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 treating source’s opinion to consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the assigned weight, although the ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor.

Mascarenas v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-07(c)

However, the ALJ properly went through the first step of the treating-physician analysis, finding that Dr. Holder’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. R. at 23. The ALJ then considered the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the consistency between the opinion and Dr. Holder’s records, and “other factors . . . which tend to . . . contradict the opinion.” Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). While the ALJ did not expressly discuss every factor, this was not in error. See Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). Instead, so long as the ALJ considers each factor and “give[s] good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion,” the ALJ’s assignment of weight is supported by substantial evidence. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently explained why he assigned minimal weight to Dr. Holder’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh treating-source medical opinions using the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors; a well-supported and record-consistent treating-source opinion receives more weight.

Bass v. Saul · filed 2020-08-10(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) or § 416.927(c), medical opinions from treating sources are weighed using several factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, such as the (i) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination and the (ii) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors. If a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” it is given more weight than from other sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons when controlling weight is not given.

Morris v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-10(c)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. When we do not give the treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this section in determining the eight to give the medical opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ weighs it using the listed factors and must give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Purvis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13(c)(1)–(6)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight when “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the” record as a whole. Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2010); see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). When an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the weight it should receive depends on several factors, such as the nature and length of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant, whether the opinion is supported by medical evidence, whether the opinion is consistent with the medical record and whether the treating physician is a specialist in the area about which he or she opines. 20 U.S.C. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6). ... Accordingly, the decision to not give Dr. Marczewski’s opinion controlling weight is supported by the evidence and the proper weight to which it is entitled therefore depends on the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). ... Based on my de novo review, I find that the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Marczewski’s opinion little weight is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to explicitly consider the listed factors when assigning the opinion’s weight.

Dobos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13(c)

If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ should explicitly consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) to determine the proper weight to give the opinion. See Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850, 860 (7th Cir. 2014). These factors are: the examining relationship; the treatment relationship; the length of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support the opinion; the consistency of the source’s opinion with the other evidence; whether the source specializes in an area related to the individual’s impairment; and any other factors tending to support or refute the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ’s failure to weigh medical opinion evidence pursuant to these factors mandates remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using the regulatory factors even when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Brooks v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-14(c)

Although the ALJ did not give that treating doctor’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ was still supposed to properly weigh it according to the regulatory factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires the ALJ to determine its weight using the listed factors.

Copsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-17(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

For claims, like this one, filed prior to March 27, 2017, the 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.” ... If the ALJ declined to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he should still determine what weight to give it according to the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant; whether the physician’s opinions were sufficiently supported; how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue; and other factors, such as the amount of understanding of the disability programs and their evidentiary requirements or the extent to which an acceptable medical source is familiar with other information in the claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a treating physician’s opinion than to a non-treating physician’s opinion.

Bradbury v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-18(d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-treating physician. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Vilavong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-21(c)(2)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling weight’ because it is not ‘well-supported’ or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the [Commissioner] considers specified factors in determining the weight it will be given. ... These factors include (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination;” (2) the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship;” (3) the “[s]upportability” of the opinion;” (4) the “[c]onsistency” of the opinion “with the record as a whole;” (5) whether the opinion is from “a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty;” and (6) “any other factors [the claimant] or others bring to the ALJ’s attention, or of which [the ALJ is] aware, which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require an explicit discussion of every factor; the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Braswell v. Saul · filed 2020-08-24(c)

The ALJ is not required to discuss all of these factors. ... “However, the ALJ must give ‘good reasons’ for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.” ... Second, the ALJ is not required to “give obvious consideration” to each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Frequency of treatment and consistency with other evidence are factors identified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). It was the ALJ’s duty to weigh this evidence, and his determination that the frequency of Plaintiff’s treatment with Ms. Smith and lack of consistency with other evidence were reasons to discount the weight assigned to Ms. Smith’s opinions is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight, and requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons when controlling weight is not given.

Haegele v. Saul · filed 2020-08-24(c)(2)

The Regulations require that more weight be given to the opinions of treating sources than other sources. ... A treating source’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must look to various factors in determining what weight to accord that and any other medical opinion of record, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the source provides support for their findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the source’s findings, and the source’s area of specialty. ... The Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to justify the decision using the listed factors for weighing medical opinions.

HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-02(c)(1–6)

If the opinion of a treating physician, in particular, is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must justify that finding in light of the factors for weighing medical opinions which are set forth in 20 CFR §§ 404.1527 & 416.927. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(c)(1–6), 416.927(c)(1–6) (ALJ must consider: (i) the examining relationship between the claimant and the doctor; (ii) the treatment relationship between the claimant and the doctor; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (iv) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (v) whether the doctor providing the opinion is a specialist).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors; a failure to discuss every factor may be harmless when the outcome would not change.

Sou v. Saul · filed 2020-09-04(c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ must assign specific weights to the reports of medical experts. ... The ALJ does so by considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) “other” factors such as an expert’s familiarity with SSA guidelines. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see also Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 515 (7th Cir. 2009). ... The weight given to an expert report is subject to a harmless error analysis, and courts “will not remand a case to the ALJ for further explanation if [it] can predict with great confidence that the result on remand would be the same.” ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the relevant regulatory factors for assessing an expert opinion, and the Court is confident based on its review of the record that the result would be the same on remand even if the ALJ were to consider the factors that Claimant asserts that she overlooked. ... Consequently, the Court finds for the reasons stated below that any error that the ALJ made in this respect with regard to her analysis of each expert’s opinion is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and provide good reasons for discounting it.

Carmack v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04(c), (c)(2)

An ALJ must weigh all medical opinion evidence using a “checklist of factors, including: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship (including the length of treatment and frequency of examination and 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; (5) the treating physician’s specialization; and (6) other factors that either support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). Dr. Roper’s opinion—as a treating doctor—is given controlling weight if it is “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must provide “good reasons” for discounting such an opinion. See Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. The ALJ here properly weighed the factors and provided good reasons for discounting this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise to consider the treatment, support, consistency, and specialty factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Latorres Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-09(c)(2)

Under the so-called “treating physician” rule, in general, the ALJ must give “more weight to medical opinions” from a claimant’s “treating source” — as defined in the regulations — when determining if the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... In doing so, it must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2))). At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) ordinarily gives a treating source’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, reflecting the special value of an ongoing treatment relationship.

Schweers v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-14(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source ordinarily is given controlling weight, provided the opinion as to the nature and severity of an 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The regulations define a treating source as the claimant’s “own physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical source who provides [the claimant] . . . with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Deference to such medical providers is appropriate because they “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations.”6 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rivera v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is afforded controlling weight when it is well-supported by objective medical evidence that is consistent with substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 316 (3d Cir. 2000). ALJs have the sole authority to assign weight to medical opinions entered into the record. See Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 614 (3d Cir. 2014) (discussing how “the ALJ is free to accept some medical evidence and reject other evidence, provided that [the ALJ] provides an explanation for discrediting the rejected evidence”). It is the duty of the ALJ to explain the rationale for the weight afforded. Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999). The purpose of this is to allow for meaningful judicial review. Burnett v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 119 (3d Cir. 2000).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) when deciding how much weight to give it.

Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-18(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, and a treating opinion may be discounted for good cause when unsupported, contradicted, conclusory, or inconsistent with the physician’s records.

