20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

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

Gaeta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(c)

The ALJ failed to explain the examining or treatment relationship between Mr. Huizar and his physicians, nor did she note the specialties of the treating physicians, all of which were included in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) generally gives treating physicians’ opinions more weight than examining physicians’ opinions, and examining physicians’ opinions more weight than reviewing physicians’ opinions.

Barajas v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-05-18(c)(1)-(2)

Having carefully studied the parties’ memoranda, the Administrative Record (AR), and the decision of the ALJ, the court concludes that, as detailed herein, although the ALJ properly discounted plaintiff’s and the lay witness testimony, the ALJ erred by failing to properly consider the opinions of plaintiff’s treating physicians, and therefore must reassess plaintiff’s RFC.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and directs consideration of the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and objective medical support.

White v. Barnhart · filed 2001-11-28(d)(2)

The ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the treating physician’s opinion, provided that opinion “is well-supported ... and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). We have said that a treating physician’s opinion is not dispositive on the ultimate issue of disability. Castellano, 26 F.3d at 1029. In addition to its consistency with other evidence, we examine a treating physician’s opinion with several factors in mind: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the extent to which the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

A treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but it is not always dispositive.

Alicea v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, 03-3144 (2004) · filed 2004-02-18(d)(2)

In determining whether an applicant qualifies for MA based on a disability, "the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is entitled to 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 your case record.'" 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 (d)(2). Nevertheless, the treating physician's opinion is not always dispositive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an administrative law judge to accept a well-supported treating-physician opinion when it is uncontradicted, but to weigh it with the regulation’s factors and give good reasons when contradictory evidence exists.

Brihn v. Astrue · filed 2008-10-22(d)(2)

When a treating physician’s opinion is well supported and no evidence exists to contradict it, the administrative law judge has no basis on which to refuse to accept the opinion. ... When, however, the record contains well supported contradictory evidence, the treating physician’s opinion “is just one more piece of evidence for the ... administrative law judge to weigh,” taking into consideration the various factors listed in the regulation. ... These factors include the number of times the treating physician has examined the claimant, whether the physician is a specialist in the allegedly disabling condition, how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the evidence as a whole and other factors. ... An administrative law judge must provide “good reasons” for the weight he gives a treating source opinion, ... and must base his decision on substantial evidence and not mere speculation.

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

Section 404.1527(d) generally requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques, results from frequent examinations, and is consistent with the record.

Ball v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-02(d)

If the opinion of the treating physician is supported by medically acceptable techniques and results from frequent examinations, and the opinion supports the administrative record, the treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d); ... Although Dr. Gumbula evaluated Plaintiff in the April 21, 2008, medical residual functional capacity assessment (R. 133), as having “marked” limitations in activities of daily living, repeated episodes of decompensation of extended duration, extreme difficulties in maintaining social functioning, and constant deficiencies in maintaining concentration, persistence or pace, the ALJ granted Dr. Gumbula’s assessment less than controlling weight because the assessment was inconsistent with, and thus not supported by, Dr. Gumbula’s treatment notes. A plain reading of the relevant treatment notes supports this finding, and thus, the ALJ’s decision not to grant Dr. Gumbula’s opinion weight is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to weigh a medical opinion based on factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialty.

Ford v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-19(c)

The weight to be afforded a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 & 416.927(d). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s failure to articulate any weight given to the opinion letter from Dr. Woodworth stating that the plaintiff should work in an enclosed area with an air purifier and a humidifier constitutes reversible error, and the case is due to be remanded for proper consideration of the treating doctor’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a source with an ongoing treatment relationship as a treating source and requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for that source’s opinion to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Parker v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-13(a)(2), (c)(2)

A treating physician, or a treating source, is an “acceptable medical source who provides {a claimant] or has provided [a claimant], with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing relationship with [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). ... The treating physician rule requires giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion when it is supported by accepted techniques and not inconsistent with other evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404. 527(c)(2); see also Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95 (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008)). ... In sum, on remand, the ALJ must explicitly determine whether Dr. Chandrasekhara was Parker’s treating physician. If so, then the ALJ must explicitly consider the four Burgess factors, including the treatment relationship and Dr. Chandrasekhara’s specialty. To the extent the ALJ finds that the doctor’s opinion is not sufficiently detailed or supported by the current record, the ALJ must also, in accord with her duty to develop the record, seek additional information from Dr. Chandrasekhara. See Brathwaite, 2008 WL 2669351, at *3. Then she must provide good reasons for her assignment of weight to Dr. Chandrasekhara’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise to consider specified factors when weighing the opinion.

Antoine v. Saul · filed 2020-04-14(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); Kaminski v. Berryhill, 894 F.3d 870, 874 n.1 (7th Cir. 2018) (for claims filed before March 27, 2017, 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.”). ... Dr. Ghani’s lack of specialization is a sufficient and legitimate reason to discount her opinion. 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the physician’s specialty among the factors bearing on the opinion’s weight.

Bothwell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-27(c)

An ALJ who doesn’t give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must consider a checklist of factors to determine the weight due the opinion. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). One of those factors is the treating physician’s specialty. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). This court, along with the Northern District of Illinois, has held in a variety of cases that the failure to mention a pertinent specialty amounts to reversible error. ... But it is Dr. Misra’s specialty, not that of another doctor, that must be considered to evaluate her medical opinion. The ALJ made a reversable error when she didn’t consider Dr. Misra’s specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Murphy v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-26(c)(2)

The ALJ failed to provide good reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for discrediting the opinion of Murphy’s treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Avery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-14(c)(2)

But the agency’s regulation requires the ALJ to provide good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight to the opinion. ... Because the ALJ failed to follow the proper legal standards in discounting Dr. Griggs’s opinion, the ALJ’s decision must be remanded for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give reasons for disregarding a treating physician’s supported medical opinion when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Miller v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(c)

The ALJ’s statement that the moderate limitations identified in Dr. Johnson’s opinion were “supported by the record” required the ALJ to provide reasons for disregarding those limitations when determining the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider findings by state agency medical and psychological consultants but does not require the ALJ to accept those findings.

