20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when supported by sound medical evidence and consistent with the record; if it is not controlling, § 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh it using the treatment relationship, specialization, supportability, and consistency.

Vang v. Saul · filed 2020-02-21(c)(2), (c)(3)

In claims like this that were filed before 2017, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by sound medical evidence and a consistent record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Hall v. Berryhill, 906 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 2018). When an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, then that opinion should be weighed based on the nature and extent of the treatment, the treating source’s area of specialty, and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record and supported by evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Hall, 906 F.3d at 644.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, while considering the treatment relationship and other factors when deciding the weight due.

DE RODRIGUEZ v. SAUL · filed 2020-02-26(c)

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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Not all treating sources merit the same deference, however, as the nature and extent of each treatment relationship tempers the weight an ALJ gives an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). Moreover, as subsections (2) through (4) of the rule describe in detail, a treating source’s opinion, like all medical opinions, deserves deference only if well supported by signs and medical findings and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(4).

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 or sees the claimant with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the condition.

Stokes v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-24(a)(2)

To be considered a treating source, a medical source must either have “an ongoing treatment relationship” with the patient, or see the patient “with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your medical condition(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the listed treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Chadwell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (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). ... As shown above, the ALJ’s reasons for weighing the medical opinion evidence—both the opinions that he rejected and the opinions that he credited (or purportedly credited)—were too vague to allow for a meaningful review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing it under specified regulatory factors.

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

Because the sections for DIB and SSI are virtually identical and for convenience, the undersigned will only cite to 20 C.F.R. § 416.927, even though 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 also may apply. ... If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, he must determine the weight to give that opinion based upon a number of regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. § 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)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion the greatest weight but does not make it binding, and an ALJ rejecting a contradicted opinion must provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(d)(2)

In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight, but it is not binding on the issue of a disability. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). If there is conflicting medical evidence, “it is the ALJ’s role to determine credibility and to resolve the conflict.” Allen v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 577, 579 (9th Cir. 1984). The ALJ’s resolution of the conflict must be upheld by the Court when there is “more than one rational interpretation of the evidence.” Id. An ALJ may reject the opinion of a medical source that is contradicted by another with “specific and legitimate” reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830; see also Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 958-59 (9th Cir. 2002). Because the opinion of Dr. Grasser conflicted with the opinions of Drs. Fast and Nasrabadi, the ALJ was required to identify specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires weighing it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and failure to discuss those factors is reversible error.

(SS) Campbell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(c)(2)-(6)

Moreover, when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “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.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant information.

Overcash v. Saul · filed 2020-03-06(c)

These factors include: examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors such as the extent to which the medical source is familiar with other information in the case. See 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 good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion and to apply the regulation’s factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-06(c)(2)

When an ALJ does not accord a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527 provides that “[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source's medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Here, the ALJ omitted any specific explanation of why he concluded the opinions of the two consultative non-examining reviewing physicians, both of whom were identified as specialists in internal medicine, should be accorded greater weight than those of Dr. Daulat, Claimant’s longtime primary care physician. The ALJ did not discuss or otherwise document application of the § 404.1527(c) factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may assign little weight to a treating-source opinion when it is inconsistent with objective findings in the treatment notes, provided the explanation identifies the evidence and permits meaningful review.

Shelton v. Saul · filed 2020-03-09(c)

The ALJ must consider the following when evaluating a treating source’s opinion: (1) the length of the treating source relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability based upon the medical record; (4) consistency between the opinion and the medical record; (5) any specialization on the part of the treating source; and (6) any other relevant factors. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ assigned Dr. Clarke’s medical opinion little weight, reasoning that Dr. Clarke’s opinion “is not consistent with the limited objective findings in [Plaintiff's] treatment notes.” (R. at 21.) The ALJ’s explanation is legally sufficient, and the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Clarke’s treating opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

(SS) Eilts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11(c)(2)-(6)

And, when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “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.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source medical opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to weigh it using specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Tyree v. Saul · filed 2020-03-11(c)(2)-(6)

Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, if the Social Security Administration finds that a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” the Social Security Administration will give that opinion “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).2 When the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion based on several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the level of specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to explain with good reasons why a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight and to weigh the opinion using specified factors.