Earnest v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-30(c)

To make such a finding, an ALJ must evaluate: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other facts that tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.15279(c), 416.927(c). ... These medical records support the ALJ’s decision to find good cause to give Dr. Longmire’s opinion regarding Mr. Earnest’s ability to work less than substantial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating source's medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss each factor if the ALJ gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Schug v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(c)

the regulations do not require the ALJ to discuss each factor, only that the factors be considered and the ALJ give “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the opinion of a treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to discuss every listed factor or cite the regulation for each opinion if the ALJ clearly explains whether and why the opinion was discounted.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Although the ALJ did not address all of the factors found in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) for each opinion, the ALJ is not required to cite specifically to the regulations but need only clarify whether she discounted the opinions and why. Kientzy v. Colvin, No. 4:15CV707 JMB, 2016 WL 4011322, at *8 (E.D. Mo. July 27, 2016) (citing Grable v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1196, 1201-02 (8th Cir. 2014)). In weighing a treating-source opinion, it is the ALJ’s duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence, and the ALJ’s finding in that regard should not be disturbed so long as it falls within the “available zone of choice.” E.g., Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936–38 (8th Cir. 2006); Tripp v. Colvin, No. 2:14-CV-80-SPM, 2015 WL 3645026, at *5 (E.D. Mo. June 10, 2015). Here, the ALJ gave good reasons for discounting each of the opinions above in assigning them limited weight. Those reasons were supported by substantial evidence and place the ALJ’s decision within the available zone of choice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, while the ALJ may consider relevant factors in determining the opinion’s weight.

CHIMENTO v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)

The amount of weight accorded to medical opinions is well-established. Generally, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians are entitled to substantial and, at times, even controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527; 416.927.2 To be entitled to controlling weight, however, the treating physician’s opinion must be well supported by medical techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001). ... After careful review, although I disagree that the record evidence mandates application of the treating physician doctrine, I agree with Plaintiff that the ALJ’s opinion fails to explain sufficiently her decision to assign little weight to the opinions of Dr. Kakabadze and occupational therapist Holly Foltz.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the listed factors, compare their consistency with the record, and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Pace v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-16(c)(2)–(6)

Here, the court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that “it is not inappropriate for the ALJ to compare the opinions of record.” ECF No. 22 at 10 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”)). ... Moreover, in his decision, the ALJ gave “good reasons,” as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), for his assignment of weight to Dr. Loudermilk’s opinion. See SSR 96-2P. As such, the court overrules Pace’s objections as to the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Loudermilk’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh treating-source opinions using specified factors, but the ALJ need not discuss every factor and may discount opinions that lack support, conflict with the record, or address issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Lambert v. Saul · filed 2020-10-19(c)(3)-(4), (d)(1)-(3)

Even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in [20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927]. Those factors are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... An ALJ is not required to discuss every factor set forth in the relevant regulations. ... In this case, the ALJ relied upon proper factors to support the conclusion that Dr. Nielson’s opinions were entitled to no weight. The ALJ properly relied upon the fact that Dr. Nielson’s opinions were not supported by and were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), 416.927(c)(3)-(4). ... The ALJ also properly relied upon the fact that Dr. Nielson’s opinions went to issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(3), 416.927(d)(1)-(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when deciding the weight given to the opinion.

Morris v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-19(c)(2), (c)(1)–(6)

When “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,” the Commissioner must give such an opinion controlling weight. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If controlling weight is not given to a treating source’s opinion, the Commissioner considers six factors in deciding the weight given to each medical opinion: (1) whether the source examined the claimant or not; (2) whether the source treated the claimant; (3) the medical signs and laboratory findings that support the given opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is made by a specialist or non-specialist; and (6) any other factor which “tend[s] to support or contradict the opinion.” See id. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors, but need not expressly discuss each factor if the decision shows that the factors were applied and gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-21(c)

A finding that the treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight does not mean that the opinion should be rejected as the treating source’s medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. SSR 96-2p. ... Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), if a treating source’s opinion is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ should consider all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... “[A]n express discussion of each factor is not required as long as the ALJ demonstrates that he applied the § 404.1527(d)8 factors and provides good reasons for his decision.” ... Because the ALJ considered the required factors and provided good reasons for declining to assign great weight to Dr. Norris’s opinion, this Court finds no error in the ALJ’s decision and Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and source specialization, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Mendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-02(c)(1)-(6)

The relevant factors considered by an ALJ in determining what weight to afford a treating source opinion include the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence which supports the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization (if any) of the opinion’s source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). However, the Second Circuit has consistently held that agency regulations do not require a “slavish recitation of each and every factor where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013). In this case, the ALJ clearly stated Dr. Smith’s opinions were not supported by the evidence and appropriately cited numerous examples of medical findings in the records which were contrary to the opined extreme limitations. (Tr. 30).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(4) directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, and consistency with other evidence; under paragraph (c)(2), a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence receives controlling weight.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-03(c)(1)–(4), (c)(2)

In determining what weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers several factors, including: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length and nature of the relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; and (4) the consistency of the opinion with other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(4) (2016). ... Indeed, if the SSA finds that a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the SSA will give the opinion “controlling weight.” Id. ... Thus, the ALJ had good cause not to give substantial or considerable weight to Dr. Tauler’s opinions, and substantial evidence supported his decision. Id. Accordingly, we affirm in this respect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating doctor’s opinion more weight and requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning it less than sustained or considerable weight.

Baker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-11-09(c)(2)

A treating doctor’s opinion generally is entitled to more weight, and an ALJ must give good reasons for not giving a treating doctor’s opinions sustained or considerable weight. See id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Hargress v. Soc. Sec. Admin. Comm’r, 883 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the prescribed factors and give good reasons when weighing a treating-source medical opinion, but a vague statement without specific functional restrictions does not permit checklist-factor analysis.

Reynolds v. Saul · filed 2020-11-09(c), (d)(2)

The court finds no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of the December 2016 statement. Earlier in her decision, the ALJ acknowledged Dr. Sethi’s specialty as a gastroenterologist and his longstanding treatment relationship with David. (A.R. 20-22.) When evaluating the December 2016 statement, the ALJ again noted Dr. Sethi’s treatment relationship, consistent with Section 404.1527(c). (Id. at 23.) But the ALJ could not proceed with analyzing such checklist factors as the supportability or consistency of the statement with the record given that Dr. Sethi’s statement was vague and general and did not provide specific functional restrictions. (Id.) Where, as here, the ALJ sufficiently articulated why she discounted the statement, her evaluation must stand. See Elder, 529 F.3d at 415.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must consider the regulatory factors, but need not expressly analyze each factor in writing if the decision sufficiently indicates that the factors were considered.

Duhamel v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-12(c)

Thus, the Court finds that the hearing decision sufficiently indicates that the ALJ followed the appropriate methodology when weighing Dr. Dysart’s opinion and that he considered the § 404.1527(c) factors. For the forgoing reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Dysart’s opinion as a treating physician or in assigning it less than controlling weight. The ALJ provided at least one specific and legitimate reason supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Dysart’s opinion and expressly stated that he considered the opinion evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must first determine whether a treating physician’s opinion deserves controlling weight; if not, the ALJ must state the weight given and good reasons tied to § 404.1527’s factors.

Bumgarner v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-16(c)

“Generally, a treating physician’s opinion receives more weight than other physicians’ opinions since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence.” Brownrigg v. Berryhill, 688 F. App’x 542, 548 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The evaluation of a treating physician’s opinion requires “a sequential two-step inquiry, each step of which is analytically distinct.” Brownrigg, 688 F. App’x at 548 (quoting Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011)). “First, the ALJ must consider whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight.” Brownrigg, 688 F. App’x at 548. This analysis requires findings that the physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Id. (quoting Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1330) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “Second, if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must make clear how much weight the opinion is being given (including whether it is being rejected outright) and give good reasons, tied to the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 . . . for the weight assigned.” Id. (internal quotation marks, brackets, and footnote omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors in assigning weight.