Renfro v. Barnhart · filed 2002-02-19(f)(2)(i)

Under the regulations. ALJs “must consider findings of State agency medical and psychological consultants,” but ALJs “are not bound by any findings made by State agency medical or psychological consultants.” 20 C.F.R. § 404 .1527(f)(2)(i) (2001). In this case, the ALJ did not, as Renfro alleges, refuse to consider Winter’s assessment of Renfro’s mental residual functional capacity; the ALJ considered Winter’s findings, but she stated that she found them to be unsupported by the medical evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider state agency medical evaluations as expert opinion evidence.

Fischer v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-16(f)(2)(i)

Under the regulations, an ALJ must consider these evaluations as expert opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Administrative law judges must consider findings of state agency medical consultants as opinion evidence.

Butler v. Barnhart · filed 2004-06-02(f)(2)(i)

[A]dministrative law judges must consider findings of State agency medical . . . consultants . . . as opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) permits an ALJ to consider opinions from State agency consultants, who are treated as experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

Hibbard v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-04(f)(2)

It was proper for the ALJ to consider these agency examiners’ opinions in his disability determination. The Social Security regulations permit the ALJ to consider the medical opinions of State agency consultants; indeed, they are considered experts in Social Security disability evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an administrative law judge to consider a state-agency medical or psychological consultant’s findings as expert opinion evidence and to explain the weight assigned to them as with any other medical source.

Maffia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-12-01(f)(2)

The ALJ also must consider any findings of a state agency medical or psychological consultant, who is considered an expert, and must assign weight and give explanations for assigning weight the same way as any other medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2);4 SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180 (Jul. 2, 1996) (stating that the ALJ must treat findings of fact by a state agency psychological consultant as expert opinion evidence of a non-examining source, and the ALJ cannot ignore this evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires administrative law judges to consider findings and opinions from State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program medical specialists as opinion evidence.

KDB Ex Rel. Bailey v. Social Security Administration · filed 2011-09-29(f)(2)(i)

“[A]dministrative law judges must consider findings and other opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists as opinion evidence” of non-examining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i); see also SSR 96-6p (requiring ALJs to consider and address the weight given to state consultants’ opinions, which are treated as expert opinion evidence of non-examining sources). The ALJ complied with the regulations regarding non-examining expert evidence and did not give inappropriate weight to these opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider reports from state agency physicians about the existence and severity of a claimant’s impairments.

Newell v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-23(f)

Reports by state agency physicians concerning the existence and severity of a claimant’s impairments must be considered by the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); SSR 96-7p. Contrary to the Commissioner’s claim, the ALJ did not do so in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) requires the ALJ to consider state agency consultants’ findings but does not bind the ALJ to them.

Simmonds v. Colvin · filed 2013-07-19(e)(2)

Although the ALJ must consider the state agency consultants’ findings, he is not bound by them. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 416.927(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) requires adjudicators to view state agency reviewing physicians and psychologists as highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

Doshi v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-30(e)(2)(i)

The Social Security regulations provide that state agency reviewing physicians and psychologists such as Drs. Carpenter and Lipski must be viewed as “highly qualified physicians [and] psychologists ... who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1)(i) describes what State-agency non-examining medical consultants do when reviewing the record and does not impose duties on ALJs or govern consultative examiners.

Hayes v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-09(e)(1)(i)

Although Hayes argues on a related note that the ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1)(i) (effective Aug. 24, 2012 to Mar. 26, 2017) because Dr. Walter was “deprived of pertinent medical records,” his argument is meritless. The cited regulation describes what the State agency’s non-examining medical consultants will do when reviewing the record, but does not impose any obligation on the ALJ or relate to the work of a consultative examiner like Dr. Walter.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider state-agency medical and psychological consultants' findings but does not bind the ALJ to adopt them.

Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(f)(2)(i)

“Under the regulations, ALJs ‘must consider findings of [s]tate agency medical and psychological consultants,’ but ALJs ‘are not bound by any findings made by [s]tate agency medical or psychological consultants.’” ... “Here, the ALJ explicitly found that the overall record supported a finding that Plaintiff could perform simple and routine work as described in the RFC without the occasional prompting limitation.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider the findings of state-agency medical and psychological consultants about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30(f)

Furthermore, the opinions of state agency medical examiners merit significant consideration, as ALJs are required by regulation to consider their findings of fact about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513a(b)(1) (ALJs “must” consider evidence proffered by a state agency disability examiner, “because our Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.”); see also Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider the findings of state-agency medical examiners about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, and those opinions merit significant consideration.

Shelton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(f)

The opinions of state agency medical examiners merit significant consideration, as ALJs are required by regulation to consider their findings of fact about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513a(b)(1) (ALJs “must” consider evidence proffered by a state agency disability examiner, “because our Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.”); see also Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 691 (8th Cir. 2007) (An ALJ may credit the opinion of a non-examining or non-treating medical provider over the assessments or notes of the treating physician.).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ, when weighing a State agency consultant’s opinion, to consider the consultant’s familiarity with and evaluation of pertinent evidence, including treating and examining source opinions.

Walsh · filed 2026-02-26(c)(3)

Social security regulations are clear that an ALJ must consider a State agency consultant’s familiarity with the opinions of the claimant’s treating physician(s) when assigning weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (requiring State agency consultants to “evaluate the degree to which [their medical opinion] consider all of the pertinent evidence in [the claimant’s] claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources”). Here, the ALJ did not discuss how Dr. Smith evaluated the opinions of Claimant’s treating physicians, nor could she. ... This is an important criterion the ALJ failed to consider in her decision and is another reason why this case must be remanded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to obtain additional evidence when the evidence is insufficient to determine disability or, after weighing conflicting evidence, the ALJ cannot reach a conclusion.