Robertson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c)(2)

If an ALJ accords less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for doing so. ... If the ALJ affords less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still determine the weight it should be afforded. ... In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of the opinion, (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the treating source, and (6) other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the other evidence and permits discounting a treating physician’s opinion for good cause stated in reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Neff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(b), (c)

In assessing an individual’s disability claim, an ALJ “must consider all medical opinions in a claimant’s case record, together with other relevant evidence.” McClurkin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 625 F. App’x 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). Typically, the ALJ must afford the opinions of a treating physician substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Crawford v. Commr. Of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004). ... Good cause exists where: (1) the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with the record evidence; (2) the record evidence supports a conflicting finding; or (3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or incompatible with the physician’s own medical records. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240–41 (11th Cir. 2004); Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1159. If an ALJ finds that the treating physician’s medical opinion should be given less than substantial or considerable weight, the ALJ must clearly articulate reasons showing good cause for discounting the opinion, and those reasons must be supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator weighing a treating source’s medical opinion to consider specialization along with the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and other relevant factors; specialization alone is insufficient.

Apodaca v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-13(c)

In determining the weight to give a treating source’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, specialization, and other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Although Dr. Hammett’s lack of specialization is one consideration, the Court finds that, absent a weighing of the remaining factors, it alone does not establish a sufficient and legitimate reason to give Dr. Hammett’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to weigh it using the listed regulatory factors, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if the ALJ gives good cause for rejecting the opinion.

Wiggins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(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) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, not inconsistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and, if controlling weight is denied, to address the regulatory factors when assigning weight.

Siwek v. Saul · filed 2020-03-17(c)

Because Dr. McCall’s five-pound lifting restriction is an opinion from a treating source, it is entitled to controlling weight, so long as the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Even if Dr. McCall’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ erred in failing to address the treating physician regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Gotlibowski v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-18(b), (c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F. R. § 404.1527(b). ... The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives greater weight to examining, treating, and specialist opinions and directs consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when weighing a physician’s opinion.

Horton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(c)(1)-(5)

Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1-5); 416.927(c)(1-5). 2 A court must give a treating physician’s opinions substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but an RFC determination is reserved to the Commissioner and the treating opinion need not be adopted in full when the ALJ gives good reasons.

DAY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-03-18(c)(2), (d)(2)

A “treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and … not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Gilson v. Colvin, No. 1:12-cv-376-GZS, 2013 WL 5674359, at *2 (D. Me., Oct. 17, 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)). ... The question of a claimant’s RFC is, moreover, “among the issues reserved to the commissioner, with respect to which even the opinion of a treating source is entitled to no ‘special significance’ and cannot be assigned controlling weight.” Gilson at *2 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)). ... The ALJ did not have to adopt the entirety of Ms. James’s physical RFC assessment “so long as she supplied ‘good reasons’ for doing so.” Vining v. Astrue, 720 F. Supp. 2d 126, 134 (D. Me. 2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)). ... The ALJ’s analysis of the various medical opinions and medical evidence includes “good reasons” for not adopting Ms. James’s assessment in its entirety. No further analysis by the ALJ is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(5) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, and to explain the weight assigned.

Botsford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(d)(2)-(5)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)2. Further, the ALJ must articulate his reasons for assigning the weight that he does accord to a treating physician’s opinion. See Shaw, 221 F.3d at 134. See also Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). An ALJ’s failure to apply the treating physician rule factors and give good reasons for declining to grant controlling weight is typically reversible error. Id., 177 F.3d 128 at 134. ... Here, while the ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Weisman was a treating mental health provider, the ALJ did not explicitly mention the treating physician rule or discuss the relevant factors in detail. Nonetheless, the ALJ set forth several “good reasons” for her decision to grant the opinion “little” weight. ... In short, while a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight where it is “well supported by medical findings,” the opinion by Dr. Weisman is lacking in such support given the overwhelmingly normal-to-moderate objective findings reflected in plaintiff’s treatment notes. The reasons given by the ALJ for declining to afford the opinion controlling weight – including its inconsistency with the record as a whole – provided, however narrowly, a sufficient basis for giving the opinion “little” weight. Notwithstanding the ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the treating physician rule factors, the Court finds that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” and that the ALJ gave “good reasons” for declining to grant controlling weight to Dr. Weisman’s opinion. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the opinion is weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)

As stated above, a treating source’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to 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). Here, the ALJ determined that neither Dr. Lentz’s own treatment notes, nor the findings of consulting neurosurgeons supported such extreme limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Petty v. Saul · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

Although Dr. Cloninger was a treating physician of Plaintiff, Dr. Cloninger’s opinion cannot be afforded controlling weight because, as explained by the ALJ, the opinion is not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2017); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (“[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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

After an ALJ rejects controlling weight for a treating-source opinion, § 404.1527 requires consideration of the regulatory factors but does not require an exhaustive, step-by-step discussion if the ALJ gives good, specific reasons.