Keiderling v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-19(c)(2)-(6)

When an administrative law judge does not accord a treating source's opinion controlling weight, he or she must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the opinion's supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, the treating source's area of specialization, and any other relevant factors to determine the weight the opinion deserves. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to determine whether a treating source opinion receives controlling weight and, if not, to defer to and weigh it using the listed factors.

Adam v. Saul · filed 2020-11-20(c)

An ALJ must adhere to certain requirements when considering treating source medical opinions. Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Among those requirements is that the ALJ first must follow a process to determine if a treating source medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight. Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). If the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight under that process, the opinion is still entitled to deference and must be weighed using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion, while subsection (c)(2) permits controlling weight only when the opinion is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Luthy v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-25(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ was required to weigh several factors in determining the weight to be accorded to the treating physicians’ opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, *4. The ALJ does not need to discuss each factor, see Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007), but the ALJ must nevertheless consider each factor and “give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); Romo v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv-02248-WJM, 2017 WL 3911071, at *5 (D. Colo. Sept. 7, 2017). ... With the exception of Dr. Pendleton’s opinion, the ALJ gave each of the treating physicians’ opinions “little weight.” See R. at 49. The Court finds that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons for doing so. ... Because the ALJ applied the correct legal standard and identified why the treating sources opinions were inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s decision not to give the treating sources controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527, a treating-source opinion must be evaluated through a two-step controlling-weight/deference inquiry, weighed using the listed factors, and accompanied by sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned.

Miller v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(c)

“[C]ase law, the applicable regulations, and the Commissioner’s pertinent Social Security Ruling (SSR) all make clear that in evaluating the medical opinions of a claimant’s treating physician, the ALJ must complete a sequential two-step inquiry, each step of which is analytically distinct.” ... In the second step, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 CFR [§§] 404.1527 and 416.927. In many cases, a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.” ... “[A]n ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reason for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) generally gives more weight to a treating source’s medical opinion when the source has treated the claimant longer and seen the claimant more often, especially when the source has developed a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

Wise v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(c)(2)(i)

The frequency and nature of contact between a doctor and patient are relevant factors in weighing a doctor’s medical opinion: ... Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion. 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 medical source’s medical opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i); 20 C.F.R. 416.927(c)(2)(i) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every listed factor when evaluating a medical opinion, so long as the decision as a whole shows due consideration.

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

As for Ms. Velazquez’s argument that the ALJ failed to consider the factors in evaluating a medical opinion as outlined in the regulations, there is no requirement that the ALJ explicitly mention every factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, generally give treating-source opinions more weight, give a treating-source opinion controlling weight unless it is unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence, and explain discounting it by considering the specified treatment and examining relationships.

Croft v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-04(c)

ALJs are required to consider every medical opinion in a claimant’s records. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). A medical opinion from a treating source is generally given more weight because of the medical professional’s longitudinal experience with the claimant’s impairments and treatment. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating source opinion is given controlling weight unless the ALJ finds that the opinion (1) is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” or (2) is inconsistent with “the other substantial evidence” in the case record. Id. Where a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, length of relationship and frequency of visits, and nature and extent of the relationship to explain why the opinion is discounted. Id. § 404.1527(c); see also Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 263 (7th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to treating-source opinions and, when assigning less than controlling weight, to consider relevant factors and give good reasons.

Williams v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-07(c)(2)

SSA regulations provide that an ALJ should “[g]enerally, . . . give more weight to opinions from [claimant's] treating sources.” See Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Although the ALJ need not expressly discuss all of these factors, he must fully consider them and give “good reasons” for his weighting of the treating physician’s opinions. See id.; see also Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258 (citing SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *5 (Aug. 9, 2006)) (recognizing that “[n]ot every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as the length, frequency, and nature of the treating relationship and the supportability of a treating physician’s opinion when the opinion is not assigned controlling weight.

Pfirsch v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-10(c)

The ALJ also erred in her treatment of Dr. Mueller’s opinion by failing to consider the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). When analyzing a treating physician’s opinion to which the ALJ has not assigned controlling weight, the ALJ must “consider factors such as the length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, or the supportability of the opinion.” Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676. The ALJ did not engage in the required analysis and gave no indication that she considered these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh treating-source opinions using the listed factors and give sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned, but a procedural omission is harmless when the decision meets the safeguard’s purpose.

Ross v. SSA · filed 2020-12-22(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ should have more intentionally and extensively discussed the rule and the seven §404.1527(c)(2)-(6) factors. ... Yet, despite those lapses, her decision still provides “sufficient reasons for giving less weight to treating-source opinions” in a manner that makes clear to Ross the reasons for the denial and provides enough evidence for meaningful review. ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly supported her decision not to afford Dr. Overstreet controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant listed factors and determine the appropriate weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is not given controlling weight.

Roemer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-15(c)

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(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical-source opinions using the regulatory criteria before deciding what weight to give them.

Moody v. Saul · filed 2020-12-22(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ failed to evaluate the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) in deciding not to give Dr. Stanley’s opinions controlling weight, committing reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Here, the ALJ found that the opinions of Drs. Stone and Peterson were not supported by the objective evidence in the record and was inconsistent with the treatment record. Therefore, they were not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion consistent with substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to give good reasons when declining controlling weight.

Pack v. SSA · filed 2020-12-23(c)(2)

The regulations provide: If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion. ... The regulations also contain a clear procedural requirement that an ALJ must give “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician's opinion, specific enough “to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... Failure to follow the procedural requirement denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the ALJ’s conclusion may otherwise be justified on the record. ... Here, the ALJ explained that he assigned only little weight to Dr. Reese’s assessment because other evidence in the record did not support Dr. Reese’s evaluation. [Tr. 34.] ... Here, that was not the case and the ALJ reasonably provided little weight to Dr. Reese’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when a treating opinion lacks controlling weight.

Cooley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-30(c)(2)

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). ... If a treating physician’s opinion is not given “controlling weight,” because it is not “well-supported” or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ should consider specific factors in determining the weight it will be given, including the nature of the treatment relationship, the quality of explanation provided, and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; Orn, 495 F.3d at 631.

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 physician’s opinion, but a limited relationship alone cannot support rejecting it.

(SS) Sutter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-04(c)(2)(i)

An ALJ may consider the length and frequency of treatment in evaluating what weight to give the opinion of a treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i); see also Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2003) (duration of treatment relationship and frequency and nature of contact relevant in weighing opinion); Allen v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 498 Fed. App’x 696, 697 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding a “limited treatment relationship with [the claimant] was a specific and legitimate reason to assign little weight” to the treating physician’s opinion). However, a limited treatment relationship cannot alone support the rejection of a treating physician’s opinion. Rodriguez v. Berryhill, 2017 WL 896304 at *10 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2017); see also Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that while a limited treating relationship may be a valid reason for not giving controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, “it is not by itself a basis for rejecting them”). Thus, this factor alone cannot support the ALJ’s decision to reject the physical functional limitations identified by Dr. Kerr in his medical statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires treating-source medical opinions to receive deference and to be weighed using the listed regulatory factors, with good reasons given for the assigned weight.

Barela v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-04(c)

Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... Following consideration of the pertinent factors, an ALJ must “give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed under the listed treatment, specialty, supportability, and consistency factors, without requiring a formulaic discussion.