Chapman v. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-07(c)(3)

However, the regulations provide that the ALJ will try to obtain additional evidence if the evidence before him is insufficient to determine whether a claimant is disabled or, if after weighing the conflicting evidence, he cannot reach a conclusion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to seek additional evidence when the record is insufficient to make a disability determination.

Fisher v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-20(c)(3)

The regulations, provide that the ALJ may attempt to obtain additional evidence when the evidence as a whole is insufficient to make a disability determination, or if after weighing the evidence the ALJ cannot make a disability determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to request additional evidence only when the available evidence is insufficient to make a disability determination.

Patel v. Saul · filed 2020-11-18(c)(3)

The Social Security Regulations state that an ALJ will request additional evidence only when the available evidence is insufficient to make a disability determination.

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) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and requires good reasons when an adjudicator does not give such an opinion controlling weight.

Belanger v. SSA · filed 2002-06-11(d)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairments(s) . . . When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed [in this section] in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give you treating source’s opinion.

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

The regulation requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when an ALJ declines to give it controlling weight.

Latkowski v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-25(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... “Thus, the treating physician’s opinion may be given less weight when it is not well-supported and is inconsistent with other evidence. If the ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must support that decision with “good reasons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 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 substantial or considerable weight unless good cause exists to discount it, and to clearly articulate the reasons for doing so.

Snyder v. Commr. of Social Security · filed 2009-05-29(d)(2)

Thus, a treating physician’s opinion “must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Good cause exists “when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2004). “The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (requiring the agency to “give good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician's opinion to articulate good reasons for doing so.

Mulligan v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-13(d)(2)

An ALJ who discounts the opinion of the treating physician must articulate good reason for doing so.

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

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to give good reasons when it declines to give weight to a treating physician's opinion.

Dempsey v. Commissioner of Social Secuirty · filed 2011-12-05(d)(2)

The ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefore. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (requiring the agency to “give good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Owings v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-22(c)(2)

Under the standard commonly called the “treating physician rule,” the ALJ is required to give a treating source’s opinion “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... However, the Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. ... These reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a treating physician's opinion may receive controlling weight, but the ALJ may discount it for good reasons.

McMorris v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-03-22(c)(2)

First, Dr. Goins was Plaintiff’s treating physician. As such, his opinion may be entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ, however, is still entitled to discount his opinions if he provides “good reasons” for doing so.

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 substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing the opinion under specified factors and giving sufficiently specific good reasons for discounting it.

McKnight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-12(c)(2)-(6)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if: (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.” See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2); Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *2-3 (Soc. Sec. Admin. July 2, 1996). If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on factors such as the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, 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. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. §404.1527(c)(2). These reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *5; Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) and (d) do not treat a physician’s record of a claimant’s subjective complaints as a medical opinion entitled to deference.

Ford v. SSA · filed 2005-07-07(a)(2), (d)

The fact that Ford told Dr. Jenkyn that she was experiencing pain and the fact that he recorded her complaints in his notes does not convert her subjective complaints of pain into medical opinion, thus entitling it to some measure of deference. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a) (2), 404.1527(d), 416.927(a) (2), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) permits the ALJ to rely on state-agency medical opinions, while § 404.1527(e) places responsibility for determining the claimant’s RFC with the ALJ rather than a vocational expert.

Rivera v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-23(f)(2), (e)

In this case, the A.L.J.’s assessment that Plaintiff could perform medium work with the ability to alternate sitting and standing was supported by the only two functional capacity assessments of record. (Tr. 163-170, 155-162). The state agency physicians reviewed the medical evidence of record and opined that Plaintiff could perform the full range of medium work. The A.L.J. was entitled to rely on these opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2) (2001). ... To the extent that Plaintiff suggests that a vocational expert should have been consulted to assess Plaintiffs RFC, the Court disagrees. It is the duty of the A.L.J. as the trier of fact to determine the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Vocational experts are not consulted for their medical expertise and are not charged with determining a Plaintiffs RFC based on the medical evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Bickford v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-31(d)

As a result, it is not possible to determine whether the administrative law judge complied with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), which requires the commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires the ALJ to consider a treating physician’s medical data, but reserves the legal determination of residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Rice v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-31(d)(2), (e)(2)

Dr. Kerr’s use of the term “sedentary” is not in itself conclusive in making the determination of Rice’s residual functional capacity under the Social Security Act: while an ALJ must consider the data provided by a physician as to the nature and severity of an applicant’s impairments, the legal determination of an applicant’s residual functional capacity is reserved to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of medical opinions and reserves opinions on ultimate issues such as disability status to the ALJ.

Claiborne v. Astrue · filed 2007-11-21(b), (e)

The relevant regulations provide that all medical opinions are to be considered in determining a claimant’s disability status. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). But the opinion on ultimate issues, such as disability status, is reserved to the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e)(1). The ALJ must consider all medical findings and evidence that support a medical source's assertion that a claimant is disabled. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) requires the ALJ to consider relevant medical evidence and observations when determining a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Carlisle v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-14(e)(2)

The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence when determining an individual’s RFC, including medical records, observations made during formal medical examinations, descriptions of limitations by the claimant and others, and observations of the claimant’s hmitations by others. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 404.1545(a); ... Further, the ALJ’s RFC determination must “be accompanied by a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Thiele v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-05(d)(2)

In making an RFC determination, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). The ALJ should give a treating source’s RFC 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence and to evaluate every medical opinion when medical evidence must be weighed.

