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(d)(1) reserves to the Commissioner the decision whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work.

BREWINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-01-29(d)(1)

NP Ingram opined that, based on her findings, Brewington was totally disabled. But the decision whether Brewington is disabled or unable to work is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). Hence, the ALJ was correct that NP Ingram’s opinion is not considered proper medical opinion evidence to the extent it included this conclusory statement regarding Brewington’s disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not accept a physician’s opinion that a claimant cannot work.

Schuff v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-21(e)

Additionally, the ALJ was not required to accept Drs. Van Belois and Lindsay’s opinions that Schuff was unable to work because the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a well-supported treating source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other evidence, and favors it over the opinions of one-time consulting physicians.

Talanker v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-28(d)(2)

Generally, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, as long as it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnosis techniques and is not inconsistent with the other evidence in the record. ... Therefore, the only reason not to give the initial February 2003 report by Dr. Lvov controlling weight would be that it is contradicted by the reports of the consulting physicians. However, because the treating physician has developed a relationship with the claimant over time and has the benefit of a longitudinal view of the claimant’s condition and progress, the treating physician’s opinion is considered more valuable than the opinions of consulting physicians, who may have examined the claimant only once. ...

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

A treating source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight must still be weighed under all of the regulation’s listed factors, and the ALJ must explain the weight assigned.

Mosher v. Astrue · filed 2007-03-19(d)(2)-(6)

If the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the inquiry does not end. ... A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527” ... Those factors are: (1) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... After considering the factors, the ALJ must give reasons in the decision for the weight he gives the treating source opinion. ... “Finally, if the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must then give ‘specific, legitimate reasons’ for doing so.”

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

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

Zumwalt v. Astrue · filed 2007-03-22(d)(2)

“After considering the pertinent factors, the ALJ must ‘give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision’ for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.”

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

When a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must still be given deference and weighed under all of the regulatory factors.

Burroughs v. Astrue · filed 2007-05-17(d)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion that is not given controlling weight to be weighed using all of the regulation's listed factors.

Jones v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-02(d)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still weigh it under all regulatory factors and explain the weight assigned.

Coleman v. Astrue · filed 2007-11-13(d)(2)-(6)

If the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the inquiry does not end. ... A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” ... After considering the factors, the ALJ must give reasons in the decision for the weight he gives the treating source opinion.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Brouillard v. SSA · filed 2008-08-06(d)(2)

Here, while the ALJ need not have accepted D r . Goumas’s opinion that claimant “is disabled and . . . can no longer work,” Admin. Rec. at 1 0 2 , she should have discussed her reasons for discounting the opinions set forth in the Medical Source Statement, Admin. Rec. at 185-88 - opinions that are consistent with claimant’s testimony, her acknowledged severe impairments, and her obesity. ... In concluding that claimant could perform the full range of sedentary work, the ALJ did not account for several of the exertional limitations from which claimant’s orthopedic surgeon believes she suffers, nor did she adequately explain the basis for her (implicit) decision not to give controlling weight to those medical opinions.

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 generally gives a supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it under the listed factors and explain the reasons, including the support for non-treating opinions.

Laplume v. SSA · filed 2009-07-24(d)(2), (d)(3)

When a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, it is "still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and § 416.927." ... These factors include the length of the treatment relationship, the freguency and extent of examination, the explanation provided by the medical source, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). The weight given to non­treating sources will depend on the extent to which they provide explanations supporting their opinions. § 404.1527(d)(3). The ALJ's decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source's medical judgment that are supported by the evidence in the record. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(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."); SSR 96-2P.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating-source opinion is entitled to controlling weight only when supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence; an ALJ may discount it when inconsistent or internally inconsistent, provided the ALJ gives reasons.

Pulli v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-17(d)(2)

Typically, the opinion of a treating source on “the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” ... However, the opinion of a treating source “is not the final word on a claimant’s disability.” ... Accordingly, the ALJ may discount a treating physician’s medical opinion if it “is inconsistent with the opinion of a consulting physician or when the treating physician’s opinion is internally inconsistent, as long as he minimally articulates his reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to weigh treating-source opinions using specified factors, and subsection (d)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Ramos v. Astrue · filed 2009-11-27(d), (d)(2)

Regardless of the weight the ALJ elects to give the treating source opinion, he must always “give good reasons” for his decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Length of treatment relationship is an important factor under 20 C.F.R.. § 404.1527(d), and the ALJ’s error in this regard leaves me with little confidence that he properly evaluated the report.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a treating source’s opinion when it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Schmits v. Comm Social Security · filed 2010-07-02(d)(2)

But the ALJ rejected Dr. Papowitz’s opinion because it was not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Therefore, Dr. Papowitz’s conclusion was not supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d)(3), and the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Papowitz’s conclusion that Schmits was incapable of any social interaction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source controlling weight only when the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must determine its appropriate weight by considering the record as a whole.

Carrelli v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2010-07-23(d)(2)

However, an ALJ “must” give a treating source controlling weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406. Indeed, “‘[i]t is an error to give an opinion controlling weight simply because it is the opinion of a treating source . . . if it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Id. (quoting Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9, at *5 (July 2, 1996)) (alteration in original). If, however, the ALJ does not accord controlling weight to a treating physician, the ALJ still must determine how much weight is appropriate by considering the record as a whole.

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

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

Thomas v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-01(d)(2)-(6)

Thus, a remand is necessary for the Commissioner to revisit the RFC finding. If the Commissioner cannot identify well-supported evidence contradicting Claimant’s treating physicians, then the Commissioner must afford those opinions controlling weight in making the RFC finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If good reasons do exist for discounting the opinions, the Commissioner must nevertheless apply the factors listed in § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) when deciding what weight to give those opinions. Claimant argues that the Court should enter a disability finding and remand simply for the purpose of calculating benefits, but the Court cannot say the record so lacks evidence against disability that a remand would be futile. The record contains the opinions of several doctors who did not believe Claimant had severe limitations, and it is possible that with a more detailed discussion of Claimant’s treatment history the Commissioner could provide a sufficient rationale for a non-disability finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate treating-source opinions sequentially, give controlling weight when an opinion is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and explain the weight assigned when controlling weight is denied.

Wamsley v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-31(d)(2)-(d)(3)

The opinion of a treating physician is generally given controlling weight. However, an ALJ can disregard that opinion, but only if it is contradicted by other medical evidence or otherwise inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record. ... The analysis of how much weight to accord a treating source opinion is sequential. ... An ALJ must first consider whether the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” If the answer to this question is “no,” then the inquiry at this stage is complete. If the ALJ finds that the opinion is well-supported, he must then confirm that the opinion is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. In other words, if the opinion is deficient in either of these respects, then it is not entitled to controlling weight. ... If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must “give good reasons” and consider a list of regulatory factors. ... Though the ALJ must consider all these factors, he need not discuss all of them. ... The ALJ’s decision must be specific enough to make clear to subsequent reviewers the weight given to the treating physician’s opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to treating-source medical opinions because they provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's impairment, while allowing less weight when an opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record.

Anderson v. Commissioner, Social Secuirty Administration · filed 2011-09-26(d)(2)

The Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to use when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ considers many factors when weighing such evidence, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and the area of a doctor’s specialization. Id. § 404.1527(d). Generally, the medical opinions of professionals who provided treatment are given more weight than the opinions of those who only examined a claimant because “[treating] sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” Id. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The treating-source rule requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating opinion in an SSA disability determination, but it does not require a state agency to give controlling weight in deciding eligibility for ICF/MR waiver services.