Helmick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-04(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 opinion of the treating doctor does not meet these “controlling weight” criteria, this does not mean that the opinion must be rejected; rather, it “may still be entitled to deference and be adopted by the adjudicator.” Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *1. 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. However, a formulaic discussion of these factors is not required. Friend v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F. App’x 543, 551 (6th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give greater weight to a treating source’s opinion because the source has treated the claimant.

Jack Hostetter, Jr. v. Saul · filed 2021-01-05(c)(2)

The ALJ appropriately credited Dr. Kleinman’s assessment over those of the two state consultants because he actually treated Hostetter. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (evaluating opinion evidence from treating sources); Hall v. Berryhill, 906 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Treadaway v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-07(c)(2)

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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and requires consideration of the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization when assigning less weight.

Young v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-13(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source will be given controlling weight if it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)1. When assigning less than “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the four factors announced in Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). ... Those factors, referred to as “the Burgess factors,” are “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). A reviewing court should remand for failure to consider explicitly the Burgess factors unless a searching review of the record shows that the ALJ has provided “good reasons” for its weight assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to meaningfully consider each listed factor, although a detailed factor-by-factor discussion is unnecessary.

Dowling v. Commissioner of SSA · filed 2021-01-21(c)

While an ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician, it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Oswald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight, but is not outcome determinative and only entitled to significant weight when “‘well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Crowell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 705 Fed. Appx. 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008), and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its specific weight using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Kidd v. Saul · filed 2021-01-27(c)

The ALJ further erred in his analysis when he failed to utilize the regulatory factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). If the ALJ does not give the treating physician opinion controlling weight, the ALJ cannot simply disregard it, but must determine what specific weight it should be given. To accomplish this, the ALJ must look to a list of factors to determine what weight to give an opinion. See Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). The list of factors includes the following: examining relationship, treatment relationship (length and nature of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, along with nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless good cause supports less weight, and explain the weight assigned and the reasons for it.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-29(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; 3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; 4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence); see also Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight where: 1) the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; 2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or 3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. The ALJ must state the weight assigned to each medical opinion, and articulate the reasons supporting the weight assigned. Id. The failure to state the weight with particularity or articulate the reasons in support of the assigned weight prohibits the Court from determining whether the ALJ’s ultimate decision is rational and supported by substantial evidence. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to address its listed factors when assigning less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion in the absence of another first-hand or examining medical opinion.

Young v. Saul · filed 2021-01-25(c)

The Court agrees that that the ALJ erred when, in the absence of any other first-hand or examining medical opinion, the ALJ failed to address the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 when setting forth her basis for affording less than controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Ronda L. Stocks v. Saul · filed 2021-02-02(c)

Under the treating physician rule applicable to claims filed before 2017, an ALJ who chooses not to credit a treating source’s opinion “must offer good reasons for doing so and must address the appropriate weight to give the opinion.” ... The ALJ should weigh the opinion based on the length, frequency, nature, specialty, and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as its consistency and support in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion must still be weighed under the listed factors and discounted only with specific reasons explaining the weight assigned.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion must be given “controlling weight” if such opinion (1) “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... However, “a finding that a treating source medical opinion . . . is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record means only that the opinion is not entitled to ‘controlling weight,’ not that the opinion should be rejected.” ... Indeed, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... If the ALJ determines a treating source opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must provide ‘good reasons’ for discounting [the opinion], reasons that are ‘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(c) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability, and minimally articulate the reasons.

Dennis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-04(c)

The ALJ’s decision to afford “limited weight” to Dr. Arbuckle’s treating source statement does not meet the level of analysis required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). When an ALJ decides against giving a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ largely did not address those considerations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider five factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor.

De Jesus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(c)

In rendering this determination, the ALJ must consider: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s area of specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). While the ALJ is required to consider each of these factors, it is not mandatory that he explicitly address them in his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating source's medical opinion if it is not given controlling weight.

Jackson v. Saul · filed 2021-02-03(c)(2)-(6)

When an ALJ does not assign controlling weight to a treating source's medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the following when determining the weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and its nature and extent; (2) the supportability of the opinion; (3) the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the source is a specialist; and (5) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all six factors when weighing a treating-source medical opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis in the written decision.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(c)

Although an ALJ is required to consider all six factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), an ALJ is not required to set forth an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” in his decision. The ALJ’s determination addressed the fact that Dr. Brauch’s opinion was directed at an issue reserved to the Commissioner, the opinion lacked a function-by-function analysis, and the opinion was not supported by or consistent with other record evidence. In short, the ALJ’s explanation was sufficiently specific to make clear the weight that he assigned Dr. Brauch’s opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the opinion to be weighed using specified factors with good reasons given for the assigned weight.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-17(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight if it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not-inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). If a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the following factors in determining what weight to give the opinion: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. ... In addition, an ALJ must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider the regulatory factors in deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Spalty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-11(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3)–(6)

If the ALJ chose not to give Dr. Baciewicz’s opinion controlling weight, it should then have applied the Burgess factors, including the amount of time she treated Plaintiff and her specialization in psychiatry, in explaining the weight he did give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight than a consulting physician’s opinion, but a contrary opinion may prevail when the treating opinion has been properly discounted.

Sauls v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(c)(2)

Although a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a consulting physician’s opinion, see Wilson v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 513, 518 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), “[t]he opinions of state agency physicians” can outweigh the contrary opinion of a treating physician if “that opinion has been properly discounted,” Cooper v. Astrue, No. 8:06-cv-1863-T-27TGW, 2008 WL 649244, *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to evaluate medical opinions under its treating-source rules and explain the weight assigned to qualifying treating-source opinions.

Lwanga v. Saul · filed 2021-02-26(c)

The parties agree that evaluation of the opinion evidence here is governed by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, as Lwanga submitted her original application for benefits before the amended versions of these regulations took effect. ... The record establishes that both Dr. Mintzer (Lwanga’s primary care physician for all of the relevant time period) and Dr. Manigut (whom Lwanga saw nine times in 2014 and 2015 for management of her psychiatric medications, including days before her alleged onset date), qualify as “treating sources” under those regulations. ... On remand, in reconsidering the opinion evidence and reassessing Lwanga’s RFC, the agency shall explain its decision regarding what weight to accord the opinions of Drs. Mintzer and Manigut with reference to the regulations governing treating source evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

Rieves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-02(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, ... (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... Dr. Oliveros’s opinion that Plaintiff needed to avoid prolonged/repetitive use of the hands and to allow for frequent microbreaks speaks directly about Plaintiff’s functional limitations, is not on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and does not seem to be vague. Moreover, this opinion is supported by the evidence of record, including the electrodiagnostic tests that took place on the same dates, the examination findings and impressions, and Plaintiff’s statements to his treating providers.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, and treatment noncompliance may be considered in deciding whether to give that weight.

Biglari v. Saul · filed 2021-03-02(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given controlling weight, though it is not entitled to it. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... It is well established in the Eighth Circuit that a failure to follow prescribed medical treatment can be considered in determining whether to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. ... Employing the same reasoning, a failure to follow treatment recommendations may also be considered in weighing a treating physician’s opinion evidence. See Bernard v. Colvin, 774 F.3d 482, 487 (8th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the weight to assign it by considering the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Zlomke v. Saul · filed 2021-03-01(c)(3)-(4)

If an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine what weight, if any, to assign to the opinion by considering the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, but permits an ALJ to assign it less weight with good reasons and requires consideration of specified factors.