Towne v. SSA · filed 2012-09-25(b), (c)

The evaluation of medical opinions is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, which provides that the Commissioner', when "determining whether [claimant] is disabled . . . will always consider the medical opinions in [claimant's] case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... When it is necessary to weigh medical evidence, every medical opinion will be evaluated, regardless of its source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... For these reasons, the court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's assessment of the medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes conclusory statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work from evidence-based medical assessments, which the ALJ must evaluate.

Debbra Hill v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-26(d)(1)

Dr. Johnson’s statement that Hill would be “unlikely” to work full time was not a conclusory statement like those described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), but instead an assessment, based on objective medical evidence, of Hill’s likelihood of being able to sustain full time employment given the many medical and mental impairments Hill faces and her inability to afford treatment for those conditions. Thus, the ALJ’s disregard for Dr. Johnson’s medical opinion was not harmless error and Dr. Johnson’s opinion should have been considered. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) permits an ALJ to rely on the opinions of examining and non-examining State agency medical consultants, who are treated as qualified experts in Social Security disability cases.

Knight v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-11(f)(2)

It is well settled that an ALJ is entitled to rely upon the opinions of both examining and non-examining State agency medical consultants, since such consultants are deemed to be qualified experts in the field of social security disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly recite every listed factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Atwater v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social · filed 2013-02-21(c)

Finally, Atwater challenges the ALJ’s failure to review explicitly each factor provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). We require no such slavish recitation of each and every factor where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as a statement from a physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical source reflecting judgment about an impairment and related functional restrictions.

Newcomb v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-06(a)(2)

A “medical opinion” is defined as a statement from a physician or psychologist or other acceptable medical source that reflects judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s), including his or her symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what he or she could still do despite the impairment(s) and his or her physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). ... Dr. Segreto’s opinion that Newcomb cannot hold a job is not a medical opinion and is not consistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b)-(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source, but does not require separate consideration of a statement that adds nothing substantive to an opinion the ALJ evaluated.

Miller v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-27(b)-(c)

"The Social Security Administration . . . regulations establish that an ALJ will evaluate every medical opinion, regardless of its source . . . ." Wiese v. Astrue, 552 F.3d 728, 730 (8th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c). Miller asserts that the ALJ failed to evaluate Dr. Downey’s opinion that she "would not change or correct any of Dr. Bomar’s opinions [in her questionnaire]." Miller’s argument fails for two reasons. First, the ALJ did not entirely disregard Dr. Downey’s medical opinion. To the contrary, the ALJ expressly relied upon her observations and recommendations from Miller’s appointments in 2008 and 2009. And second, Dr. Downey’s statement that she "would not change or correct any of Dr. Bomar’s opinions" added nothing of substance to Dr. Bomar’s reasoning or conclusions, which the ALJ evaluated and appropriately discounted. For these reasons, the ALJ did not err by failing to consider Dr. Downey’s statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to expressly enumerate every factor considered when rejecting a treating physician’s opinion if the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the treating physician rule are clear.

Suarez v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-06(c)

Moreover, in rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ need not expressly enumerate each factor considered if the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the treating physician rule is clear.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion submitted into evidence.

Norris v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-02(c)

The ALJ is bound to "evaluate every medical opinion" submitted into evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). As such, the ALJ erred by omitting any discussion of Dr. Martin’s opinion from his supplemental decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Mitchell v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-20(c)

The ALJ was thus obliged to consider the restrictions set forth in those remarks – which here included limitations with respect to “detailed/complex information,” “concentration,” and “pay[ing] attention,” AR at 92 – and account for them in his determination of Mitchell’s RFC. See SSR 96-8p, at *7; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[W]e will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). This is precisely what the ALJ did.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Donna Murphy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-21(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation does not require an administrative law judge to defer to a medical opinion about a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(d)(3)

The ALJ need not defer to any medical opinion about the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3) (2012), 416.927(d)(3) (2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a treating source's opinion about a claimant's residual functional capacity as an issue reserved to the ALJ, not a medical opinion entitled to special significance, but still requires the ALJ to consider it.

Brothers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-04-15(d)(2) and (3)

An opinion regarding a claimant’s RFC is not a medical opinion, even if offered by a treating source, but rather is a dispositive finding for the ALJ to make and is entitled to no special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) and (3); Kelly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 401 F. App’x 403, 407 (11th Cir. 2010). However, an ALJ is still required to consider the opinion. Lawton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App’x 830, 834 (11th Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats the residual functional capacity determination as a decision reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion, and permits greater weight for opinions more consistent with the record as a whole.

Lowe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-21(d)(2), (c)(4)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining residual functional capacity). ... An ALJ may choose to give more weight to opinions that are more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) does not require an ALJ to defer to an opinion about a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(d)(3)

The ALJ need not defer to an opinion about the RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

George v. Saul · filed 2020-10-14(d)(2)

In assessing a disability claimant’s residual functional capacity, the ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Harvey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-23(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Carrillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-02(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medical-source opinions about a claimant’s functioning but reserves ultimate responsibility for issues such as residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Milliken v. Saul · filed 2021-03-17(d)(2)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ is obligated to consider medical opinions on a claimant’s functioning based on an assessment of the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.9527(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as ... your residual functional capacity...the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”’). It is the Commissioner’s role to weigh medical opinion evidence and to resolve conflicts in that evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a medical opinion as addressing the nature and severity of an impairment and resulting limitations, while § 404.1527(e) reserves the issue of whether a claimant can return to work to the Commissioner.

Cowan v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-17(a)(2), (e)

First, Dr. Gietzen’s brief statement on the medical form was not a true medical opinion. It did not contain Dr. Gietzen’s judgment about the nature and severity of Mr. Cowan’s physical limitations, or any information about what activities Mr. Cowan could still perform. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). It merely stated that the doctor did not know if Mr. Cowan would be able to return to work, which is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. Id. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Johansen v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-12-23(e)

Though Goldsmith may have disagreed with the ALJ’s RFC assessment, such determinations are reserved exclusively to the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e), and there was substantial evidence to support the specific determination made by the ALJ in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes medical opinions about a claimant's impairment and functional restrictions from legal conclusions such as whether the claimant is disabled or unable to work; legal conclusions receive no special significance, although the ALJ must evaluate their support in the record.