Doe v. South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services · filed 2011-12-28(d)(2)

... the language in this regulation by its very terms applies only to SSA determinations of disability. No party here disputes that Doe is disabled. Instead, we are faced with a state agency determination of whether Doe is eligible for ICF/MR waiver services. I can find no statutes or regulations, and Doe has not directed us to any, which require a state agency in DDSN’s position to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s diagnosis. ... While the policy behind 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) is a good one, there is no similar requirement under our regulations, and this Court is not in a position to create one. Instead, the diagnoses should be considered along with the whole body of evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ to discuss every treating-source factor individually if the decision clearly states the weight given and the reasons for it.

Bussell v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-07(d)(2)

Mr. Bussell also complains that the ALJ did not address each of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) for evaluating a treating physician’s opinion. The ALJ is not required to discuss each factor, as long as “the ALJ’s decision [is] 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.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ provided sufficient reasons for the weight he gave Dr. Storts’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with the record; an ALJ may reject a contradicted treating opinion if the ALJ explains why.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-19(d)(2)

In this circuit, “‘[b]ecause a claimant’s treating physicians have great familiarity with [his] condition, their reports must be accorded substantial weight.’” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (quoting Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1993)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your 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.”). ... Where substantial evidence contradicts the treating physician’s opinions, an ALJ may reject them, but must explain why he does so. ... The ALJ thus fulfilled his obligation to evaluate the treating physician’s opinion and adequately explained why he disregarded it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)-(f) requires an administrative law judge evaluating differing medical-source opinions to explain the basis for adopting one opinion and rejecting another by reference to the regulatory evaluation factors.

Reveteriano v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-27(d)-(f)

And, of course, to the extent there are differences of opinion among the medical sources, the ALJ must explain the basis for adopting one and rejecting another, with reference to the factors governing the evaluation of medical-source opinions set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)-(f), 416.927(d)-(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and requires the adjudicator to state good reasons for the weight assigned to them.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-07-31(c)(2)

An ALJ will generally “give more weight to opinions from . . . treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ is required to “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to] treating source’s opinions.” Id. ... The reasons-giving requirement requires the ALJ to actually state his reasons for discounting treating sources’ opinions. See Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873, 875-76 (6th Cir. 2007). While the ALJ’s explanation is short and somewhat lacking in specificity and thoroughness, in this case it complied with the reasons-giving requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions, explain the reasons for the weight assigned to treating-source opinions, and evaluate the listed factors when resolving conflicts in the medical evidence.

Proulx v. SSA · filed 2012-10-11(c)(2)-(6)

In resolving conflicts in the medical evidence, the ALJ must articulate “good reasons” for the weight given to each treating source’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ considers several factors when weighing conflicting medical opinions including: the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the relationship; the extent to which the evidence, and the physician’s explanation of that evidence, supports the opinion; the consistency of the opinion in the context of the record as a whole; whether the treating physician is a specialist in the field; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id.; § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bouvier v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-14(c)(2)

When “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of 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 your case record,” the regulations state that it is given “controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but does not require express discussion of every factor if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Vititoe v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-29(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), a number of factors bear on an ALJ’s consideration of how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician such as Dr. Mulica. ... An ALJ need not expressly apply each of the factors in his decision, but must only give “good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the treating sources’ opinions.” ... The ALJ did precisely that here, and our review of the record indicates that the stated reasons are supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ need not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Rudd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-09-05(c)(2)

Even if Dr. Butler was a treating physician, the ALJ did not err in failing to give his opinion controlling weight, since it was not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and was “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source opinion to consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Rolon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-01-22(c)(2)

In addition to considering the required factors, an ALJ must ultimately “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to separately decide whether a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight and, if not, determine its weight using the listed regulatory factors.

Chrismon v. Astrue · filed 2013-08-21(d)(1)-(6)

Although we could perhaps read a reference to the absence of supporting longitudinal records as an implicit finding that the opinion lacked the “medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques” to qualify as controlling under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.912(d)(2), that would ... still leave undone the second step of the analysis, which is governed by the distinct set of factors set out in id. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(6), 416.927(d)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rankin v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-28(c)

Relevant to this case, medical opinions from treating sources generally are given “more weight” “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” the regulations state that it is given “controlling weight.” ... When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on other factors included in the Commissioner’s regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927.

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 requires specific good reasons for discounting it.

Conn v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-23(c)(2)

“Treating-source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’ ” ... “The Commissioner is required to provide ‘good reasons’ for discounting the weight to a treating-source opinion.” ... “These reasons must be ‘supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’ ”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, but does not require expressly applying every listed factor.

Johnson v. SSA · filed 2015-03-12(c)(2)

It is true that SSA regulations direct an ALJ, in weighing the opinion of a treating source, to consider--among several other factors--the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). As this court has observed, though, § 404.1527(c) “lists factors for the ALJ to consider in deciding how much weight to give any medical opinion, [but] it stops short of ‘requiring an ALJ’s decision to expressly apply each of the six relevant factors.’” Chapin v. Astrue, 2012 DNH 177, 9 (quoting Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007)). Instead, the rule simply requires the ALJ to “give good reasons in . . . [his or her] decision for the weight [he or she] gives [a] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source opinion but does not require the ALJ to expressly state how each factor was considered.

Bourinot v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-30(c)(2)

Furthermore, the regulations do not require an ALJ to expressly state how each factor was considered, only that the decision provide “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) requires the Commissioner to give more weight to a treating source’s opinion when the source has reasonable knowledge of the claimant’s impairment than to an opinion from a nontreating source.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-22(c)(2)(ii)

The “regulations do not allow the application of greater scrutiny to a treating-source opinion as a means to justify giving such an opinion little weight.” ... In fact, the regulations specifically state that, “[w]hen the treating source- has reasonable knowledge of [Plaintiff’s] impairment(s),” which, without dispute, the treaters in this case do, the Commissioner “will give the source’s opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) does not require an ALJ to defer to a treating physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Alvarado v. Colvin · filed 2015-11-13(e)

An ALJ need not defer to a treating physician’s opinion about the ultimate issue of disability because that' determination is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives treating-source medical opinions special consideration because treating sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's impairment, although an ALJ may discount the opinion for good cause.

Leomares Tavarez v> Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-01-07(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion generally is entitled to “substantial or considerable weight.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). That is so because treating sources are likely in a better position “to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 1985) (“It is not only legally relevant but unquestionably logical that the opinions, diagnosis, and medical evidence of a treating physician whose familiarity with the patient’s injuries, course of treatment, and responses over a considerable length of time, should be given considerable weight.” (alteration and brackets omitted; quotation marks omitted)). ... Nevertheless, an ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when “good cause” exists to do so. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to deny a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not well-supported or is inconsistent with substantial evidence, but requires the ALJ to weigh it under the regulatory factors.

Estrella v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion may not be entitled to controlling weight where it is not “well-supported” or inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... In such a case, the ALJ must consider the factors outlined in the regulations for determining what weight to accord the opinion of the treating physician. ... The factors for consideration as to the weight the opinion will be given include ... Additional factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided; the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; the specialty of the physician providing the opinion; and "[o]ther factors” such as the degree of understanding a physician has of the Administration’s "disability programs and their evidentiary requirements” and the degree of his or her familiarity with other information in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating-source opinion is not given controlling weight, it remains entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the regulatory factors.