Lucy v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)-(6)

Finally, Lucy argues that the ALJ did not give any indication that he applied the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) after determining that Dr. Ishikawa’s and Dr. Sweo’s opinions were not entitled to controlling weight. ... But an ALJ need not do an “exhaustive step-by-step analysis” of each individual factor to satisfy the rule, simply give “good reasons” for his or her decision. ... The ALJ gave detailed and specific reasons why Dr. Ishikawa’s and Dr. Sweo’s opinions were inconsistent with the medical evidence in the record. That satisfied this requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(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. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. §404,1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Blais v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)

The Second Circuit has long recognized the “treating physician rule” set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given controlling weight so long as it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) & 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, there are situations where the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, in which case the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and, (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d at 375 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires an ALJ to consider specified factors before assigning less than controlling weight.

Prior v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and[ ] (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotations and alterations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the nature and extent of the treating relationship when evaluating a treating-source medical opinion and bars the ALJ from substituting personal views about appropriate treatment.

Fischer v. Saul · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)

While the regulations require ALJs to consider the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), they must resist the temptation to offer their own opinions on what sort of treatment would be appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record to receive controlling weight and requires an otherwise noncontrolling opinion to be weighed under the listed factors with an adequately explained weight assignment.

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-27(c)(2)-(6)

For claims filed before March 17, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight by the Commissioner if well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300-01 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527(c)(2). ... A treating source opinion which 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. ' 404.1527.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. 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. Id. at 1301; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2-6); see also Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing Goatcher v. Dep=t of Health & Human Servs., 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir. 1995)). However, the court will not insist on a factor-by-factor analysis so 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) (quoting Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and to clearly articulate good cause, supported by substantial evidence, for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than substantial or considerable weight.

Ruybal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(b), (c)(2)

In assessing an individual’s disability claim, an ALJ “must consider all medical opinions in a claimant’s case record, together with other relevant evidence.” McClurkin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 625 F. App’x 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). ... If an ALJ finds that the treating physician’s medical opinion should be given less than substantial or considerable weight, the ALJ must clearly articulate reasons showing good cause for discounting the opinion, and those reasons must be supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion and to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Myers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(d)(2)

An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). When the 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). An ALJ does not need to “explicitly weigh each factor” so long as the ALJ’s decision makes clear that those factors were considered. Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. Appx. 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires weighing treating-source medical opinions using the listed factors, but an ALJ need not expressly address every factor when giving less than controlling weight and may rely on inconsistency alone.

HARPER v. SAUL · filed 2020-03-30(c)

Generally, medical opinions from a claimant’s treating source are given more weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating source’s opinion is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record, the medical opinion is given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Otherwise, the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3)-(6) are used to determine what weight is to be given to the medical opinion. These factors are the “[l]ength of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the “[s]upportability,” “[c]onsistency,” “[s]pecialization,” and any “[o]ther factors . . . which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” If the ALJ affords less than controlling weight after evaluating the relevant factors, the decision will not be overturned as long as the ALJ minimally articulated her reasons. Elder, 529 F.3d at 415. A minimally articulated reason to discount a treating source opinion does not require expressly addressing every regulatory factor in the ALJ’s evaluation. In Elder, the court upheld an ALJ’s decision to deny a physician’s opinion controlling weight when the ALJ evaluated the opinion considering only the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, and the specialty of the treating doctor. Id. at 416. A treating physician’s opinion can even be excluded on inconsistency alone.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(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)); see Gentry, 741 F.3d at 723).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider state agency medical or psychological consultants’ findings as opinion evidence and explain the weight given to them.

