)

Dr. Wilburn’s opinions weighed heavily with the ALJ, particularly in light of his status as an orthopaedic specialist. (Tr. 27) The regulations countenance this weighting of the opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues related to the specialist’s area than to the opinion of a non-specialist.

Belknap v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-04(d)(5)

The ALJ reasoned that Dr. Bates’s disability opinion lacked foundation because it was predicated on Belknap’s purported PTSD, and was entitled to less weight than Dr. Turner’s assessments because, unlike Dr. Turner, Dr. Bates was not a mental health specialist. ... The Commissioner “generally give[s] more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist's opinion on medical issues within the specialist's area than to a non-specialist's opinion.

Leach v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-11(d)(5)

But Dr. Colpitt provided routine care alongside treating cardiac and pulmonary specialists whose opinions command greater weight under the governing regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(5), 416.927(d)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of speciality than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) encourages an ALJ to give greater weight to a specialist's opinion on medical issues within the specialist's area than to a nonspecialist's opinion.

Tully v. Colvin · filed 2013-04-30(d)(5)

An ALJ is encouraged to “give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5). ... In this case, it was error for the ALJ to give more weight to the testimony of a non-examining orthopedist than to Plaintiffs treating rheumatologist with regard to the severity of Plaintiffs impairments caused by fibromyalgia.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using specified factors and generally give more weight to a specialist's opinion on medical issues within the specialist's area of specialty.

Barnhill-Stemley v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-23(c)(5)

Even if an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still weigh the opinion in light of the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The ALJ gave very little weight to Fairbairn’s opinion because it was not supported by the reports of the medical specialists to whom Fairbairn had referred her. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”). ... Here, legitimate reasons were given both for assigning very little weight to Fairbairn’s opinion, as discussed above, and for giving more weight to the reports of consultative examiners, namely, they were well-supported.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives greater weight to the opinion of an examining physician than to the opinion of a physician who did not examine the claimant.

Uzma Butt v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-28(c)(1)

The opinions of examining physicians like Dr. Pilossyan are generally given greater weight than those of reviewing physicians like Dr. Friedman. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1); see Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a medical opinion from a specialist about medical issues related to the specialist's area of expertise.

Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-15(c)(5)

“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Where the ALJ does not give more weight to a specialist opining on medical issues related to his specialty, the ALJ must provide a logical bridge explaining his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s medical opinion about issues related to the specialist’s area than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

(SS) Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(c)(5)

Under the Regulations, a physician’s specialization is a factor the ALJ is directed to consider “in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Specifically, the Regulations indicate: “We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally requires greater weight for a medical opinion from a specialist about issues within the specialist’s area than for an opinion from a non-specialist.

McLain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(c)(5)

Additionally, Plaintiff correctly observes that ALJ Motta referred to Dr. Kathula as his “treating family physician” rather than acknowledging his specialty in hematology. This constitutes error. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) gives greater weight to a specialist's opinion on medical issues within the specialist's area than to a nonspecialist's opinion.

Arbizu v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-17(c)(5)

The medical opinion of a specialist is given more weight about medical issues in that specialist’s area of specialty than the medical opinion of a source that is not a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). ... Here, the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Sabahi’s medical opinion regarding Plaintiff’s anxiety and depression. ... But even if anxiety and depression are symptoms of fibromyalgia, as Plaintiff argues, the ALJ did not error by placing greater weight on the opinion of Dr. Steingard, a psychiatrist, as to the impact of those neurological conditions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues in the specialist’s area of specialty than to a non-specialist’s opinion.

Mehok-Antti v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-24(c)(5)

The medical opinion of a specialist is given more weight about medical issues in that specialist’s area of specialty than the medical opinion of a source that is not a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). “[T]he regulations give more weight to opinions that are explained than to those that are not, and to the opinions of specialists concerning matters relating to their specialty over that of non-specialists.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Here, the ALJ fails to identify which portions of Dr. Lawson’s opinion should be discounted because of his specialty area. Because the ALJ fails to specify what portion of the opinion is discounted, the Court rejects the ALJ’s fifth reason for discounting Dr. Lawson’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s medical opinion on issues related to the specialist’s area of specialty than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Ramos v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(c)(5)

First, the ALJ properly gave “considerable weight” to the testimony of medical expert Dr. Louis Fuchs. ... Moreover, Dr. Fuchs’ opinion related to an area that he specialized in. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about the medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) instructs ALJs to consider a treating physician’s area of specialization when determining how heavily to weigh the physician’s opinion and permits less weight for opinions outside that specialty.