Kase v. Saul · filed 2020-05-18(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to a medical opinion when its source provides a better explanation for it.

DAVIS v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-18(c)(3)

But ALJs may reject treating physicians' opinions if they give a "sound explanation" for doing so. Jelinek, 662 F.3d at 811. The ALJ did so here by following the treating-physician regulation and explaining that Dr. Woodall's opinion was "without any rationale for [its] conclusions." Dkt. 8-2 at 20; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) ("The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to provide good reasons and consider factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Cerveny v. Saul · filed 2020-07-24(c)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ decides that the opinion does not deserve controlling weight, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for this decision and must consider: the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, record support for the opinion, the opinion’s consistency, the extent to which the opinion is connected with the physician’s specialization, and other relevant factors. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported medical opinion that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Trimble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-03(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to apply the listed factors and explain their application with sufficient specificity.

Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(d)(2)

To determine what weight a treating physician’s opinion is given, an ALJ must apply certain factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). These factors include: “(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion, with respect to relevant evidence such as medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician rendering the opinion; and (6) any other factor raised by the applicant.” ... However, the ALJ’s decision did not discuss with any specificity how previous examinations were inconsistent, and did not explain at any level her application of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors—including treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization—when assigning weight to a treating source’s medical opinion.

Arambasich v. Saul · filed 2020-08-18(c)

Even if there were sound reasons for refusing to give the opinion controlling weight, the ALJ still erred by assigning it little weight without considering relevant regulatory factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (i.e., length, nature, and extent of treatment relationship; opinion’s consistency with other evidence; explanatory support for the opinion; and any specialty of the treating physician).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source medical opinion using all listed regulatory factors even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Dighton v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(d)(2)

Even if a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability, while requiring only minimally articulated reasoning for discounting the opinion.

GRADY v. SAUL · filed 2020-10-26(c)

"If an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion." Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (citing Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, so long as the ALJ "minimally articulates" her reasoning for discounting a treating source opinion, the Court must uphold the determination. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of benefits where ALJ discussed only two of the relevant factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). ... The ALJ's RFC is supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ adequately explained why controlling weight was not given to Dr. Basom's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the Commissioner to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion after declining to give it controlling weight.

Bayne v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-26(c)(2)-(6)

Although Plaintiff argues these grounds for assigning limited weight are flawed, the court disagrees and finds them valid reasons to discount the opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) (including the nature and extent of treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency of the opinion with the record as factors to be considered in weighing treating physician opinions). Therefore, the court agrees with the Report the ALJ’s error regarding more aggressive treatment is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion, including an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, under the listed factors even though it is not entitled to controlling weight.

German v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-26(a)(1), (c)(2)-(6)

Notably, not every physician’s opinion is a “medical opinion” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). For example, a treating physician’s opinion an applicant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not an opinion that must be given controlling weight or special significance. ... Nevertheless, a treating physician’s opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner “must never be ignored.” ... The Commissioner “must evaluate all the evidence in the case record to determine the extent to which the opinion is supported by the record” by applying factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally favors opinions from examining sources, but an ALJ need not expressly apply every listed factor if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned; under § 404.1527(d)(2)-(3), opinions addressing residual functional capacity are reserved to the Commissioner and are not entitled to controlling weight.

Montoya v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-05(c)(1), (c), (d)(2)-(3)

In weighing medical source opinions, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) states, “Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.” ... There is no requirement, though, mandating “an ALJ’s decision to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” ... Rather, an ALJ must only provide “good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the treating sources’ opinions.” ... “Opinions on some issues . . . are not medical opinions,” such as “medical sources . . . to provide evidence[] . . . on . . . residual functional capacity.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). These types of medical source opinions are “reserved to the Commissioner.” Id. ... Dr. O’Neill opined that Plaintiff could not return to his past work and that he was unable to perform sedentary work. AR 747, 751. Those opinions speak directly to Plaintiff’s “residual functional capacity” and are not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3); see Titles II & XVI: Med. Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Comm'r, SSR 96-5P (S.S.A. July 2, 1996) (“However, treating source opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner are never entitled to controlling weight or special significance.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but does not require an explicit factor-by-factor discussion if the ALJ's explanation permits meaningful review.

BYERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-09(c)(1)-(6)

An ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and 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; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6). ... “[a]n ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor in his [or her] decision.” ... “Instead, an ALJ need only ‘explain his [or her] evaluation of the medical evidence for the district court to meaningfully review whether his [or her] reasoning accords with the regulation’s standards.’” ... Although the ALJ did not explicitly go through a factor-by-factor analysis, she specifically considered Dr. Abbas’ numerous examinations of Plaintiff from 2014 through 2016, and factored in Dr. Abbas’s treating relationship with Plaintiff when explaining the weight assigned to that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) provides that, when a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighed using factors including the treatment relationship and consistency with the record.

New v. Saul · filed 2021-03-17(c)(2)-(6)

In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, and to give good reasons when declining controlling weight.

Schwegel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(c)

It the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must give good reasons for doing so after considering factors such as “(1) whether the physician examined the claimant, (2) whether the physician treated the claimant, and if so, the duration of overall treatment and the thoroughness and frequency of examinations, (3) whether other medical evidence supports the physician’s opinion, (4) whether the physician’s opinion is consistent with the record, and (5) whether the opinion relates to the physician’s specialty.” Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 252 (7th Cir. 2016); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In his discussion of the relevant weighing factors, the ALJ need not mention every factor and need only minimally articulate good reasons for his decision, a very lax standard. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider the length and nature of a treating relationship when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Allison v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-24(c)(2)(i)

The length and nature of a treating relationship is an important factor in determining the weight given to a medical opinion.

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 source’s opinion, but that articulation requirement does not apply to a medical source who is not a treating, acceptable medical source.

Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(c)(2)

While the ALJ is required to give “good reasons” for the weight assigned a treating source’s opinion, Wilson, 378 F.3d at 545, this articulation requirement does not apply when an ALJ evaluates the report of a medical source such as PA Parniske, who is not a treating, acceptable ... medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to meaningfully weigh the relevant factors when evaluating a treating-source medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26(c)

In light of the regulations, error was committed to the extent that the ALJ failed to meaningfully weigh the relevant factors set forth in in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if the decision states with particularity the weight assigned and the reasons for it.

Ward v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(c)

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.” Eyre v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App'x 521, 523 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (e), 416.927(c) & (e)). While “the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors[,]” Lawton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App’x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished); accord Brock v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 758 F. App'x 745, 751 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires treating-source medical opinions to remain entitled to deference and to be weighed using all of the regulatory factors, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Vader v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30

That does not mean, however, that the opinion should be rejected, for “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not set forth specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Allsing’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to consider factors such as examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion.

Delucco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)

The Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to employ when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion.

Jimenez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30

The factors that the ALJ “must consider” include: (i) The frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sullivan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)-(6)

A treating physician's opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... “When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.” ... “If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including support, consistency, specialization, and the treatment relationship, but an ALJ need not discuss every factor if the important factors were considered.

Berndt, Virginia v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-04-13(c)

The regulations in effect at the time stated that a medical-source opinion was to be evaluated under a framework that required consideration of several factors, including the support and explanation provided for the opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the medical record as a whole, the source’s specialization, and any other factors that “tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(6). Additional factors relevant to a treating source’s opinion included the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ wasn’t required to discuss each of these factors so long as she considered those that were important to the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, the record as a whole, the physician’s specialty, and other relevant factors.

Gutzmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-16(c)(1)-(6)

In determining the weight given to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ should consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent record as a whole, the physician’s specialties, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). ... In addition to failing to provide any “good reasoning,” the ALJ made no mention of the regulatory factors that she was required to analyze when she gave little weight to the opinion of Dr. Macabalitaw, a treating physician. Therefore, the ALJ erred by discounting Dr. Macabalitaw’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a non-controlling treating-source opinion deference and weigh it using all of the listed regulatory factors.

Lay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-22(c)(2)

This was in error because even where a treating source opinion is not controlling, the treating source opinion is nevertheless “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527...” Soc. Sec. R. 96-2p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9, 1996 WL 374188, at *8.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) provides that examining, treating, and specialist opinions are generally given more weight than non-examining, non-treating, and non-specialist opinions, respectively.

Kemmet, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-28(c)

The opinions of examining physicians are generally given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating, and specialists more than non-specialists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record, and otherwise to weigh it using the regulatory factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Cottrell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-28(c)(2)-(6)

The Commissioner must afford controlling weight to a treating physician opinion when it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... If the opinion is not controlling, then the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors, which include “the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence.” ... Additionally, in discounting the weight given to a treating physician opinion, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” that are “supported by the evidence in the case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-29(c)(2)

Under the regulations governing claims filed before March 27, 2017, if a treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, it should be given controlling weight.2 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record, and otherwise evaluate it under specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Kilps v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-02(d)(2)

Under the Social Security rulings and regulations, treating source opinions must be given special consideration. ... If the ALJ finds that the opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ may not simply reject the opinion. ... She still must evaluate the opinion’s weight by looking at the length, nature and extent of the plaintiff and physician’s treatment relationship, the degree to which the opinion is supported by 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, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for her decision. 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).

Under § 404.1527(d)(2), an ALJ should adopt a treating-source opinion unless it is not well supported or is inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

DiMasse v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-22(d)(2)

Because Dr. Manlove was a treating source, the ALJ should have adopted his opinion unless it was not well supported or it was inconsistent with other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Social Security Ruling 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *3 (Social Security Administration, July 2, 1996).

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and otherwise weigh it using the listed factors with good reasons.

Lechner v. Barnhart · filed 2004-06-14(d)

Under the Commissioner’s Rulings and Regulations, the ALJ evaluates medical opinions differently depending on the source. Opinions from the claimant’s treating physician (a/k/a “treating source”) are entitled to special consideration. ... In some instances — where the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and “not inconsistent” with other substantial evidence — the ALJ must afford it “controlling weight.” ... Even if the ALJ finds that the treating source 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 plaintiffs 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.” ... “Regardless of the weight the ALJ ultimately gives the treating source opinion, she must always ‘give good reasons’ for her decision.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating source's medical opinion substantial, potentially controlling weight, while reserving the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner; a chiropractor is not entitled to the special consideration given to a treating physician.

Lucido v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-31(e)

Chiropractors are not granted the same status as other licensed medical practitioners under the rules governing social security claims. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 (2003). Therefore, deGarmeaux’s treatment relationship was not entitled to the special consideration of a treating physician under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... As a treating source, Mendelson normally should be given substantial, if not controlling, weight for his opinion in regard to Lucido’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 404.1513. However, the Commissioner retains ultimate authority as to the conclusion of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to apply the listed regulatory factors when determining the weight of a treating source's opinion after declining to give it controlling weight.

Stafford v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-16(d)

Since ALJ Williams elected not to give Dr. Beaudry’s opinions controlling weight, he was required to determine how much weight to give them by applying the regulatory analysis described above. ALJ Williams cited not only the regulation (20 C.F.R. § 404.1527), but also its implementing rulings, Social Security Rulings 96-2p and 96-6p, prior to discussing medical evidence. ... ALJ Williams committed no legal error when determining how much weight to give treating-physician Beaudry’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating-source opinion that lacks controlling weight is not automatically rejected; its weight is assessed using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-03-01(d)

Even when a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight because it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it does not necessarily mean that the opinion should be completely rejected; the weight to be given to the opinion is determined by a set of factors that guides the weight given to the medical opinion, including treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. See Social Security Ruling 96-2p (July 2, 1996): Titles II and XVI: Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions (SSR 96-2p); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical-source opinions under the treating-physician rule, giving a supported, consistent treating opinion controlling weight and explaining any rejection with specific, legitimate reasons.

Garcia v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-13(d)

Thus, it was critical for the A LJ to properly assess these findings in light of Dr. M aldonado’s treatment relationship with M r. Garcia, as prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... The second impediment to our review is the ALJ’s failure to discuss the two primary opposing medical sources, Dr. M aldonado and Dr. Schenck, specifically in relation to each other and the scheme set out in § 404.1527(d) for the evaluation of medical source opinions. ... For our purposes, it will suffice to note that (1) “[t]he ALJ is required to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician as long as the opinion is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record,” and (2) “[w]hen an ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion, he must articulate specific, legitimate reasons for his decision,” Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1215 (quotation omitted).

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

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

Dean v. Barnhart · filed 2006-02-06(d)(2)

In light of treating physician Dr. Grinman’s instructions to Plaintiff, the court concludes that the ALJ should have included the additional restrictions on exposure to heat, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, and dehydration into the RFC assessment, or at the very least, the ALJ should have articulated her reasons for discounting these additional restrictions. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”).

Law changed since 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) generally gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when supported by the record, but permits less weight for good cause stated with particularity.

Brown v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-06-09(c)(2)

As a general rule, the opinion of a treating source is typically given “controlling weight” when supported by the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). However, in the Eleventh Circuit, “controlling weight” need not be given to a treating physician’s opinion, if there is “good cause” shown for rejecting it. Stewart v. Comm’r of the SSA, 746 Fed. App’x. 851, 854 (11th Cir. 2018). See Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997) (“testimony of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary”) (citations omitted). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). An ALJ that discredits or assigns less weight to a treating source’s opinion for good cause “must state reasons for doing so with particularity, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” ... Because the ALJ determined the objective medical records from these dates were inconsistent with Dr. Townsend’s opinions in the Clinical Assessment of Pain Form, and because the ALJ adequately described her rationale for discounting those opinions, the ALJ did not err in assigning Dr. Townsend’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assess the listed factors when weighing a treating source’s opinion and explain specifically the reasons for the weight assigned.

Ingram v. Saul · filed 2021-06-09(c)

Instead of discussing why he did not find Plaintiff’s treating providers’ opinions to be credible, the ALJ merely made one-sentence statements to justify his decision, without mentioning any of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c). By performing such a “perfunctory” analysis, the ALJ failed to adequately explain the reason why he accorded less weight to these opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to use the listed factors to determine the weight of a medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Miles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-14(c)

Under the regulations applicable to plaintiff's applications, a treating source opinion can be given controlling weight, but only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and is also “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” of record. 20 C.F.R. §8§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). If an opinion from a medical source is not entitled to controlling weight, as is the case here, the Commissioner will then determine what weight it should be given using the factors listed in paragraph (c) of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Schotz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-26(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight if it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). ... In addition, an ALJ must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Therefore, although the ALJ failed to analyze Dr. Papadakis’ opinion for controlling weight, the error was harmless. The ALJ thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and explained the “good reasons” for giving Dr. Papadakis’ opinion “little weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight and determine the appropriate weight to give it.

Wiedmaier v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-13(c)(1)–(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(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(ii) and (c)(3) favor more weight when a provider has a longer, more knowledgeable treatment relationship and supports the opinion with relevant evidence and an explanation.