Holliday v. Colvin · filed 2016-07-20(c)(2-6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with substantial record evidence, and otherwise give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Brooks v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-01(c)

If a medical opinion from a treating source is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Otherwise, the ALJ heed not give the opinion any significant weight, but must give “good reasons” for the weight given. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to give good reasons for declining controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Nichols v. Commissioner, Social Security Administrations · filed 2017-02-08(c)(2)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC at steps four and five, the ALJ must consider the different medical opinions found in the record. In determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers such factors as the examining or treating relationship, whether the opinion is well-supported, whether the opinion is consistent with the record, and the doctor’s specialization. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). A treating physician’s medical opinion “must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (requiring the ALJ to give “good reasons” for not giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion).

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 and consistent with substantial record evidence, while section 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of specified factors when determining the weight of an opinion that is not given controlling weight.

Ali v. Colvin · filed 2017-02-21(c)(2), (d)(2)

Under the applicable regulations, a treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (“Because a claimant’s treating physicians have great familiarity with her condition, their reports must be accorded substantial weight.”); id. (“A treating physician’s [opinion] is binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.”). ... An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider a number of factors to determine how much weight to give the opinion, including: 1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; 2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) the evidence that supports the treating physician’s report; 4) how consistent the treating source’s opinion is with the record as a whole; 5) the specialization of the source in contrast to the condition being treated; and 6) any other significant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions, give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and explain why it discounts that opinion.

Breton v SSA · filed 2017-03-27(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider and evaluate all medical opinions of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)–(c) (2016) (since amended). “The Commissioner must give ‘controlling weight’ to the opinion of a treating source if that opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... Where the ALJ discounts a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must give good reasons for doing so. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2016) (since amended).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, and otherwise to weigh it under the listed factors and give specific, supportable good reasons for the weight assigned.

Crandlemere v. SSA · filed 2017-09-15(c)(2)-(6)

Under the applicable regulations, the opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [a claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, he must still determine how much weight to give that opinion by considering these factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the source offering the opinion; and (6) any other relevant factors. See § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... Finally, an ALJ must give “good reasons in [his] decision for the weight [he] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence and otherwise evaluate it using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-02(d)(2)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician’s specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6). Stated another way, the ALJ must first assess whether to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. If the ALJ does not give the opinion controlling weight under this first step, the ALJ cannot simply disregard it, but must proceed to the second step and determine what specific weight it should be given by using the checklist factors.

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 weigh the opinion using the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency.

Jones-Verboom v. Colvin · filed 2018-02-05(c)

Further, although the ALJ was not required to give Dr. Anwar’s opinions controlling weight, she was still required to address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. SSR 96-2p. SSR 96-2p states that treating source medical opinions “are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” (Id.).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions; a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion receives controlling weight, and an ALJ must give good, sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned when controlling weight is not given.

Levasseur v SSA · filed 2018-03-20(c)(2)

If the Commissioner finds that “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 in [a claimant’s] case record,” it is given controlling weight. Id. ... When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, he must determine how much weight to give it by applying the following factors: (1) the length of the claimant’s treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and the 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 specialization of the source who gave the opinion; and (6) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... Ultimately, the ALJ must “always give good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source's opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Here, while the ALJ mentioned Dr. Pettinato’s opinion, he did not indicate what that opinion was, or, more importantly, how other medical evidence demonstrated inconsistency with his opinion that Levasseur had 1-2 or fewer headaches per week which could cause her to miss an entire day of work, or three days of work per month. Put another way, the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Pettinato’s opinion lacked the specificity required by SSR 96-2p. See Larocque v. Colvin, 2015 DNH 102, 11-12 (conclusory statement that opinion was inconsistent with medical record did not amount to rationale supported by substantial evidence). Remand is required for the ALJ to properly evaluate Dr. Pettinato’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Horner v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-20(c)(2)

Had the ALJ recognized that the opinion had also been submitted by a treating acceptable medical source, her analysis would have been guided by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). See id. (stating that an ALJ must give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record” and must evaluate all acceptable medical source statements by considering the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the source’s specialty, and the consistency and supportability of the opinion.).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Britt v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-04(c)(2)

An ALJ must accord controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion if it is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-06-05(c)

Fourth, although the ALJ is not required to give Dr. Shi’s opinion controlling weight, he must still address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. SSR 96-2p. SSR 96-2p states that treating source medical opinions “are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” (Id.). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850, 860 (7th Cir. 2014); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, the ALJ failed to address several of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, the ALJ did not discuss the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, or whether Dr. Shi had a relevant specialty. “Proper consideration of these factors may have caused the ALJ to accord greater weight to [Dr. Shi’s] opinions.” Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. The ALJ’s failure to “sufficiently account [ ] for the factors in 20 C.F.R. SSS 404.1527,” Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013), prevents this Court from assessing the reasonableness of the ALJ’s decision. For these reasons, the ALJ did not offer substantial evidence for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Shi, which is an error requiring remand.

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 to give specific, supportable reasons when rejecting it.

Stafford v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-06-18(c)(2)

“An ALJ must give a ‘treating source’s’ opinion ‘controlling weight’ if that opinion is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence.” ... “[I]f the ALJ rejects the opinion of a treating source, the ALJ must give good reasons for his determination, which must be both specific and supportable.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rice v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-07-25(c)(2)

These “good reasons” are outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (for SSDI) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c) (for SSI), which state that an ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating source if it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques . . . [or] inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” ... The ALJ rejected only the portions of the opinions of Dr. Basset and Physician Assistant Evans that were not consistent with the opinion of Dr. Fairley and were not supported by the medical evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The treating-source opinion rule does not require an ALJ to give special weight to an opinion from a source without an ongoing treatment relationship.

DeCepeda v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-06(c)(2)

Under the regulations that were in effect at the time, Ms. Slezak was not a treating source because she was not an acceptable medical source. ... Due to the lack of any showing of an ongoing treatment relationship, Dr. Stone is not considered a treating source, and the ALJ was not required to give any special weight to the opinions in the questionnaire.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides for controlling weight for a treating source's opinion on impairment severity when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Davila v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-11(d)(2)

The First Circuit has explained that “a treating source’s opinion on the question of the severity of an impairment will be given controlling weight so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’” Polanco-Quinones v. Astrue, 477 F. App’x 745, 746 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... An ALJ must, however, give “good reasons” for the weight accorded to a treating source’s opinion. Polanco-Quinones, 477 F. App’x 746 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... The ALJ provided good reasons for the little weight he gave the treating physicians’ opinions, and the significant weight he placed on the state medical consultants’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a treating source as an acceptable medical source with an ongoing treatment relationship and requires the ALJ to apply the specified factors, give controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating opinion, and provide good reasons for the assigned weight.

Sutton v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-20(a)(2), (c)(2)-(6), and (f)

A “treating source” is an “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].” Id. § 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). ... Opinions from treating sources are given controlling weight provided that they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). An opinion from a treating source that does not get controlling weight is weighed according to several factors, including: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the evidence in support of the medical opinion; the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; the medical source’s specialty; and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). An ALJ need not expressly address each factor identified by the regulations but must provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the opinion of a treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dacosta v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-31(c)(2)

Atreating psychologist’s opinion as to “the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight if it is consistent with ‘medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Cook, 2017 WL 1135221, at *11 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions from treating sources to be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors; a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion receives controlling weight.

Schwan v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-29(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 controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source's medical opinion using all of the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests performed, and consistency and support.