Muro v. Saul · filed 2019-10-07(c)(1)

Social Security Regulations instruct ALJs to take treating physicians’ areas of specialization into account when determining how heavily to weigh their opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). ... The ALJ properly did not give great weight to this portion of the opinion, because Dr. King, a psychiatrist, does not specialize in thyroid conditions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues related to the specialist’s area of specialty, but a physician need not be a mental-health specialist to offer an opinion about mental-health limitations.

McGuire v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-28(c)(5)

With respect to the ALJ’s first three reasons, a physician does not have to be a specialist in mental health to provide a medical opinion regarding mental health limitations, although the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty will generally be given more weight. See Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 1987); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) directs adjudicators to give more weight to a medical opinion from a specialist about matters in the specialist's area than to an opinion from a nonspecialist.

Savill v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-06(d)(5)

As a preliminary matter, “the regulations give more weight … to the opinions of specialists concerning matters relating to their specialty over that of nonspecialists.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and directs greater weight to a specialist's opinion about issues in the specialist's area, while requiring consideration of the relevant weighing factors.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2020-02-14(c)(2), (c)(5)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating doctor 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.’” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... “Greater weight is also given to the ‘opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5)). ... The ALJ should have considered that Dr. Curtiss had treated plaintiff since at least 2010, during which time she saw Dr. Curtiss on a regular basis; that the nature of Dr. Curtiss’ treatment was appropriate psychotropic medications and therapy; and that Dr. Curtiss was a psychiatrist. ... Here, the ALJ did not consider many of the factors that he is instructed to consider when deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues related to the specialist’s area than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Rodarte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-27(c)(5)

As for the ALJ’s sixth reason, as a trained medical doctor Dr. Parlatore can offer an opinion as to the functional impact of Plaintiff’s physical and mental impairments. As a physician with a specialization in psychiatry, Dr. Parlatore is uniquely qualified to offer an opinion concerning the functional impact of Plaintiff’s physical impairments on her mental health. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (The Social Security Administration generally gives more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) calls for greater weight for a specialist's opinion on medical issues related to the specialist's area of specialty.

(SS) Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(d)(5)

In Benecke, 379 F.3d at 594 n.4, concerning a claimant diagnosed with fibromyalgia, the Ninth Circuit gave treating rheumatologists’ opinions greater weight than those of the other physicians because it is an “opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty,” citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5). Rheumatology is the relevant specialty for fibromyalgia. ... However, the ALJ did not acknowledge that Dr. Hojjati was an expert in the relevant specialty for fibromyalgia and thus entitled to particular deference.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues related to the specialist’s area than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Rooks v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-03-25(c)(5)

The Court next considers Dr. Irvin’s opinions regarding the impact of Plaintiff’s physical impairments, including headaches, gastrointestinal problems, and loss of balance. The Court finds that the ALJ gave good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting those opinions. The ALJ reasonably recognized that Dr. Irwin’s opinions with regard to Plaintiff’s physical limitations were outside of his scope of specialty as Plaintiff’s psychiatrist. Moreover, the record does not suggest that Dr. Irvin treated Plaintiff for any of those impairments. See Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 879 (8th Cir. 2002) (ALJ reasonably gave less weight to opinion of a doctor where the opinion related to disorders outside of his specialty for which he did not treat the claimant). Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s medical opinion about issues related to the specialist’s area than to the opinion of a nonspecialist.

Reinicke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-04(c)(5)

Given his failure to mention Dr. Atiq’s specialty, it cannot be said that the ALJ properly considered and credited Dr. Atiq as Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) directs the agency to give greater weight to a specialist’s opinion than a generalist’s when their opinions conflict and the evidence supplies no reason to reject the specialist.

Noerper v. Saul · filed 2020-07-08(c)(5)

In general, the agency is to place more weight on the opinions of specialists over generalists where opinions conflict and evidence does not otherwise provide reasons for rejecting the specialist’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Here, we agree with Noerper that the record lacks meaningful justification for favoring Dr. Wilkerson’s opinion over Dr. Jones’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally requires the Administration to give more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues related to the specialist’s area than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Velasquez v. Saul · filed 2020-09-17(c)(5)

As explained in the regulations, when the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Administration will “generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) permits an ALJ to discount a doctor's opinion on a matter outside the doctor's area of specialization.

Diego v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-01(d)(5)

An ALJ may reject a doctor’s opinions when they are “on a matter not related to her or his area of specialization.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5)). ... Dr. Marks is a psychologist, and there is no evidence to suggest she would have been qualified to assess plaintiff’s right eye blindness or left eye limitations. See AR 651–58.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a specialist's opinion on issues within the specialist's area of specialization than to a nonspecialist's opinion.