BORGES v. SAUL · filed 2021-07-19(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)

Moreover, the record indicates that Dr. Valbuena provided only limited treatment of Plaintiff. “The ALJ generally grants more weight to a medical opinion the longer a medical provided has treated a claimant and the more knowledge that the provider has about a claimant’s impairment.” Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F. App’x 858, 860 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (ii)). Indeed, in her 2018 assessment, Dr. Valbuena details that her department treated the Plaintiff a total of seven times since the time of the alleged onset of disability in September, 2015, and provides no information regarding how many times of the seven she personally saw Plaintiff. ECF No. [16] at 572. ... “The ALJ assigns more weight to a provider’s opinion based on the amount of ‘relevant evidence’ provided to support it, as well as the strength of her explanation.” Ross, 794 F. App’x at 860-61 (citing 20 C.FR. § 404.1527(c)(3). Dr. Valbuena’s 2018 assessment provides no explanation or evidence to support her conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good-cause reasons to assign it little weight.

Doerr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-26(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). ... In sum, pursuant to Simon, the ALJ failed to provide good cause reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to give little weight to Dr. Gates’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Benaderet v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-01(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2), the agency generally gives more weight “to medical opinions from [] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the plaintiff’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” The agency gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of impairments if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). ... The plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s conclusions. But that disagreement is not sufficient to demonstrate error on the ALJ’s part. The ALJ was correct that “counselors” do not appear on the list of “acceptable medical sources” in the Social Security regulation. The ALJ was entitled to consider whether Simmerer’s report contained a function-by-function analysis. The ALJ’s concern that Simmerer had not seen the plaintiff for three years before the report was a valid one. And the ALJ was entitled to give first-hand accounts greater weight. None of these means that Simmerer was not a good or experienced counselor. But that is not the standard the ALJ is required to follow. The plaintiff has not demonstrated that the ALJ erred in giving Simmerer’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, otherwise weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons for discounting it.

Wildenberg, Bradley v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-09-08(c)(2)-(6)

Under the treating physician rule in effect at the time of plaintiff’s application, the ALJ had to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it was “well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Stage v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 1121, 1126 (7th Cir. 2016); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ has to assign it a weight based on factors such as the length and nature of the physician-patient relationship, the opinion’s consistency with the record and the physician’s area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Kaminski v. Berryhill, 894 F.3d 870, 875 (7th Cir. 2018). An ALJ who chooses not to credit a treating source’s opinion must offer “good reasons” for not doing so. Stage, 812 F.3d at 1126; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, requires consideration of treatment, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors, and treats disability, residual functional capacity, and vocational-factor opinions as issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Starling v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-27(c)(2)-(6), (d)

The Commissioner’s regulations require “controlling weight” be given to medical opinions from treating physicians: “[i]f [the Commissioner] find[s] that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). In determining if this weight applies, the Commissioner must consider the following factors: the length of the treatment relationship between the physician and the claimant and frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; how the physician’s opinion is supported by the medical evidence; the consistency of their opinion with the record; whether the physician is a specialist; and any other factors supporting or contradicting the medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2)-(6). ... Moreover, opinions such as whether a claimant is disabled, the claimant’s RFC, and the application of vocational factors “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); see also Bell v. Bowen, 796 F.2d 1350, 1353-54 (11th Cir. 1986) (although a claimant’s physician may state he is disabled or unable to work, “the agency will nevertheless determine disability based upon the medical findings and other evidence”); Pate v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 678 F. App’x 833, 834 (11th Cir. 2017) (“[A]lthough the Commissioner will consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as the RFC and the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding those issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”). In short, “the task of determining a claimant’s ability to work is within the province of the ALJ, not of doctors.” Robinson v. Astrue, 365 F. App’x 993, 999 (11th Cir. 2010). However, the court is interested in the physicians’ evaluations of the claimant’s “condition and the medical consequences thereof, not their opinions of the legal consequences of the condition.” Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source medical opinion using the specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Praytor v. SSA · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

Even if a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, "[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527." Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. Those factors are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician's opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. at 1300-01 (quotation omitted). After considering these factors, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires the agency to weigh it using specified factors and give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Schmitt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-15(c)(2)

“If the ALJ does not accord controlling weight to a treating physician, the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406 (citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (eff. Aug. 24, 2012). “In addition to balancing the factors to determine what weight to give a treating source opinion denied controlling weight, the agency specifically requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight actually assigned.” Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931, 938 (2011); § 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.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight to a treating source's opinion, but that requirement does not apply to a non-treating source's opinion.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-20(c)(2)

Because the FCE at issue here was not the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ did not err in declining to afford it controlling weight. Moreover, even if the ALJ failed to give good reasons for affording the FCE less than controlling weight, this failure was not error because the “good reasons” requirement applies only to the opinions of a treating source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source medical opinions the most weight and typically requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned, while opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner receive no controlling weight or special significance.

Medina v. SSA · filed 2022-02-28(c)(2), (d)(2), (d)(3)

Treating source opinions are given the most weight because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairments(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).2 The ALJ is typically required to give “good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] [the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. However, the ‘‘treating physician rule’ only applies to medical opinions” and thus the treating source’s opinion is “not entitled to controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Brugman v. Saul · filed 2022-03-01(c)(2)-(6)

Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, if the Social Security Administration finds that a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” the Social Security Administration will give that opinion “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Where the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion based on several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the level of specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in declining to assign a weight to the remainder of Dr. Mattingly’s letter. ... Furthermore, Dr. Mattingly’s letter was supported only by a brief description of Plaintiff’s condition the day he wrote his letter and a list of her medications. “[A]n ALJ may discount a treating source opinion that is unsupported by treatment notes.” ... See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). As such, the ALJ’s decision to not assign the remainder of Dr. Mattingly’s letter a specific weight was not error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source’s medical opinion to meaningfully consider the listed factors before deciding how much weight to give it.

Lynch v. Berryhill · filed 2022-03-07(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ did not discuss or acknowledge the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) as instructed by Dowling. ... Moreover, while the ALJ’s explanation arguably touches on these factors, the ALJ did not actually mention or acknowledge the factors, or otherwise given any indication that she considered the necessary factors. ... Accordingly, the Court is unable to conclude that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and remand is warranted for further consideration of this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight and otherwise directs its evaluation under factors including the treatment relationship and consistency.

Lim v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-09(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to treating-source medical opinions, requires controlling weight when an opinion is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Cotton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-10(c)(2)

Under the regulation applicable to this claim, the agency generally gives more weight to medical opinions from treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairments and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the agency will give it “controlling weight.” Id. If the opinion is not given controlling weight, the agency will determine how much weight it should receive, considering the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(5). “We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions greater weight, allows controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and consistent with the record, and permits lesser weight when the opinion conflicts with objective evidence or treatment notes.