Buck v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-09(f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(ii)

The ALJ may not ignore these opinions and must explain the weight given to the opinions in his or her decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider the findings of state-agency medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians or psychologists as opinion evidence.

Milano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-10-20(f)

“State agency medical and psychological consultants . . . are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation. Therefore, administrative law judges must consider findings of State agency medical and psychological consultants or other program physicians or psychologists as opinion evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider state-agency medical and psychological consultants' findings as opinion evidence and explain the weight given to them.

Chavez v. Astrue · filed 2009-12-21(f)(2)(i)

“An ALJ is required to consider as opinion evidence the findings of state agency medical consultants; the ALJ is also required to explain in his decision the weight given to such opinions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider state agency consultants’ findings as opinions of non-examining physicians and explain the weight assigned to them.

Sullivan v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-03(f)

The ALJ is required by 20 C. F.R. §§ 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f) to consider the state agency physician’s findings of fact about the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments as opinions of non-examining physicians; while the ALJ is not bound by the opinion, she may not ignore it either and “must explain the weight given to the opinions in [her] decisions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider state agency consultants’ findings of fact about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments as opinions of non-examining physicians.

Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-09-21(f)

More specific to the situation at hand, “because state agency consultants are experts in the Social Security Disability programs, the rules set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f) require an ALJ to consider the consultants’ findings of fact about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments) as opinions of non-examining physicians.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i)-(ii) requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate State agency medical consultants' RFC assessments as opinion evidence, although the ALJ is not bound by those assessments and decides what weight to give them.

Goodman v. Colvin · filed 2017-01-11(e)(2)(i)-(ii)

In so doing, the ALJ is not bound by any previously conducted State agency medical consultant’s RFC assessments, but the ALJ is nonetheless required to consider and evaluate any such assessments as opinion evidence. ... Here, complying with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i)-(ii), the ALJ considered and evaluated the RFC assessments conducted by State agency consultants Dr. Grim and Dr. Nicholas. ... Based on that record, the undersigned finds no error in the ALJ’s determination to give “great weight” to the opinion of the State agency consultants.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) requires an ALJ to consider findings and opinions from state agency medical and psychological consultants as opinion evidence because they are qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

Greenaway v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(e)

“An ALJ ‘must consider findings andother opinions of [s]tate agency medical and psychological consultants … as opinion evidence’ because [s]tate agency medical and psychological consultants … are highly qualified physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.’” Harding v. Colvin, Civ.Action No. 12-11437-DJC, 2015 WL 8082386, at *12 (D. Mass. Dec. 7, 2015) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to consider state-agency medical and psychological consultants’ opinions and give them weight only to the extent they are supported by the record.

Pickerell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(e)(2), (f)

The regulations provide that Administrative Law Judges “must consider” the medical findings of State Agency medical and psychological consultants because they “are highly qualified” physicians and psychologists as well as “experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 416.927(e)(2). State agency psychological advisers can be given weight only to the extent they are supported by the evidence in the record.2 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f); Social Security Ruling 96-6p; see also Atterbery v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 871 F.2d 567, 570 (6th Cir. 1989).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider state-agency medical consultants’ findings and permits the ALJ to assign them weight as long as the ALJ explains the weighting.

Thomaselli v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-19(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(ii)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider the findings of state agency physicians because they are “highly qualified physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i). The ALJ is permitted to weigh those opinions as she sees fit, so long as an explanation is provided. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to consider and assign weight to state-agency medical or psychological consultants’ opinions in the same manner as opinions from other medical sources.

Figuera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-21(f)(2)

State agency medical or psychological consultants are considered “experts in Social Security disability evaluation,” and the ALJ must consider and assign weight to their opinions in the same manner as any other medical source. See id. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider State-agency medical opinions, may not ignore them, and must explain the weight given to them.

Frink v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-24(f)

However, although ALJs “are not bound by findings made by State agency or other program physicians and psychologists, . . . they may not ignore these opinions and must explain the weight given to the opinions in their decisions.” Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96–6p, available at 1996 WL 374180, at *2; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) makes a non-examining state agency medical consultant's opinion a relevant expert opinion entitled to consideration.

Jackson v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2021-03-31(e)(2)(i)

The opinion of Dr. Estock, as a non-examining state agency medical consultant, is entitled to consideration as a relevant expert opinion. Westphal, 2017 WL 2172021, at *7 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(i), 416.927(e)(2)(i)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must determine its weight using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Noak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires applying the listed factors to determine the opinion's appropriate weight.