Harrell v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-02(c)

Forth, although the ALJ is entitled to not accord controlling weight to Dr. Abbas’ opinion, he still must address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. SSR 96-2p. SSR 92-2p states that treating source medical opinions “are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” (Id.) (emphasis added). Here, the ALJ failed to minimally address several of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Depalma v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-03(c)

The ALJ noted that Dr. Colbert was a rheumatologist. But the analysis stopped there. The ALJ’s opinion does not reflect what consideration she gave to the fact that Dr. Colbert was a rheumatologist, especially considering that the regulations generally “give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to [] her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Sections 404.1527(c)(3) and (6) allow an ALJ to give greater weight to opinions that are better supported and to discount a treating physician’s opinion that conflicts with the record.

Threlkel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-02(c)(3), (6)

This is consistent with the regulations, which allow an ALJ to place greater weight on more thoroughly supported opinions and to discount a treating physician’s assessment that is contradictory to the other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to expressly discuss every factor when evaluating a medical opinion, so a decision may stand when the ALJ minimally articulates reasons for discounting a treating-source opinion.

FOSTER v. SAUL · filed 2019-07-09(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). ... Moreover, as intimated above, the ALJ need not explicitly consider every factor in an evaluation of a medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating physicians’ opinions greater weight, requires controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Swanson v. Saul · filed 2019-08-05(c)(2)

The SSA regulations generally give treating physicians’ opinions greater weight than non-treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Walker v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 911 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2018). Furthermore, treating physicians’ opinions “receive controlling weight if they are well-supported by the medical evidence and are ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Walker, 911 F.3d at 553 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)). Regardless of the weight an ALJ assigns an opinion, they “must give good reasons for doing so.” Id.; see also, SSR. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996) (stating that notice of denial “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation distinguishes physician opinions by whether the physician treated, examined, or only reviewed the claimant’s file.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-07(c)(1)-(2)

Title II’s implementing regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant but who review the claimant’s file (non-examining physicians). Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion under the specified factors even when the opinion is denied controlling weight.

Dawn Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-08-06(c)(2)

The ALJ must still determine how much weight to give the treating source opinion based on the following factors: the length of the treatment relationship, 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sorrells v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-15(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

Social Security Regulations require ALJs to adhere to certain standards when weighing medical opinions. ... The rule is straightforward: ... Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting in part 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see Gentry, 741 F.3d at 723. ... If the treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, “the ALJ, in determining how much weight is appropriate, must consider a host of factors, including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the physician’s conclusions; the specialization of the physician; and any other relevant factors.” ... The Regulations also require ALJs to provide “good reasons” for the weight placed upon a treating source’s opinions. ... Substantial evidence must support the reasons provided by the ALJ. ... In the present case, ALJ Chaykin found that Dr. Henderson’s and Dr. Shaw’s opinions were not entitled to great or controlling weight. ... First, their opinions are inconsistent with their own objective and clinical finding, as well as other evidence. (Doc. #6, PageID #183); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (4). ... Further, their opinions “ignore the consistent clinical findings of normal ambulation, normal muscle strength, and normal sensation and reflexes.” (Doc. #6, PageID #183); see 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.”). ... Finally, neither source provided any explanation for their opinions other than listing their diagnoses. (Doc. #6, PageID #183); 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 to evaluate medical opinions using the listed factors and to give treating-source opinions appropriate deference.

Porter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(d)(2)-(d)(6)

In evaluating the opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion, generally give greater weight to treating-source opinions, and weigh non-controlling treating opinions using factors such as supportability and consistency.

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

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the Commissioner will evaluate every medical opinion received and will accord greater weight to the opinion of treating medical sources because treating physicians are best able to provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s alleged disability. However, the opinions of treating physicians are not necessarily entitled to controlling weight. Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992). “[I]f a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight.” Mastro, 270 F.3d at 178. As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, where the opinion of a treating physician is not accorded controlling weight, the Commissioner must weigh the opinion pursuant to a broad range of factors, “including the examining relationship, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinions in the medical record, consistency, and whether the treating physician was a specialist.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 654 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to perform a detailed six-factor analysis unless reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverts the opinion.

White v. Saul · filed 2019-08-26(c)

Once the ALJ finds that a medical opinion of a treating source is not entitled to controlling weight, he or she must make the detailed analysis required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) unless there is reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the opinions of the treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating-source opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Howard v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-27(c)(2)

Rather, if the ALJ finds that a treating source opinion does not meet the standard for controlling weight, he must evaluate the opinion’s weight by considering a variety of factors, including the length, nature and extent of the claimant 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; and whether the doctor is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. The ALJ must give reasons “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p. An ALJ can reject a treating physician’s opinion only for reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003). ... The ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Tobin was Howard’s primary care provider, that Howard treated with him since before his alleged onset date, and that Dr. Tobin saw Howard every one to three months for follow-up appointments. (Tr. 35.) However, the ALJ assigned little weight to Dr. Tobin’s opinion, finding it was not entirely consistent with his progress notes, which showed that Howard typically exhibited some good function during physical examinations. (Id.) The ALJ also found the opinion somewhat inconsistent with Howard’s employment history because the evidence showed that he worked as a school cafeteria cook until April 2015 and the position required a lot of standing. (Id.) The ALJ also found that the opinion was not entirely supported by the records of Dr. Rao, a surgeon who examined Howard shortly before the onset date. (Id.) ... Howard has not shown that the ALJ erred in the weight assigned to Dr. Tobin’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using the specified treatment-relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight, although the ALJ need not explicitly address each factor if good cause for rejecting the opinion is provided.

Tobin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(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, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion, (4) consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). “However, the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors. Rather, the ALJ must provide ‘good cause’ for rejecting a treating physician’s medical opinions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to perform a detailed analysis of its factors before discounting a treating physician’s opinion when competing evidence from treating or examining physicians contradicts it.

Walters v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-20(c)

Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to consider the § 404.1527(c) factors before “afford[ing] light weight”94 to Dr. Zerangue’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it under the regulatory factors.

Fuentes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-27(c)(2)

“Treating-source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting in part 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... If the treating medical source’s opinion is not controlling, “the ALJ, in determining how much weight is appropriate, must consider a host of factors, including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the physician’s conclusions; the specialization of the physician; and any other relevant factors.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a medical source as a treating source when the source has an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant, but not when the relationship exists solely to obtain a disability report.

BENSON v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-08-28(a)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, a “treating source”: . . . means your own acceptable medical source who provides you, or has provided you, with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with you. Generally, we will consider that you have an ongoing treatment relationship with an acceptable medical source when the medical evidence establishes that you see, or have seen, the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your medical condition(s). We may consider an acceptable medical source who has treated or evaluated you only a few times or only after long intervals (e.g., twice a year) to be your treating source if the nature and frequency of the treatment or evaluation is typical for your condition(s). We will not consider an acceptable medical source to be your treating source if your relationship with the source is not based on your medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on your need to obtain a report in support of your claim for disability. In such a case, we will consider the acceptable medical source to be a nontreating source. § 404.1527(a)(2). The Appeals Council did not err by concluding that Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen was not a treating source. Andrea B. saw Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen on only three occasions: (1) August 15, 2006, (2) March 16, 2015, on referral from Dr. Ashmore, and (3) April 5, 2016, again on referral from Dr. Ashmore. Only the second visit was during the period of alleged disability—January 16, 2014 to September 30, 2015. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“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.”). At the end of his March 16, 2015, consultation report, Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen stated that “[n]o further followup is planned with me at this time but I would be happy to see Ms. [B.] again in the future if I could be of further help,” ECF No. 6-7 at 60, which is not indicative of an ongoing relationship. Furthermore, the April 5, 2016, consultation was at Dr. Ashmore’s urging because Andrea B. had applied for disability benefits, id. at 268, which indicates that the purpose of that consultation was “not based on [her] medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on [her] need to obtain a report in support of [her] claim for disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). This further supports the Appeals Council’s conclusion that Dr. Van Lonkhuyzen was not a treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate treating-source opinions without applying more rigorous scrutiny than is applied to opinions from non-treating sources.