Morgan v. Barnhart, Comm · filed 2005-08-05(a)(2), (e)(1), and (e)(3)

The Code of Federal Regulations draws a distinction between a physician’s medical opinions and his legal conclusions. “Medical opinions are statements from physicians . . . that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including . . . symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), . . . and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (2004). Legal conclusions, on the other hand, are opinions on issues reserved to the ALJ, such as “statements[s] by a medical source that [the claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work.’” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). While the ALJ must give a treating physician’s medical opinions special weight in certain circumstances, Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (holding that a treating physician’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight only when it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2))), the ALJ is under no obligation to give a treating physician’s legal conclusions any heightened evidentiary value. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(3) (“We will not give any special significance to . . . [a treating physician’s legal conclusions]. . . . “). The ALJ is not free, however, simply to ignore a treating physician’s legal conclusions, but must instead “evaluate all the evidence in the case record to determine the extent to which the [treating physician’s legal conclusion] is supported by the record.” SSR 96-5p at *3.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves the determination of a claimant's residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

DICIANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-09(d)(2)

A claimant’s RFC reflects “what [the claimant] can still do despite [his or her] limitations,” 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a), and the controlling regulations are clear that the RFC finding is a determination expressly reserved to the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2), 404.1546(c), 416.946(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats statements about whether a claimant is disabled or can work as issues reserved to the Commissioner, not medical opinions entitled to special significance.

DAWLING v. SAUL · filed 2019-11-19(d)

The ALJ did not err in characterizing Dr. Mothershed’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s inability to perform “physical work” (Tr. 521, 554) as one involving a matter reserved to the Commissioner, and certainly did not err by invoking the Commissioner’s long-time rule that such opinions constitute matters dispositive of a case and carry no special significance (see Tr. 47). See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner rather than a medical source, so an ALJ need not adopt a medical opinion wholesale.

Shipes v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-09-09(d)(2)

First, simply because an ALJ finds an administrative medical finding persuasive, he is not required to adopt the opinion wholesale. Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the commissioner, not a medical professional. Pate v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 678 F. App’x 833, 834 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). An ALJ is not required to formulate the RFC by adopting any one medical opinion in its entirety.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives the Commissioner final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, so an ALJ need not adopt any one physician’s opinion.

Devlin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-31(d)(2)

“An ALJ has ‘final responsibility’ for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity and need not adopt any one doctor’s opinion.” Fanta v. Saul, 848 F. App’x 655, 658 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(2); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 845 (7th Cir. 2007)). “[A]n ALJ must consider the entire record, but the ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion or choose between the opinions of any of the claimant’s physicians.” Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 845 (citing Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995)). The ALJ appropriately considered the opinions of the state agency consultants and did not err in crafting an RFC that adopted some of Dr. Belson’s limitations and that imposed greater limitations and fewer limitations than Dr. Belson in other areas.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) does not require an ALJ’s residual-functional-capacity assessment to be supported by a medical-source opinion on function because such opinions receive no special significance.

GREEN v. KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-06-30(d)(3)

The assertion that an ALJ’s [RFC] [assessment] must find support in a medical source opinion on function is implausible in light of the regulations’ treatment of such opinions (directing that they be afforded “[no] special significance”). [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)]. Likewise, the assertion that the record must at least contain a medical source opinion on function seems dubious, given that the value of the presence of such an opinion is called into serious doubt because the regulations treat them with no special significance. Sanders, at 13. Thus, even absent a medical source opinion on function, the ALJ is required to “[s]urvey[] the medical evidence to craft an RFC.” Titterington, 174 F. App’x at 11.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medical-source opinions about residual functional capacity but reserves the final RFC determination to the Commissioner.

Page v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-14(d)(2)

When assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider medical opinions regarding the claimant’s functioning and decide based on an assessment of the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.9527(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as ...your residual functional capacity...the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) includes treating physicians’ residual functional capacity questionnaires supported by medical records within its definition of medical opinions.

Griffies v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-11(a)(2)

The regulation defines medical opinions in an open-ended and non-restrictive manner. Moreover, Drs. Romano and Herrera did not merely supply Questionnaires without supporting documentation. Their opinions were amply supported with years of medical assessments, reports, notes, correspondences, and other documentation. This is valid medical evidence due fair consideration by the ALJ.

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 reasons for assigning weight to or rejecting a treating physician’s statements.

Giles v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-28(d)(2)

The regulations require the ALJ to give reasons for giving weight to or rejecting the statements of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(f)(3) requires the Appeals Council to use the same rules for considering opinion evidence as administrative law judges, but it does not require a detailed explanation when the Appeals Council merely denies review rather than deciding the case on the merits.

Bowles v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-23(f)(3)

The language of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(3) provides that: ... When the Appeals Council makes a decision, it will follow the same rules for considering opinion evidence as administrative law judges follow. ... Considering this requirement in conjunction with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), which states that “[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion,” ... plaintiff argues that the Appeals Council is required to explain how it deals with any new opinions by a treating source. ... Under the Social Security regulations, this is not a “decision” requiring detailed analysis of the supplemental information. ... Simply because the Appeals Council accepts the supplemental information for the purpose of deciding whether to review a given case does not change that threshold action into a decision on the merits by the Appeals Council following review requiring the sort of explanation sought by plaintiff.

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 good reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion in a notice of determination or decision, and does not apply to state-agency consultants’ reports.