Bilak v. Colvin · filed 2014-12-15(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3)-(c)(6)

Nevertheless, regardless of whether Dr. Kaylen’s report was given ... controlling weight, the ALJ failed to apply the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii), as well as the factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6). These subsections are applied when controlling weight is not given, for the purpose of allocating the appropriate weight to a physician’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion and, when the opinion is not given controlling weight, evaluate its probative value under the listed factors.

Martinez v. Massanari · filed 2003-01-27(d)(2) through (d)(6)

Nonetheless, the Court need not address the Commissioner’s argument that the opinion of Dr. Baraya, Martinez’s treating source, was properly denied controlling weight for being inconsistent with that of Dr. Polack and Dr. Wells because that argument highlights a second defect in the SSA Decision: the ALJ failed to articulate and, it appears, engage in the credibility analysis dictated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) through (d)(6) and, instead, summarily discounted Dr. Baraya’s opinion. (R. at 19.)

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 requires greater weight for treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairment.

Burkett v. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-19(d)(2)

A similar preference for the opinions of treating doctors is found in the Commissioner’s regulations: ... Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, .since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your 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 or brief hospitalizations. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Even in consideration of the above articulated rules, the ALJ in the instant matter concluded that Dr. Jacob’s determination that Burkett had moderately severe limitation in her ability to respond to customary work pressure was erroneous (R. 29). In making his decision, therefore, the ALJ gave less than substantial weight to Dr. Jacob’s opinion. As a matter of law, if an ALJ gives less than substantial weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must clearly articulate good cause for doing so. Failure to do so is reversible error. ... This court finds that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Jacobs’ evaluation of Burkett with regard to her alleged depression.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant's impairment and a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

Cook v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-17(d)(2)

The Commissioner’s regulations also recommend a similar preference for the opinions of treating doctors. Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your 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 consultive examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal view of a claimant's medical impairment.

Daughtry v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-19(d)(2)

The Commissioner’s regulations also recommend a similar preference for the opinions of treating doctors. Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your 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 consultive examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, even when the opinion is not controlling.

Spinale v. SSA · filed 2004-01-05(d)(2)

Even if the ALJ implicitly rejected this aspect of D r . Feitelson’s opinion, the failure to explain the rejection directly conflicts with the SSA’s regulations, which provide that “[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of ... determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Cotter, 642 F.2d at 707.

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 retrospective treating-source opinion is not entitled to significant weight when it is conclusory and unsupported by relevant, objective evidence.

Strong v. Social Security Administration · filed 2004-02-03(d)(2)-(3)

Although Dr. Cornett opined long after the relevant period that Claimant had been disabled during the relevant period, such a retrospective and conclusory opinion is not entitled to significant weight because it is not supported by relevant and objective evidence.

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) does not make a treating physician's opinion automatically dispositive; the opinion must still be considered in evaluating the claim.

Brooks v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, 03-1125 (2004) · filed 2004-04-22(d)(2)

In determining whether an applicant is disabled, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is found that the physician's opinion "is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 (d)(2). The treating physician's opinion is not always dispositive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2). ... Accordingly, on remand, the Hearing Officer must take into account the treating physician's opinion with respect to the migraines.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(d)(2)(i), an ALJ may give little weight to a medical opinion from a source who treated the claimant for only a short period.

Edwards v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-05-03(d)(2)(i)

As the chiropractor had treated Edwards for such a short period of time, the regulations provide that an ALJ may afford such an opinion little weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions because they provide a detailed, longitudinal view of the claimant’s impairment.

Snider v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-07-19(d)(2)

The Rule promulgated by the Secretary states that: “more weight [will be given] to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... However, a treating physician’s opinion may be rejected if there is good reason to do so. ... The Sixth Circuit has held that treating physicians’ opinions “are only given such deference when supported by objective clinical evidence.” ... Where a treating physician renders an opinion using legal language as opposed to medical terminology, the Court may likewise reject it if it is not supported by clinical evidence in the record. ... There was no error therefore in placing little weight on Drs. Salman’s and Dias’ opinions on disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and gives them controlling weight when they are well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and are not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Querido v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-10(d)(2)

Under the regulations, more weight is generally given to opinions from a claimant’s treating sources, “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture” of the claimant’s medical condition. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2). The administrative law judge is not, however, “obligated automatically to accept [the treating physician’s] conclusions.” ... Rather, controlling weight is given if the administrative law judge finds that the “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 other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating-source opinion that is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and permits reduced weight based on the limited treatment relationship and lack of supporting materials.