Nilles v. O'Malley · filed 2020-10-19(c)(5)

Additionally, Dr. Andersen’s expertise is in emergency medicine, while Dr. Gitomer is a nephrologist. ... It was reversible error for the ALJ to ignore Dr. Gitomer’s medical opinions. ... A.R. 49; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5), Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1285 (9th Cir. 1996) (the opinions of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialization are given more weight than the opinions of a nonspecialist).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a medical opinion from a specialist about medical issues related to the specialist's area than to one from a non-specialist.

Rivera v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-01(c)(5)

More weight is generally given to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) permits an adjudicator to give more weight to a treating specialist’s opinion about a condition within the specialist’s field of expertise.

Monteith v. Saul · filed 2021-03-05(c)(5)

The disability regulations generally allow more weight to be given to a treating specialist regarding evaluation of a condition in that specialist’s field of expertise. See 20 CFR 404.1527(c) (5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) directs ALJs to give more weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues related to the specialist’s area than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Schumpert v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-03(c)(5)

The regulations direct ALJs to “give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5). ... Pursuant to the regulations, the ALJ should have credited more weight to Dr. Loging’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives greater weight to a specialist’s medical opinion on issues within that specialty.

Cash v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-24(c)(5)

There is no reason to suppose Cash would have been asked to provide a detailed account of her psychological condition at any of these visits for acute physiological problems, and it makes little sense for the ALJ to have used the cursory notes at these visits to discredit a psychological assessment by a clinical psychologist. See Haag v. Barnhart, 333 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 1219 (N.D. Ala. 2004) (finding it unreasonable for ALJ to reject consulting psychologist’s opinion “based upon the lack of a diagnosis or notation of mental illness by her medical doctors who saw her for specific physical problems”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) gives greater weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues within that specialist’s field.

Wild v. Astrue · filed 2008-10-14(d)(5)

Because they are specialists, their opinions are entitled to more weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A specialist’s opinion generally receives more weight, but specialization does not create a presumption of greater weight.

Simila v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-22(d)(5)

But the regulations state that a specialist’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight; it is not presumptively so (unlike treating physicians).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors in deciding how much weight to give it.

Hartnett v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-23(d)(2)

In 1991, the SSA promulgated new regulations for weighing the opinions of treating physicians in disability cases. ... Under these regulations, a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the SSA finds that such opinion “is 'well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in a case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(d)(2), 404.1527(d)(2). ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight under the 1991 regulations, the SSA must assess the following factors in determining how much weight to afford that opinion: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (5) other relevant factors. ... Moreover, if an ALJ perceives inconsistencies in a treating physician’s reports, the ALJ bears an affirmative duty to seek out more information from the treating physician and to develop the administrative record accordingly. ...

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 allows an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from medical opinions that lack objective support or consistency with the record, treats disability conclusions as reserved to the Commissioner, and leaves RFC and vocational determinations to the ALJ.

Koonce v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 1999-01-11(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2)

We find that Koonce's contention that Dr. Murinson's opinion should be given controlling weight to be without merit because Dr. Murinson's statement regarding whether Koonce was disabled is a determination reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1) (1998). ... Further, Dr. Murinson's opinion that Koonce has lymphedema and continues to be incapacitated by her left upper extremity problems is also not entitled to controlling weight because the opinion was not supported by any objective medical evidence. Moreover, the record as a whole is inconsistent with Dr. Murinson's opinion that Koonce is incapacitated by her edema. ... As a result, we find that the ALJ did not err in refusing to give controlling weight to Dr. Murinson's opinions. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 589-90. ... The determination of a claimant's RFC and the application of vocational factors are reserved to the ALJ, who is not bound by medical opinion on these subjects. See 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1527(e)(2) (1998).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give less weight to a physician's opinion when the physician examined the claimant only once or the opinion is inconsistent with other medical opinions, but does not clearly authorize discounting it solely because of the physician's findings in other cases.

Nichols v. Apfel · filed 1999-03-15(d)(2), (d)(4)

We are concerned that the ALJ mentioned his distrust of Dr. Martin’s opinion in this case based on the ALJ’s opinion of that doctor’s medical findings in other cases. The regulations do not clearly provide for an ALJ to disregard a physician’s opinion on this basis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(1)-(6). Nevertheless, the ALJ also noted that Dr. Martin examined plaintiff on only one occasion, which is an acceptable reason to discount his opinion that plaintiff is 100% disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2). The ALJ’s review of the medical evidence also demonstrated that Dr. Martin’s opinion was inconsistent with other doctors’ opinions regarding the extent of plaintiff’s impairments. This inconsistency provided another valid reason for the ALJ to give Dr. Martin’s opinion less weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an administrative law judge to give considerable weight to treating physicians’ opinions when evaluating a claimant’s disability.