Carson v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-31(d)(2)

The plaintiff offers no authority to support his contention that the state-agency consultants who reviewed his medical records were required to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), and the regulation on its face makes clear that the contention is erroneous. The portion of the regulation quoted by the plaintiff provides: “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(d)(2). The reports of state-agency consultants are neither notices of determination nor decisions issued by the defendant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion, regardless of the weight ultimately assigned.

Wates v. Barnhart · filed 2003-10-17(d)(2)

Regardless of the weight the ALJ ultimately gives the treating source opinion, she must always “give good reasons” for her decision, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, otherwise weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-08-02(d)(2)

In particular, the ALJ failed to clarify whether DeWys’s opinion was not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or was “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), did not identify the evidence supporting such a finding, and did not explain its application of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) to determine the weight given to DeWys’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion and permits declining controlling weight when the opinion lacks support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Lehnartz v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-27(d)(2)

The ALJ must "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(d)(2). In this case, the ALJ could have written a more thorough and explicit application of the regulation. However, the ALJ did give enough reasons why "the undersigned is not inclined to afford controlling weight." The ALJ found that Dr. Planavsky gave only a "conclusory opinion" that Lehnartz "is disabled for competitive work," without a "documented full mental status evaluation." The ALJ further noted internal inconsistencies in Dr. Planavsky's opinion, and that he "did not preclude performance of work-like tasks in his assessment of claimant's mental residual functional capacity."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good, sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion, based on the regulatory factors.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-09-02(d)(2)

An ALJ must give “‘good reasons . . . for the weight . . . give[n]’” to an opinion from a treating source. ... The reasons must draw on certain factors, specifically “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.”

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).

When an ALJ does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must still evaluate it using the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Patterson v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-12(d)(2)

Even if the ALJ finds that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, she may not simply reject it. ... Rather, she must evaluate the opinion’s weight by looking at the length, nature and extent of the claimant’s and physician’s treatment relationship; the degree to which the opinion is supported by the evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; whether the doctor is a specialist; and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... “Regardless of the weight the ALJ ultimately gives the treating source opinion, she must always ‘give good reasons’ for her decision.” ... (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for the weight assigned when it is not given controlling weight.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-08-28(d)(2)

We find that the ALJ’s analysis of Nelson’s mental problems adequately addressed Dr. Cook’s and Dr. Peterson’s opinions by indirectly attacking both the consistency of those opinions with the other record evidence and their supportability. The ALJ implicitly provided sufficient reasons for not giving those opinions controlling weight, and indeed for giving them little or no weight overall. The ALJ thus “met the goal of § 1527(d)(2)–the provision of the procedural safeguard of reasons–even though she has not complied with the terms of the regulation.” Hall, 148 F. App’x at 462 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Wilson, 378 F.3d at 547). We take the opportunity to note, however, that this is a rare case of the ALJ’s analysis meeting the goal of the rule even if not meeting its letter. The Commissioner’s own regulations and our case law state that the Commissioner must provide good reasons for rejecting the medical opinion of a treating source.

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion when controlling weight is not given.

Hendricks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-09-19(d)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must explain his reasons for the weight he does assign to that opinion.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion.

Bowen v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-03-09(d)(2)

This court has frequently recognized that where “the opinion of a treating source is not accorded controlling weight, an ALJ must apply certain factors . . . in determining what weight to give the opinion.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (emphasis added). Specifically, § 404.1527(d) of the SSA’s regulations prescribes that the ALJ is to consider (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (5) the specialization of the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The regulation further assures claimants that “[w]e 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(d)(2). Here, the ALJ’s complete failure to mention Dr. Holean plainly violated the terms of § 1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, and that reasons-giving requirement does not apply to the remainder of § 404.1527(d).

Smith v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-04-09(d)(2)

Importantly, though, this reasons-giving requirement exists only for § 404.1527(d)(2), and not for the remainder of § 404.1527(d). As the Wilson court noted, the procedural requirement exists, in part, for claimants to understand why the administrative bureaucracy deems them not disabled when physicians are telling them that they are. 378 F.3d at 544. Yet even if the purpose of the reasons-giving requirement in § 404.1527(d)(2) applies to the entire regulation, the SSA requires ALJs to give reasons for only treating sources. When an agency includes a requirement in only one section of a regulation, we presume the exclusion from the remainder of the regulation to be intentional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion and generally gives that opinion controlling weight unless it lacks adequate medical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-04-09(d)(2)

Importantly, though, this reasons-giving requirement exists only for § 404.1527(d)(2), and not for the remainder of § 404.1527(d). ... The SSA will give a treating source’s opinion “controlling weight” unless it is either not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the treating relationship and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion.

Lancaster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-04-26(d)(2)

“When [the ALJ] do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, [the ALJ] appl[ies] [various] factors . . in determining the weight to give the opinion,” including the length, frequency, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; evidence in support of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with evidence in the record; physician’s specialization; and other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The ALJ “will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight . . . give[n] [to] your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it lacks adequate medical support or conflicts with substantial evidence, and requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting it.

Helm v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2011-01-04(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is normally entitled to “controlling weight” unless it is either not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The regulation requires an ALJ to provide “good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s assessment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Morever, the ALJ provided “good reasons” for discounting Dr. Cheng’s opinion. First, in considering “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the ALJ noted that Dr. Cheng had examined Helm on only three occasions between January and May 2004. Thus, Dr. Cheng was not in a position “to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [Helm's] medical impairment(s).” Id. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, non-inconsistent opinion controlling weight, or explain the weight assigned using the listed factors and good reasons supported by the record.