Balthrop v. Barnhart · filed 2004-11-24(d) and (d)(2)

The record and applicable regulations support the ALJ’s decision to deny Dr. Haworth’s opinion controlling weight because it was not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). The regulations also support the ALJ’s decision to discount its persuasive weight because of the limited nature of the underlying treatment relationship and lack of supporting materials, id. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), (3), 416.927(d)(2), (3).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Social Security Administration to give more weight to treating-source opinions even when they are not entitled to controlling weight.

Taylor v. Barnhart · filed 2004-12-06(d)(2)

Even where a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Social Security Administration is obligated to “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 ... medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from ... reports of individual examinations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

A treating source's medical opinion generally receives greater weight when the source has treated the claimant for a longer period and seen the claimant more frequently.

Castro v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-13(d)(2)(i)

The longer and more frequently a doctor has treated, the greater the weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i); see also Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418 (8th Cir. 2003). Dr. Ridenour performed the lumbar surgery two years earlier, but never saw Castro again. Dr. Ridenour simply summarized the therapist's conclusions, noting cooperation that indicates validity. Without an independent examination, or an ongoing relationship, Dr. Ridenour's reference to the therapist's opinion does not warrant controlling weight.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Pasco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-06-23(d)(2)

An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. However, the ALJ "is not bound by conclusory statements of doctors, particularly where they are unsupported by detailed objective criteria and documentation." Buxton, 246 F.3d at 773 (citations omitted). If the opinion of a treating source is not accorded controlling weight, an ALJ must apply certain factors--namely, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source--in determining what weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. The regulation requires the ALJ to “give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant's] treating source's opinion." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an administrative law judge to determine the weight of a treating-source opinion by considering the regulatory factors after deciding not to give the opinion controlling weight.

Cross v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-06-14(d)(2)

Third, the ALJ must determine what weight, if any, to give the treating source’s opinion in light of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to evaluate the opinion rather than simply reject it.

Blom v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-26(d)(2)

If the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent” with other substantial evidence the ALJ must afford it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Even if the ALJ finds that the treating source opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, she may not simply reject it. SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

White v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-14(d)(2)

But the opinion of a treating physician is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Dr. Woldum’s opinion did not meet either regulatory requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives greater weight to a treating medical professional’s opinion than to opinions from consultants or others who did not treat the claimant over time.

Lewis v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-11(d)(2)

As a treating medical professional who treated the claimant over time, Mr. Hackett’s opinion was due greater weight than that of consultants or others who did not treat over time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to clearly explain any decision to give it less weight.

Forrest Miller v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-31(d)(2)

Social security regulations also 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 medical opinions, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is amply supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and a doctor’s specialization. See id. § 404.1527(d). ... If a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is well-supported by objective evidence and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ is to give it controlling weight. Id. If the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, “[t]he ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (requiring the agency to “give good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since 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 gives controlling weight to well-supported treating-source opinions about the nature and severity of an impairment, but not to opinions on whether a claimant is disabled, and permits reduced weight for opinions lacking supporting medical findings.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-06-07(d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(3), and (d)(3)

If the ALJ finds that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques . . . [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). However, opinions on disability are not medical opinions and are not given any special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1) & (3). The treating professionals’ opinions stated that Dixon was disabled and unable to do the specific jobs identified by the vocational expert. Because the opinions reflected the treating professionals’ opinions on disability, they were properly afforded no special significance. See id. Further, these opinions were properly given less weight because they were unsupported by medical findings regarding what functional limitations Dixon possessed that prevented her from performing these positions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to treating-source opinions and, when those opinions are not controlling, to explain the weight given to State agency or other program-physician opinions.