Bischof v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-18(d)

An administrative law judge must give considerable weight to the opinions of the treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Administrative Law Judge Cofresi accepted the views of the treating physicians as to whether plaintiff had a severe impairment, but rejected their assessments of her functional capacity, finding them unsupported by “detailed, clinical, diagnostic evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's opinion gets controlling weight only when it is well supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and whether a claimant is disabled remains for the Commissioner to decide.

Pantojas v. Apfel · filed 2000-03-16(d)(2), (e)(1)

Treating physicians’ opinions currently are entitled to controlling weight only if they are "well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... In this case, Dr. Gherman’s opinion that plaintiff is unable to work is contradicted by medical evidence contained in the record as well as the testimony of plaintiff himself. In addition, a statement by a medical source that a claimant is "unable to work” does not mean that he is disabled — determination of whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disabled is reserved to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires treating physicians’ opinions to receive deference, but they are not controlling when inconsistent with substantial evidence or unsupported by detailed objective criteria and documentation.

Arnett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-09-25(d)(2)-(4)

The opinions and diagnoses of treating physicians are entitled to deference, but they are not entitled to complete deference and thus are not controlling if inconsistent with other substantial evidence or unsupported by detailed objective criteria and documentation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires deference and consideration of specified weighting factors.

Orn v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-16(d)(2)-(6)

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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In that event, the ALJ is instructed by § 404.1527(d)(2) to consider the factors listed in § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) in determining what weight to accord the opinion of the treating physician.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is not contradicted by substantial evidence, and to give it deference and provide detailed, legitimate reasons if disregarding it.

Hostrawser v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-05(d)(2)

The opinions of the applicant's treating physicians are entitled to more weight than the opinions of doctors who do not treat the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. y 404.1527(d)(2); Orn, 495 F.3d at 631-32. Only if there is substantial evidence in the record contradicting the opinion of the treating physicians are their opinions no longer entitled to controlling weight. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632; see also SSR No. 96-2p, 1996 SSR LEÈIS 9, at *1-2. Even so, a treating physician's opinion is still entitled to deference. Id. If an ALJ decides to disregard the opinion of the treating physicians, he or she must maµe findings setting forth detailed, legitimate reasons for doing so and not simply offer his or her own conclusions.

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

The regulation requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors when assigning weight.

Proctor v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-31(d)(2)-(5)

A treating physician’s opinion is granted controlling weight when the opinion is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record and the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. ... If the ALJ fails to give controlling weight to the opinion of the treating physician, then the ALJ must consider several factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion of the treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) frequency of examinations, (3) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) supportability by medical signs and laboratory findings, (5) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (6) specialization of the doctor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(5).

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 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Manuel L., Jr. v. Saul · filed 2019-10-24(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion or report regarding an inability to work if it is unsupported by objective medical evidence or is wholly conclusory.

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, and requires consideration of specified factors when it is not given controlling weight.

ODell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-18(c)(2), (d)(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 other substantial evidence in [the record].”’ Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise requires weighing the opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Swallow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-03(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 the ALJ to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, when deciding whether to accept or reject a treating physician's opinion.

Shuey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-06(c)

In deciding whether to accept or reject a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the physician examined the plaintiff, the length and frequency of examinations during the treatment relationship between the physician and patient, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the physician’s opinion, its consistency with the record as a whole, the specialization of the physician, and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion using specified factors and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Svendsen v. Saul · filed 2020-03-30(c)

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the opinion is weighed based on a number of factors, including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, opinion’s supportability, opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the provider, and any other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 2003). The ALJ is required to “give good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Cline, 771 F.3d at 1103.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Treating physicians’ opinions may be outweighed by other physicians’ opinions when they lack objective medical support or conflict with other substantial evidence.

Hancock v. Barnhart · filed 2009-01-30(d)(2)

The ALJ was permitted to credit other physicians’ opinions over the opinion of Dr. Sureka and the opinion expressed in Dr. Mittal’s first evaluation where, as here, the treating physicians lacked objective medical evidence supporting their opinions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 568 (2d Cir.1993), and “the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts,” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir.2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors in deciding how much weight it deserves.

Scrogham v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-27(c)(2)–(5)

Even when an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ is not permitted simply to discard it.