Johnson-Hunt v. Comm. of Social Security · filed 2012-09-14(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,” in making a disability determination, the ALJ evaluates every medical opinion received, but is required to give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the impairment, provided that the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see Cole, 661 F.3d at 937. If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to the treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must then consider and balance the following factors to determine how much weight to give the opinion: length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence, extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and whether the treating physician is a specialist in the area on which the disability claim is based. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ also has the obligation to provide “good reasons . . . supported by the evidence in the case record,” for the weight it decides to give to the treating source’s opinion. Cole, 661 F.3d at 937, 939 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must give good reasons for declining to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.

LeFevers v. Social Security Adminstration · filed 2012-02-07(d)(2)

All of this amounts to “good reasons” for refusing to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. The ALJ permissibly opted not to give Dr. Hays’s opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.

Schroeder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-10(c)(2)

The ALJ’s failure to properly weigh Dr. Vigna’s opinion was not harmless error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements about the nature and severity of impairments and resulting functional restrictions as medical opinions, excludes conclusory disability or inability-to-work statements from that category, and requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion only when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence.

Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-17(a)(1), (c)(2)-(6), and (d)

At the outset, I am unconvinced that Dr. Román’s statement regarding Rodríguez’s fitness to work is properly deemed a treating physician’s “medical opinion” under the Commissioner’s regulations. “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [his or her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). “[T]he regulations specifically exclude from consideration opinions on certain issues, such as conclusory statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work.” ... Similarly, here, Dr. Román’s attestation that Rodríguez was “unfit to work” offers little insight into Rodríguez’s specific functional limitations. It is not, therefore, a medical opinion, and the ALJ correctly concluded that Dr. Román’s statement expressed an opinion on a question reserved for the Commissioner. ... Under the applicable regulations, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion 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). When an ALJ does not assign the opinion controlling weight, she considers various factors, including, among others, the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). An ALJ need not expressly address each factor identified by the regulations but must provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the treating source’s opinion. ... Here, Dr. Román’s statement that Rodríguez was “unfit to work” is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, including the opinions provided by Dr. Winston Ortiz, Dr. Rivera, and Dr. Cristina Ortiz, all of whom opined that Rodríguez could function at a level sufficient to perform at least modified light work. And the ALJ gave good reasons for offering Dr. Román’s statement little weight, explaining that it was not supported by treatment records.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence receives controlling weight, but opinions on RFC and other issues reserved to the Commissioner receive no controlling weight or special significance and must nevertheless be considered.

West v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-22(d)(2), (e)(2)-(3)

“If [the Commissioner] find[s] that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [claimant’s] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (emphasis added). ... If a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, it will be evaluated in accordance with the factors provided for evaluating all medical source opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The opinions rejected by the ALJ were statements provided by treating physicians regarding plaintiffs capacities for work and constitute assessments of plaintiffs RFC — an issue reserved to the ALJ. Such assessment may not be given controlling weight or any special significance over other medical evidence. ... The opinions at issue, as assessments of plaintiffs capacity for work, necessarily reveal something of the physicians’ opinions regarding the severity of plaintiffs impairments and must be considered by the ALJ in his decision, but may not be given special significance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source medical opinion to be given controlling weight when adequately supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise requires weighing it under specified factors.

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

Even if the ALJ did conclude that his opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, he was nevertheless required to determine the proper weight to give it by analyzing the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Those factors are: (i) the length of the treatment and frequency of examinations, (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. (iii) the degree of relevant evidence supporting the opinion, (iv) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (v) whether the physician is a specialist, and (vi) other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ’s treatment of the medical evidence and Dr. Adlaon’s opinion in this case meets these standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Morrison v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-04-07(c)

Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1-5); 416.927(c)(1-5). A court must give a treating physician’s opinions substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Good cause for disregarding such opinions “exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: 1) the “[l]ength of [any] treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; 2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; 3) “[s]upportability”; 4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and 5) “[s]pecialization.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors and determine the opinion’s appropriate weight.

Ragno v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-14(d)(2)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, and § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs the ALJ to weigh specified factors when the opinion is not controlling.

Santiago v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-20(c)(2)-(6)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2), a treating source’s opinion will usually be given more weight than a non-treating source. If it is determined that a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a plaintiff’s impairment 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 opinion is given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the opinion, however, is not “well-supported” by “medically acceptable” clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, then the opinion cannot be entitled to controlling weight. Id. If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ considers the following factors in weighing the opinion: length of treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence used to support the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the entire record, and the expertise and specialized knowledge of the source. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2P, 1996 WL 374188, at *2 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions than to non-treating physicians’ opinions, and gives greater weight to opinions that are more consistent with the evidence as a whole.

Horner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-24(c)(2), (c)(4)

The opinions of treating physicians are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). ... Further, the more consistent the opinion is with the evidence as a whole, the greater weight the opinion should be accorded. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors and apply the treating-source factors in paragraph (c)(2), but need not discuss each factor if it gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Colombe v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2020-04-27(c)(1)-(6)

Though he did not discuss every factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), he was not required to. Although an ALJ must “consider” all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and must “apply” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including its subsections through (c)(6) to determine the weight to give that opinion, he is not required to discuss every factor in his decision as long as he provides “good reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dowling v. Saul · filed 2020-04-30(c)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2), a treating source’s opinion will usually be given more weight than a non-treating source. If it is determined that a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a plaintiff’s impairment 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 opinion is given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a treating source, requires controlling weight for a well-supported and record-consistent treating-source opinion, and otherwise requires evaluation under regulatory factors with good reasons for the weight assigned.

Stewart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-05-05(a)(2), (c)(2)

Under those regulations, the phrase “treating source” means a claimant’s “own acceptable medical source” who provides, or has provided, the claimant “medical treatment or evaluation” as part of a current or previously “ongoing treatment relationship.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). Administrative law judges must give a treating source’s medical opinion “controlling weight” if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, otherwise consider specified factors, and always give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Crader v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-05-05(c)(2)–(6)

If a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider other factors, including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, how much evidence supports the opinion, consistency with the record as a whole and the specialization of the treating source. ... In either circumstance, the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight he gives to the treating source’s medical opinion. ... These reasons must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a noncontrolling treating physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability and consistency, and specialization.