Massie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-29(c)

Second, the record demonstrates that -- in violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) -- the ALJ applied more rigorous scrutiny to the opinion of this treating physician than the non-treaters.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(5) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, treatment extent, supportability, consistency, and specialization, even if the ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(c)(1)-(5)

Furthermore, while an ALJ is permitted to disregard a treating physician’s opinion, she was required to at least consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(5). It is worth reiterating that an ALJ is not obligated to expressly state every factor in her analysis, but it must still be evident that they were considered. ... Therefore, the ALJ improperly weighed the opinions of Dr. Wood and Dr. Oniah because she failed to assess the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight; when it is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and provide good reasons for the assigned weight.

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

For claims like Snider’s filed before March 27, 2017, a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the examining relationship, (2) the treatment relationship, specifically its length, nature, and extent, of the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, (4) its consistency with the record as a whole, and (5) the specialty of the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... Moreover, the ALJ’s abbreviated discussion of weight given to Dr. Ricketts’ opinions failed to account for all the Section 1527 factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Bishop v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-12

If a treating physician’s opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the proper weight to give them by analyzing the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. ... Those factors are: (i) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (iii) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (iv) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (v) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (vi) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Finally, if the ALJ decides to reject a treating physician’s opinions entirely, “he must . . . give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so[,]” ... so it is “clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight he gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... The ALJ's treatment of Dr. Ellis’s opinion, summarized above, meets these standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-13(c)(2)

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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor for weighing a treating source’s opinion when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Farino v. Saul · filed 2019-09-16(c)

While the ALJ’s analysis does not methodically go through each individual factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)—length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization—it is clear the ALJ sufficiently considered the relevant issues.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions and give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless good cause supports otherwise.

Wheelock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-18(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), 416.927(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), 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence); 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.

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 consistent with the record and good reasons when the ALJ gives it less weight.

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

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (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. ... Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. ... Based on this record, the ALJ’s decision to give reduced weight to Dr. Ahrens’ opinions is supported by substantial evidence. ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must determine its weight after considering the treatment relationship, examination and testing, objective support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Eutsler v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-18(d)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ decides that a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must determine the weight it should be given after considering: (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 treating source's opinion is supported by objective evidence; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the treating source is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is given; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wait v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)

With regard to treating sources, the applicable regulation provides that if the ALJ finds “that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When the ALJ does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the following factors in determining the weight to give the opinion: 1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; 2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and 6) any other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to address every non-controlling factor expressly if the ALJ clearly explains why the medical opinion was discounted.

Loonsfoot v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-20(c)

Although the ALJ did not address all of the non-controlling factors found in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), the ALJ is not required to cite specifically to the regulations but need only clarify whether she discounted the opinions and why. ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly offered a sufficient basis to give the opinion “non-substantial weight” in addition to “[non-]controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors; under subsection (c)(2), the length and extent of the treating relationship are central, and longer, more frequent treatment generally supports greater weight.

Ogden v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-20(c)(2)

Finally, the ALJ must evaluate medical opinions according to the requirements set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c): (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion and the record as a whole; (4) whether the physician is a specialist; and (5) other factors that would support or contradict the opinion. ... While Plaintiff relies on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for the proposition that treating source opinions are generally more persuasive, the focus of this regulation is on the length and extent of the treating physician relationship. ... Thus, the focus is on emphasizing the history over time of the treating physician relationship and the frequency of examination, both of which are absent here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Stetter v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)

Under the regulations in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ must give a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by the medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in . . . [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If an ALJ gives the treating source’s medical opinion less than controlling weight, he must articulate “good reasons” for doing so. Id. In such a case, “the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... The ALJ sufficiently accounted for the regulatory factors and articulated “good reasons” for finding that Dr. Herald’s opinion was not entitled to controlling or deferential weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialty.

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

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the examining relationship, (2) the treatment relationship, specifically its length, nature, and extent, of the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, (4) its consistency with the record as a whole, and (5) the specialty of the treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician's opinion to consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Glendenning v. Saul · filed 2019-09-24(c)

In that event, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to accord the opinion. ... Additionally, in determining the weight to assign to Dr. Ouradnik’s 2015 and 2016 opinions, the ALJ did not consider any of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rollie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(c)(2)

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ will give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source’s medical opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... Ultimately, an ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... The Court finds that the ALJ gave good reasons for the weight he afforded Dr. Schroeder’s opinion and that those reasons are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s medical opinion if it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Leon v. Saul · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)-(6)

Further, as noted above, even if a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, “[t]he ALJ is required to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2-6) in determining how much weight to afford the treating physician’s medical opinion.” Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161. The failure to consider these factors “constitutes reversible legal error.” Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676. The ALJ also did not address these factors in his written decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion using regulatory factors and explain the weight given, but a detailed factor-by-factor analysis is unnecessary when competing medical evidence controverts it.

Rodriguez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(c)

The Court finds that these medical records, the ALJ’s characterization of which is not disputed by Plaintiff, provides competing first-hand medical evidence that controverts the opinions of Dr. Easter. Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to provide a detailed analysis of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the length, frequency, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and supportability when weighing a treating provider’s opinion.

Moon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)-(6)

First, the ALJ erred by failing to apply the appropriate factors in determining the extent to which the opinion should be credited. Though he suggested that Dr. Jones’ opinion was not consistent with the longitudinal evidence such that it should not be given significant weight, the ALJ did not consider necessary 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(2) and (f)(1) require an ALJ to consider the examining and treatment relationships and the factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) when weighing an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source.

Fesenko v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(c)(1)–(2), (f)(1)

Ms. Wolfe’s opinion deserved greater weight given her treating relationship with Mr. F, the length of that relationship and frequency of examinations, her specialization in providing mental health treatment, and the fact that she had acquired significant knowledge about his impairments over the course of their relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(2); id. § 404.1527(f)(1) (requiring consideration of the factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) for opinions from medical sources that are not “acceptable medical sources”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating-source opinion to determine the opinion's weight using regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

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

If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, she must determine the weight to give that opinion based upon a number of regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Such factors include “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, 378 F.3d at 544, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ is not required to discuss every factor in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In this case, the ALJ has failed to adequately address the factors justifying her decision to give only little weight to Dr. Chen’s opinion, such as indications that he considered the length of the treatment relationship, Dr. Chen’s frequent examinations of Plaintiff, his numerous referrals to specialists for Plaintiff, and sufficient analysis of the supportability and consistency of his opinion with the record as a whole.

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 medical opinion.

Frankfurt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

The ALJ must give “good reasons . . . for the weight [the ALJ gives a] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2000).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence, and to provide good reasons when declining to do so.