Gorney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-12(c)(2)

In deciding what weight to afford competing medical opinions and evidence, the ALJ is guided by factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). ... Treating sources have the closest ties to the claimant, and therefore their opinions generally were entitled to more weight. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)(“Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating ... sources...”); 20 C.F.R. §404.1502 (defining treating source). Under some circumstances, the medical opinion of a treating source may even be entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§04.1527(c)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (explaining that controlling weight may be given to a treating source’s medical opinion only where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record). ... Given that an ALJ may discount a treating source opinion when it conflicts with other objective tests or examination results, Johnson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 529 F.3d 198, 202–03 (3d Cir. 2008), or when there are material discrepancies between the treating source’s medical opinion and the doctor’s actual treatment notes, Torres v. Barnhart, 139 F. App'x 411, 415 (3d Cir. 2005), these findings, which are supported by the evidentiary record, fully justified the ALJ’s decision to afford little weight to Dr. Bobek’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of medical opinions and gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, specified factors determine its weight.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-06(c)(2)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions in evaluating a claimant’s applications for benefits. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Under the regulations applicable to claims, like Plaintiff’s, filed before March 27, 2017, the opinion of a treating provider must be accorded controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), (4), 416.927(c)(2), (4). ... If the treating source opinion is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must then consider the following factors in deciding the weight to be given to any medical opinion, including that of the treating source: the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the length of the treatment relationship and 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, the specialization of the source rendering the opinion, and other factors that “tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). ... In short, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Solhein’s opinion is adequately explained, is supported by substantial evidence, and complied with the governing regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the agency weighs it using the regulation’s factors.

(SS) Fickardt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(c)(2)

For Social Security claims filed prior to March 27, 2017 (as plaintiff’s was), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 provides the framework used by the Administration for evaluating medical opinions. That regulation provides that the Administration will give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment 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). If not given controlling weight, the agency considers the following factors to determine how much weight to give the opinion: ... In addition, in evaluating any medical opinions (not just those from treating sources), the agency gives greater weight to opinions that are: (1) from someone who has examined the claimant; (2) supported by relevant evidence; (3) consistent with the record; (4) from someone with a relevant specialization; and (5) supported by any other factors brought to the agency’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Accordingly, the court finds no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinions of plaintiff’s treatment providers.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, consider specified factors when the opinion is not adopted, explain the weight assigned, and apply the same factors to opinions from providers who are not acceptable medical sources.

Bird v. Saul · filed 2022-09-26(a)(2), (c)(2)-(6), (f)

A "treating source" is an acceptable medical source who provided the claimant with medical treatment and who had an ongoing relationship with her. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). "An administrative law judge must give controlling weight to the opinion of a 'treating source' when that opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with substantial evidence in the record." ... When an ALJ does not adopt a treating source's opinion, "he . . . must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the opinion's supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, the treating source's area of specialization, and any other relevant factors to determine the weight the opinion deserves." ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). "[T]he regulations require the ALJ to explain the weight given to a treating source opinion and the [specific] reasons supporting that decision." ... As to the opinions from medical care providers who are not acceptable medical sources, the ALJ is required to apply the same factors used to weigh the acceptable medical source opinions and to explain the weight assigned to the opinions in a way that permits the claimant and the subsequent reviewer to follow the ALJ's reasoning. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to defer to a treating-source opinion even when it is not given controlling weight and to weigh it using all six regulatory factors.

Contreras v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-30(c)(1)–(6)

But even if the ALJ does not afford the treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ owes that opinion deference and must weigh that opinion using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). ... However, again, Plaintiff fails to identify any record evidence from Dr. Offutt (or anyone else) during the relevant period through the date last insured that noted severe lower extremity impairments and related functional limitations that she claims the ALJ failed to consider in affording Dr. Offutt’s opinions little weight. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that the ALJ committed harmful error by affording little weight to Dr. Offutt’s essentially ex post facto opinions for which he did not provide any underlying support. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in his evaluation of Dr. Offutt’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who gives a treating-source opinion non-controlling weight to weigh it using the treatment relationship, the source's specialty, the opinion's consistency with the record, and relevant supporting evidence.

Pruitt v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2022-09-28(c)(2)-(6)

First, the ALJ failed to analyze and discuss the relevant regulatory factors that supported his decision to give Dr. Narola’s opinion non-controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(c), a treating-source medical opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ evaluates it under factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

ROMAN CARABALLO v. SAUL · filed 2022-10-27(c)

However, as the Acting Commissioner responds, a treating source’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is both: “(1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” ... If these factors are not present, “then the ALJ is free to give that opinion less than controlling weight or even reject it, so long as the ALJ clearly explains her reasons and makes a clear record.” ... In such cases, the treating source’s opinion “is evaluated and weighed under the same standards applied to all other medical opinions, taking into account numerous factors including the opinion’s supportability, consistency and specialization.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the regulatory factors when deciding what lesser weight to give it after declining controlling weight.

Espinoza v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-09(c)

As such, I find that the ALJ’s failure to address and consider what lesser weight Dr. Timms’ opinion should be given at the second step of the inquiry, via discussion of the relevant factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) and §416.927(c), constitutes error to be addressed on remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the prior medical-opinion regulations, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider all listed factors when deciding the opinion’s weight.

Ashcroft v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-12(c)(1)-(6)

Moreover, the ALJ must consider “the appropriate factors in determining the extent to which the opinion should be credited.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017). These factors include the length of the treating relationship, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the medical source, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors tending to support the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) (“Unless we give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”). The Ninth Circuit has said that “[t]his failure alone constitutes reversible legal error.” Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676. Thus, the ALJ’s brief statement that Dr. Wilson’s opinion was unsupported by his own treatment records is not specific nor legitimate, and fails to address the appropriate factors, as required when rejecting a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the pre-March 2017 rules, a treating source’s medical opinion may receive controlling weight when the record supports it, but the ALJ need not give it controlling weight when other record evidence contradicts it.

Hartman v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-01-10(c)(2)

As we have explained, under the controlling regulations, a treating source opinion may be entitled to great or even controlling weight if that opinion is supported by the record. 20 C.F.R. §§04.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188. However, if a treating source opinion is contradicted by other evidence in the record, an ALJ is not required to give the opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) applies to claims filed before the March 27, 2017 regulation change and requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion based on factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization; opinions from physician assistants and nurse practitioners were not entitled to controlling weight under the former rules.

Roat v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-30(c)

Since Plaintiff filed his claim before the regulation change, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 is applicable. Under the regulations, an ALJ must weigh all medical opinions regardless of its source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The following factors should be considered when determining what weight to afford a medical opinion: “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.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). ... Other sources, such as NPs and PAs, were not “acceptable medical sources” but their opinions could be used to provide insight into the severity of impairments and how the impairments may affect an individual’s ability to function. (Id.) Thus, opinions from NPs and PAs could not be used to establish the existence of a determinable impairment. (Id.) ... It is the opinion of the undersigned that ALJ O’Grady gave good reasons for giving significant weight to Dr. Kwock’s opinions and fully explained her reasoning for giving little weight to NP Spickerman’s opinion and minimal weight to PA Sundberg’s opinion. ALJ O’Grady did not err in weighing the opinion evidence and in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) permits an ALJ to give no special significance to a treating source's opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work because that conclusion is reserved to the Commissioner, while medical opinions about the impairment itself must still be considered.

Ramsey v. SSA · filed 2007-02-13(e)(1)

Importantly, however, the ALJ is not required to give any special significance to treating source opinions on issues specifically reserved to the Commissioner. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Consequently, the regulations specifically provide that the ALJ need “not give any special significance” to treating source opinions that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” Id. at § 404.1527(e)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not treat a medical source’s functional-limitations opinion as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so the ALJ must consider its value in assessing residual functional capacity.

Duffield v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-17(d)

However, the ALJ correctly explained that he was not required to credit Dr. Mihalcin’s statement that Duffield was “unemployable at any skill level” because that statement was an opinion on an issue reserved for the Commissioner. (Tr. 694, 755); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). ... The functional limitations described in Dr. Mihalcin’s opinion were not matters reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). And Dr. Mihalcin’s statements regarding Duffield’s functional limitations could have been valuable to the ALJ’s RFC analysis.