Hara v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ should weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient working relationship, the frequency of examinations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the record when deciding the weight to give it.

Omar Soto, Sr. v. Saul · filed 2020-05-19(c)(4)

The ALJ properly considered the consistency of Dr. Holmes’s RFC assessment with the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); see also Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may discount a medical opinion that is not supported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings); Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2014) (ALJ “may reject a treating physician’s opinion if it is based to a large extent on the claimant’s self-reports that have been properly discounted as incredible”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to apply factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization when determining the weight of a treating-source medical opinion.

Sweeney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-29(d)(2)

When determining weight and articulating good reasons, the ALJ “must apply certain factors” to the opinion. Rabbers v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647, 660 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). These factors include the length of treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions than to opinions from physicians who do not treat the claimant, and more weight to examining-source opinions than to nonexamining-source opinions.

Spencer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)(1)-(2)

Social security law recognizes three types of physicians: (1) treating, (2) examining, and (3) nonexamining. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinion of those who do not actually treat the claimant. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)-(2). More weight is also given to an examining physician than to a nonexamining physician. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and permits assigning it less weight for good cause.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-15(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). “Good cause exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while considering specified factors and giving good reasons for the weight assigned.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-24(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c),1 an ALJ will give “controlling weight” to “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)” if he finds that the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” The regulations require that an ALJ “give good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. An ALJ will consider the length and nature of the treatment relationship. Id. 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii). An ALJ will also consider whether the opinion is supported, “particularly [by] medical signs and laboratory findings”; whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the opinion is “related to his or her area of specialty”; and any other relevant factors. Id. 404.1527(c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating source's opinion that was not given controlling weight to consider the listed factors in deciding how much weight to give it.

Leake v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-29(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(6)

Those regulations “provide that, when a treating source’s opinions are not given controlling weight, an ALJ must apply the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i-ii) and (c)(3-6) in determining how much weight to give each opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives treating-source opinions controlling weight when they are well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh them using the regulatory factors.

Pauley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-08(c)(2)

A treater’s opinions 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 opinions 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 opinions, consistency of the opinions with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion that is not given controlling weight to receive deference and to be weighed using the regulatory factors.

Grabbe v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-07-13(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh it using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Suazo v. Saul · filed 2020-07-15(c)(2)-(6)

The Ninth Circuit has recently reaffirmed that “[t]he medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ should weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient working relationship, the frequency of examinations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... Thus, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Knight’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Payne v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c)(2)

“For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” Johnson v. Berryhill, 745 F. App’x 247, 250 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 252 (7th Cir. 2016)); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9, at *1–4 (July 2, 1996). ... The ALJ did not commit reversible error when weighing Dr. Opaneye’s opinion that Payne was incapable of even low-stress jobs. First, the ALJ reasonably determined that Dr. Opaneye’s opinion was unsupported by the record as a whole and inconsistent with his own examination reports.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, give specific good reasons for assigning it less weight, and consider the relevant factors when weighing it.

Smalley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-10(c)

An ALJ must, therefore, give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source if: (1) the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... If an ALJ accords less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for doing so. ... Those reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... If the ALJ affords less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still determine the weight it should be afforded. ... In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of the opinion, (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the treating source, and (6) other relevant factors. ... While the ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each of these factors, the record must nevertheless reflect that the ALJ considered those factors relevant to her assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to a treating physician’s opinion than to opinions from non-treating physicians.

Rutherford v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-21(c)(2)

... treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). A treating doctor’s opinion that is not contradicted by the opinion of another doctor can be rejected only for “clear and convincing” reasons. Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir. 1991). Where a doctor’s opinion is contradicted, however, the ALJ must provide “specific, legitimate reasons” for discrediting the opinion. Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a medical opinion under § 404.1527(c), an ALJ need not explicitly address every listed factor and need only give one legally sufficient reason to reject the opinion.

Leon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(c)

Finally, Plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ ignored numerous factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is unfounded. The ALJ does not need to “explicitly address each of those factors.” Lawton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec, 431 F. App’x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2001). There need only be one legally sufficient reason to reject a physician’s opinion. D’Andrea v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 389 F. App’x 944, 948 (11th Cir. 2010) (“the ALJ articulated at least one specific reason for disregarding the opinion and the record supports it.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Johns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(c)(2)

A treating physician's opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician's opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) permits an ALJ to consider the length and frequency of a treating relationship when weighing a treating source’s opinion, giving more weight when the relationship is long enough to provide a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

(SS) Crane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-31(c)(2)(i)

Finally, the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Trinh’s assessment because it was based on only four months of treatment. As noted above, the ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Trinh’s opinion because “she did not have a significantly length treatment history with [Plaintiff] such that she was able to provide a solid longitudinal assessment of his limitations.” (AR 32.) In assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the regulations expressly permit an ALJ to consider the length and frequency of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(c)(2)(i) (“When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the source’s opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.”). In this instance, as the ALJ correctly points out, Plaintiff first established care with Dr. Trinh on April 20, 2016, only four months before she rendered her opinion. (See AR 32. See also AR 282, 350.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount treating physicians’ opinions when they are conclusory or inconsistent with the record and reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Tyler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-04(c)(2), (d), (e)

The ALJ permissibly discounted the weight of Tyler’s treating physicians’ opinions because they were conclusory as to his disability and contradictory to other evidence of record. ... It is the province of the Commissioner to determine whether a claimant is disabled by considering the medical evidence supplied by treating and examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Accordingly, Tyler’s objection that the ALJ impermissibly discounted the weight given to Dr. Peters, Dr. Eastvold, and Dr. Groves is OVERRULED.