Clarke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(c)(2)

The treating-physician rule requires that an ALJ give controlling weight to a treating source's opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments, if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... If the ALJ rejects the treating physician’s opinion as controlling, he or she must have “good reasons” for doing so and must explain those reasons to the claimant. ... Consequently, the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Blymire’s opinion based on its form is not a “good reason” to depart from the treating-physician rule. ... Given the absence of such an explanation, the ALJ failed to provide good reasons for his rejection of Dr. Blymire’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion special weight, subject to its support by sufficient medical data and consistency with the record.

Kent v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-11(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to special weight because he or she is “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s medical impairments and bring a perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from objective medical findings alone. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). “The treating physician’s opinion is not, however, necessarily conclusive as to either a physical condition or the ultimate issue of disability.” Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). The weight given a treating physician’s opinion depends on whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and is consistent with other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ applying the treating-physician rule to use the relevant regulatory criteria consistently when evaluating opinions from the same treating source.

Jenkins v. Saul · filed 2019-10-16(c)(2)

In particular, it makes no sense to give greater weight to the January opinion based on the rationale that Dr. Roh was a treating physician who had a long-term relationship with plaintiff. This reason applies equally, if not more, to his later opinion. At that point, the treatment relationship was even longer. Dr. Roh did not suddenly become a different person. Likewise, the ALJ’s criticisms that the September opinion was on an issue “reserved to the Commissioner” and was “conclusory” also could also be made about the January opinion. The Court cannot discern any difference in the degree of detail between the two opinions. It would not have been unreasonable to conclude that both opinions were conclusory because neither one included specific limitations or analyses. But such a rationale would suggest that neither opinion deserved great weight. However, the ALJ inconsistently employed this criterion to reject only one of the two opinions. This is a classic example of cherrypicking.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion using the regulation’s relevant factors, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Washington v. Saul · filed 2019-10-21(c)

Moreover, in determining what weight to give Dr. Bangaru’s and Dr. Chang’s opinions, the ALJ failed to expressly address the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). (See R. 17.) The ALJ should do so on remand: even if a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is “still entitled to deference” and must be weighed using these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires the adjudicator to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating source’s medical opinion and explain the weight given.

Patrick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-21(d)(2)-(6)

The Undersigned also finds that the Court cannot engage in a meaningful review of the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Williams’ opinion because (1) his reasoning was not sufficiently specific to make clear that he recognized the opinion was from a treating source and therefore due some deference, and (2) he did not explicitly discuss how each of the six factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) either supported or undercut rejection of the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a medical source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Little v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-24(c)

In determining the weight of medical source opinions not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must evaluate the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of treatment relationship; evidence in support of the opinion; consistency with the record as a whole; and the physician’s specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating-source opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization, while not requiring a slavish recitation of every factor when the reasoning is clear.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2019-10-28(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian, 708 F.3d at 418). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) is required. Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Halloran, 362 F.3d at 31-32).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) governs weighing a treating-source opinion and permits an ALJ to discount a chiropractor’s opinion for reasons beyond the provider’s status as a non-acceptable medical source; it does not require treating-physician-level deference.

McNerney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-29(c)

As for the chiropractic opinions, Plaintiff has not explained how the ALJ’s analysis of them should have been different under the various factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527. The ALJ clearly understood that Plaintiff had a treating relationship with both Dr. Marconi and Dr. Amabile. She also explained why she did not give weight to certain conclusions they reached when they did their function-by-function analysis, and Plaintiff has not argued that those reasons were improper or unsupported by the record. Essentially, her position appears to be that the ALJ should simply have accepted the chiropractic opinions in their entirety. That, however, is not the law. An ALJ is not required to accord the same deference to a treating chiropractor’s opinion as must be done with a treating physician’s opinion, and if an ALJ has reasons (other than the fact that a chiropractor is not an acceptable medical source) for discounting that opinion, that is sufficient to insulate the ALJ’s decision from reversal. See, e.g., Wood v. Comm’r of Social Security, 2019 WL 4059017 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2019). Because that is what happened here, the Court’s finds Plaintiff’s first argument to be without merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s non-controlling medical opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to provide good reasons for discounting it.

Buss, Agnes v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-10-31(c)

If a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh the opinion using a number of factors, including the length and nature of the treating relationship, whether the medical opinion is well-supported, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the source’s specialization, and “other factors.” § 404.1527(c). If an ALJ discounts the opinion of a treating physician, he must offer “good reasons” for doing so. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). ... In sum, the court concludes that the ALJ examined Dr. Maslowski’s opinion in light of the proper regulatory factors and provided “good reasons” for discounting the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician's opinion using the regulatory factors, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor when the record shows that the factors were considered.

Schnieders v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-10-24

The ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss all of the factors of the regulation as long as this court is able to determine that the factors were considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to assess a treating source’s supportability and consistency for controlling weight and, if controlling weight is unwarranted, weigh the opinion using the listed factors.

Bracken v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-01(c)(1)-(5)

An ALJ first must determine whether the treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight in consideration of supportability and consistency with the record. If the ALJ finds the opinion is lacking in either of these aspects, the ALJ must proceed to step two, where she applies the checklist of factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ must use these factors to determine exactly what weight to assign to the opinion. These factors are set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(5) and include: 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 with the record as a whole; and 5) whether the treating physician was a specialist in the relevant area. The court acknowledges that an ALJ need not explicitly mention every factor, so long as her decision shows that she “was aware of and considered many of the factors.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, while opinions on whether a claimant is disabled are reserved to the Commissioner.

SCHMIERER V. SAUL · filed 2019-11-04(c)(2)-(4), (d)

The treating source rule generally requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[T]reating sources . . . provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.”). The rule also recognizes, however, that not all treating sources or treating source opinions merit the same deference. The nature and extent of each treatment relationship appreciably tempers the weight an ALJ affords an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). Moreover, as subsections (2) through (4) of the rule detail, a treating source’s opinion, like all medical opinions, deserves deference only if well-supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and consistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(4). “[I]f a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (emphasis added). Finally, statements from medical sources (and even treating sources) that a claimant qualifies as disabled or cannot work do not constitute “medical opinions as described in [§ 404.1527(a)(1)], but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved for the Commissioner” and do not warrant controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to separately evaluate the applicable factors when weighing treating-source opinions, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, after deciding whether the opinion receives controlling weight.

Cyrus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-06(c)

Even assuming the ALJ properly declined to afford controlling weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians, the ALJ nevertheless erred. In simultaneously weighing the opinions of Drs. Brewster and Smith, the ALJ could not have properly analyzed the opinions under the regulatory factors of 24 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2); (5), which necessarily require separate analysis. For example, Drs. Brewster and Smith have different treating relationships with Plaintiff and different specialties. 24 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“[T]he 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); 24 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist”). The ALJ’s failure to properly perform either the first or second step of the controlling weight analysis warrants remand.

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 factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability and consistency, specialization, and the source's understanding of disability programs.

Padilla v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-14(c)(2)-(6)

As defendant notes, when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider certain factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). [JS at 13-14.] Those factors include such things as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient working relationship, the frequency of examinations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, the specialization of the physician, and the amount of understanding of disability programs and their evidentiary requirements the acceptable medical source has. [Id. at 14]; see also Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). In this case, while the ALJ arguably considered it to be significant that Dr. Bernabe and the agency reviewers had more understanding of disability programs and requirements than plaintiff’s workers’ compensation physicians (see discussion below relating to the ALJ’s failure to properly consider the opinions of plaintiff’s workers’ compensation providers), it does not appear that he considered any other relevant factor in giving the consulting sources controlling weight. If he had, he might have noted the long-term treating relationship between plaintiff and Dr. Ahmed, Dr. Ahmed’s specialization, and the fact that his opinions were supported by cervical and lumbar MRIs, numerous positive straight leg raise test results, numerous reports of significantly decreased range of motion (“ROM”) of the lumbar and cervical spines, as well as of the shoulder, and a positive EMG/Nerve Conduction study reflecting mild to moderate bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires deference based on six specified factors, which need not each be expressly discussed if the ALJ clearly explains the weight and reasons.

Walker v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-15(c)(1)-(6)

The Social Security regulations afford a treating source opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... 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). ... To be sure, the ALJ need not expressly consider every relevant factor in weighing a treating source’s medical opinion, but the ALJ 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.” ... Thus, I find the ALJ sufficiently explained his finding as to Dr. Rubick’s first opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require remand merely because an ALJ failed to explicitly discuss every listed factor when the court is convinced the outcome would be unchanged.

Kennedy, Ellen v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-11-21(c)

Next, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by failing to explicitly discuss each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) after declining to give Dr. Hoffmann’s opinion controlling weight. Although it is true that the ALJ did not explicitly discuss each of these factors, plaintiff has failed to show that the outcome here would be any different if the case was remanded for this purpose. ... For all these reasons, explicit consideration of the § 404.1527(c) factors would not change the outcome.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Primm v. Saul · filed 2019-11-21

At the time Primm filed his application, a treating physician’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight if well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ was required to consider specific factors in determining what weight, if any, to afford the opinion. Id. If the ALJ adequately considered these factors, his decision is entitled to deference. Winsted v. Berryhill, 923 F.3d 472, 478 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 416 (7th Cir. 2008)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Holmes v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-25(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... Even when a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ should weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient working relationship, the frequency of examinations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. ... see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(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 all relevant § 404.1527 factors and indicate that those factors were considered.

Virden v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-26(c)

The opinion “must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... Although the ALJ is not required to analyze each factor in detail, he must indicate that he has considered all the relevant factors. ... The ALJ discounted Dr. Ramsey’s opinion and gave it little weight but failed to discuss with any level of specificity the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when it conflicts with substantial evidence and to consider the source’s program knowledge and the opinion’s consistency with the record, including the claimant’s statements.

Grimmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-03(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6)

The regulations specify that the ALJ may consider “the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6). The regulations also specify the consistency of the opinion with the other evidence in the record and such other evidence includes Plaintiff’s own statements about her abilities and limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4); Salmini v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 371 F. App’x 109, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2010) (no error in crediting claimant’s testimony of ability to lift 35 pounds over treating physician’s limiting of claimant to lifting ten pounds). Thus, the ALJ cited appropriate reasons for giving the opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when assigning less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, and to explain the weight assigned.

Felice v. Saul · filed 2019-12-05(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider the following factors if it decides to afford less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion: “(1) the frequen[c]y, 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); Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (same); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ further must explain the weight assigned to the opinion of a treating physician. Failure to provide “good reasons” for not assigning the proper weight of a treating physician is grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the former rule, a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight when well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while supportability and consistency are relevant weighing factors.

Kies v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-05(c)(2), (c)(3) & (4)

Under the version of the regulations applicable in this case,4 the opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003). ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3) & (4) (consistency of medical source opinion with medical and other evidence, and supportability of opinion in the record, are appropriate considerations in weighing opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the functional limitations indicated by a medical opinion and their consistency with the record even when the opinion lacks a sufficient explanation.

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

However, the absence of a sufficient explanation in a medical opinion does not relieve an ALJ of her duty to consider the functional limitations indicated by the checkboxes and their consistency or inconsistency with the evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ deciding the weight of a treating-source opinion to consider the listed factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Clark v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-10(c)

The ALJ also complied with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) in giving Dr. Balu’s opinion less weight, because she articulated the evidence, or lack thereof, supporting Dr. Balu’s opinion, its inconsistencies with the record, and other factors that contradict the opinion. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in the weight she afforded Dr. Balu’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using the listed factors even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, and the record must show that the factors were considered.

Cloutier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-12-11(c)

Even when an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still weigh that opinion using the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Although the ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss all of the factors, it must be clear to the court reviewing the decision that the ALJ did consider the factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, the physician’s expertise, the consistency of the findings, and the supporting evidence in the record.

Vargas v. Astrue · filed 2019-12-11(c)

The ALJ was obligated to follow the analytical path mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, which requires that he consider the length of the treating relationship, the expertise of the treating doctors, the consistency of their findings, and the extent to which the record offers support for some or all of those findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must still defer to it and weigh it using the six factors listed in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Perez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-12(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).

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 evaluate and explain the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, specialty, supportability, and consistency.

Carr v. Saul · filed 2019-12-17(c)

Because the ALJ did not give controlling weight to any of the preceding treating physician opinions, she had to “consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss, 555 F.3d at 561; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the checklist can provide a basis for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion and give good reasons for the weight assigned, while a qualifying opinion must receive controlling weight.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-17(c), (c)(2)(i), (d)(2)

If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the appropriate weight: length and frequency of the treatment relationship; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the source’s level of specialization. ... Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, Dr. Malik’s opinion was entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(c)(2)(i).

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 performed, consistency, and supportability.

Moore v. Saul · filed 2019-12-18(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.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Finally, the ALJ rejected Dr. Troy’s opinion without considering the regulatory factors, a reversible error in itself.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the regulatory factors, and a seriously flawed opinion need not receive great weight.

Condon v. Saul · filed 2019-12-30(c)

Nevertheless, a treating source medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. 404.1517 and 416.927.” ... Thus, the factors set forth in §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) “required the administrative law judge to give great weight to [Dr. Boffeli’s opinion] unless it was seriously flawed.” ... The ALJ identified one flaw—inconsistency with his own treatment notes—that is supported by substantial evidence. The other purported flaws, however, are not good reasons for assigning little weight to a treating source’s opinion.

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, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Bruggeman v. Saul · filed 2020-01-02(c)

And it is unclear how the ALJ failed to evaluate Dr. Szachnowski’s opinion using the regulatory factors. As stated above, the regulatory factors to be considered are: the length, nature, and extent of the claimant and the source’s treatment relationship; the degree to which the opinion is supported by the evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the source is a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ included all of these factors in his opinion. (Tr. 28–29.) Bruggeman has not shown the ALJ erred in his assessment of Dr. Szachnowski’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical-source opinion to consider the applicable relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors and explain the weight assigned, including for an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source.

Ruben M. v. Saul · filed 2020-01-03(c), (f)

In assessing it, the ALJ was required to consider the same factors that guide consideration of the opinion of a psychologist or physician and to explain the weight given with sufficient discussion to make the reasoning apparent. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) & (f); see Korfiatis, 2019 WL 1110798, at *4.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source opinion to consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned, with failure ordinarily requiring remand.

Montgomery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-06(c)(1)-(6)

Specifically, the ALJ must provide good reasons for rejecting a treating source opinion given: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the (i) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, and (ii) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). Failure to comply with this “treating physician rule” constitutes legal error and ordinarily requires remand to the ALJ for proper consideration of the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion to consider the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, and explain the weight assigned.

Kelsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-07(c)

If an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he or she must consider various factors in determining the weight to give it: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... The ALJ also properly considered the statutory factors in deciding the weight to assign Dr. Ketz’s opinion; because she found it inconsistent with the record, she properly gave it little weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating physician’s opinion, but permits less weight when good cause exists, such as lack of evidentiary support, contrary evidence, or inconsistency with the physician’s records.

Manning v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-01-13(c)(2)

Typically, an ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s opinion “must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004). “Good cause [to discount the treating physician’s opinion] exists when (1) the treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence, (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding, or (3) the treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with his own medical records.” Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1259 (11th Cir. 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) requires an ALJ to consider the nature and length of the treatment relationship when weighing a medical opinion.

Shane v. Saul · filed 2020-01-15(c)(1)-(2)

These reasons fail to explain why the ALJ dismissed Dr. DeCastro’s report. The regulations require an ALJ to consider the nature and length of the treatment relationship between a physician and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). Dr. DeCastro’s report states that he had treated Claimant for bipolar disorder every one or two months since July 1999. That amounts to more than 100 treatment sessions over 17 years by the time of the ALJ’s January 2, 2018 decision, making Dr. DeCastro the expert with the greatest familiarity with Claimant’s mental functioning. As with Dr. Romm, however, the ALJ did not consider that fact or even indicate that she was aware of it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally calls for greater weight for opinions from treating sources with an ongoing treatment relationship because they can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairments.

Lovejoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-15(a)(2), (c)(2)

An ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are most able to “provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 Fed. App’x 105, 108. Here, however, Lovejoy does not argue—nor does it appear to the Court—that Dr. Bruce should be considered a treating physician given that there is no evidence of an “ongoing treatment relationship” during the disability period.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion by considering the treatment relationship, consistency with other evidence, explanatory support, and the physician’s specialization.

Madera v. Saul · filed 2020-01-17(c)

An ALJ must decide the weight to be accorded even a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion by considering, to the extent applicable, the treatment relationship’s length, nature, and extent; the opinion’s consistency with other evidence; the explanatory support for the opinion; and any speciality of the treating physician. See 20 CFR § 404.1527(c); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). An ALJ is required to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician's medical opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment if it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) is “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 512 (7th Cir. 2019); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010). If an ALJ rejects a medical opinion, or gives it little weight, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for doing so. Walker v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 479, 485 (7th Cir. 2018). That’s exactly what the ALJ did here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion under the regulatory factors even after declining to give it controlling weight, including considering the treatment relationship and the opinion’s support and explanation.

Terwilliger v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2020-01-21(c)(2),(3)

Second, “[e]ven 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 § 404.1527 [and § 416.927].”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the relevant factors in § 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) to determine the opinion’s appropriate weight.

Younger v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-06(d)(2)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, and § 404.1527(c)(4) requires consideration of consistency with the record before assigning weight.

Gibbons v. Saul · filed 2020-01-23(c)(2), (c)(4)

An ALJ may assign limited weight to a treating physician’s opinions if the ALJ articulates “good reasons” for doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010). ... An ALJ must consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record before assigning it weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Yet the ALJ did not address these inconsistencies; she merely stated the opinion was “consistent with the record as a whole” and more restrictive than Dr. Riew’s older, 40-pound lifting restriction.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits less weight after considering factors such as treatment relationship, support, and specialization.

Gehrke v. Saul · filed 2020-01-28(d)(2)(i)-(ii), (d)(3), and (d)(5)

If the ALJ denies a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, however, he still may afford it less evidentiary weight. “Exactly how much weight the ALJ affords depends on a number of factors, such as the length, nature, and extent of the physician and claimant’s treatment relationship, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(1)-(ii), whether the physician supported his or her opinions with sufficient explanations, see id. § 404.1527(d)(3), and whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue, see id. § 404.1527(d)(5).” Elder, 529 F. 3d at 415. ... This Court finds that, although Claimant may disagree with the conclusion, the ALJ properly considered the first and second factors and sufficiently articulated his reasons for concluding they did not merit giving controlling weight to Dr. Lang’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(c)(4) favors opinions consistent with the record as a whole, including activities of daily living.

Perry v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2020-01-28(c)(2), (c)(4)

Importantly, however, there is no per se rule requiring the ALJ to give greater weight to the opinion of a treating source. To be entitled to controlling weight, a treating source’s opinions must be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [cannot be] inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Moreover, the ALJ did not find that claimant was capable of employment based entirely on her activities. Instead, the ALJ determined that claimant’s activities were not consistent with the limitations assessed by Dr. McKenzie. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole [including activities of daily living], the more weight [an ALJ] will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion to be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Del Rio v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-31(c)(2)–(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Farmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-04(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The undersigned finds no error with the ALJ’s consideration and weighing of Dr. Gaddam’s opinion. The ALJ articulated the weight he afforded the opinion and properly declined to afford it controlling weight on the grounds it was unsupported by objective evidence and inconsistent with Dr. Gaddam’s documentation of Plaintiff’s physical examinations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a licensed mental health counselor as an other source rather than an acceptable medical source, requiring the ALJ to consider the counselor's opinion without requiring any particular weight over acceptable medical-source opinions.

Poston v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2019-10-31(a), (f)

Because Harrell is a licensed mental health counselor, under applicable Administration regulations, she is treated as an “other source” and not as an “acceptable medical source.” ... As such, the ALJ was required to consider the opinion, but he was not required to afford her opinion any particular weight or credit over the contrary opinions of acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to evaluate treating-source medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and physician specialty, and to explain the weight assigned.

Dezarn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-07(c)(2)-(6)

This requires an analysis of among other things, the length of treatment relationship, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, how much the opinion is supported by underlying medical evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and the physician’s specialty, if any. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). The ALJ didn’t do that there. And the failure to do so is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing treating-source opinions, but does not require a slavish recitation of each factor when the reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Duggan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian, 708 F.3d at 418). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) is required. Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Halloran, 362 F.3d at 31-32). The factors for considering opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, with the consideration of whether the source examined the claimant replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an acceptable medical source with only a few or infrequent treatment contacts to be treated as a treating source when that pattern is typical for the condition, and requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and other listed factors when weighing a non-controlling treating opinion.

Hopton v. Saul · filed 2020-02-20(a)(2), (c)(2)-(6)

Finally, that Dr. Speed only treated Plaintiff for a short period of time is not in and of itself reason to discount her opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (“We may consider an acceptable medical source who has treated or evaluated you only a few times or only after long intervals (e.g., twice a year) to be your treating source if the nature and frequency of the treatment or evaluation is typical for your condition(s)”.) When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). The ALJ discounted Dr. Speed’s opinion based on the length of the treating relationship without discussing the other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and explain the weight assigned to treating-source opinions, while giving a qualifying treating opinion controlling weight and weighing the listed regulatory factors.

Wiseman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c), (d)(2)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions in his opinion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, although the ALJ is not required to address in writing every piece of evidence or testimony presented, Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013). A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The ALJ must explain the weight he gave the opinion of the treating source, and he must not substitute his own judgment for the physician’s opinion without relying on other medical evidence in the record. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000). ... Although the ALJ never explicitly referred to the Moss factors, the court can find analysis of those factors throughout the ALJ’s opinion. The court is satisfied that the ALJ built a logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence and a better explanation, while § 404.1527(c)(4) gives more weight to an opinion consistent with the record as a whole.

Chaney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(c)(3), (c)(4)

These considerations – consistency and supportability – are required regulatory factors to be evaluated in weighing opinion evidence. See 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. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”); 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lindvay v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-20(d)(2)–(6)

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