Gilkey v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-18(d)(2), (f)(2)(ii)

Under the applicable regulations, .the ALJ is required to explain the weight given to the opinions of claimant’s treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that, “we will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”). ... If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinions controlling weight, he is required to explain the weight given to the opinions of State agency medical consultants or other program physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii). ... However, the ALJ failed to explain why Dr. Gynn’s opinions were not given controlling weight. ... Furthermore, the ALJ failed to articulate the weight given to the opinions of Dr. Epner, Dr. Donelan and Dr. Bone. Accordingly, remand is appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires a treating-source opinion to be evaluated based on its consistency with the record as a whole and the listed regulatory factors, not given greater weight solely because the source is a treating source.

Padilla v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-19(d)

The opinion of Padilla's treating psychiatrist is not entitled to more weight simply because of her status as a treating source, Rodriguez Pagan v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 819 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1012 (1988), but rather because her opinion is consistent both with the record as a whole and with many of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain the weight assigned to opinions from treating, nontreating, and nonexamining sources.

Dioguardi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-08-11(f)(2)(ii)

The ALJ committed legal error when she failed to assign any weight, or explain the weight she assigned, to the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Gerald A. Coniglio, M.D. “Unless the treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the administrative law judge must explain in the decision the weight given to the opinions of a State agency medical or psychological consultant or other program physician or psychologist, as the administrative law judge must do for any opinions from treating sources, nontreating sources, and other nonexamining sources who do not work for us.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2) (ii). In this case, ALJ Gregg did not assign controlling weight to the opinion of plaintiffs original treating physician, Jeffrey Hanson, M.D., and plaintiff does not take issue with that decision.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider a treating specialist’s opinion and explain the conflicting evidence and analysis supporting its rejection.

Abadie v. Social Sec Admin · filed 2006-09-13(d)(2)

The ALJ was not required to accept Dr. Razza’s opinions, but was required to consider them, and if he chose to reject them, to explain what conflicting evidence informed his choice and conduct the analysis required by Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to still weigh it using the listed factors and explain the weight assigned with good reasons.

ZARKOWSKI v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-24(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion, even when contradicted by other evidence, is entitled to deference and must be weighed 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 with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in the medical questions at issue; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... “We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”

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

A treating source's opinion receives controlling weight 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.

v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-24(d)(2)

Where a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” it will be given “controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when weighing a treating source's opinion, give it controlling weight when adequately supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and explain the assigned weight when controlling weight is not given.

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

It has long been recognized that the opinion of a treating medical source is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... In determining what weight to give a treating source’s opinion, the Commissioner must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating source’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d); 416.927(d). ... When controlling weight is not given to a treating source’s medical opinion, the ALJ must explain his reasons for the weight he does assign to that opinion.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, but permits an ALJ to give it less weight when it lacks objective support or conflicts with the medical evidence as a whole.

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

The ALJ is required to assess the record as a whole to determine whether treating physicians' opinions are inconsistent with substantial evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). "A treating physician's opinion is generally given controlling weight, but is not inherently entitled to it." Hacker, 459 F.3d at 937. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ may elect under certain circumstances not to give controlling weight to treating doctors opinions. A physician's statement that is "not supported by diagnoses based on objective evidence" will not support a finding of disability. Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir. 2003). If the doctor’s opinion is "inconsistent with or contrary to the medical evidence as a whole, the ALJ can accord it less weight." Id.; see also Hacker, 459 F.3d at 937; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). It is the ALJ's duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence. See Hacker, 459 F.3d at 936.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion only when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires valid reasons for declining that weight.

Conte v. McMahon · filed 2007-01-30(d)(2)

The hearing officer may give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The hearing officer must, however, provide valid reasons for doing so. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stemple v. Astrue · filed 2007-02-26(d)(2)

Agency regulations state that, due to the nature of the treating relationship, the opinion of a treating source is generally given more weight than other opinions contained in the record and may even be given controlling weight regarding the nature and severity of plaintiff's impairments when it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [consistent] with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally favors treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairment.

Bode v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)

Generally, a treating doctor’s opinion is entitled to more weight than an examining doctor’s opinion and a reviewing doctor’s opinion. ... This is because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when its source supports it with relevant evidence, medical signs, laboratory findings, and a good explanation.

ALDRICH v. SAUL · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Further, Dr. Rehwaldt and NP Pope’s check-box assessment does not reconcile these objective clinical findings and Plaintiff’s admissions with their conclusions about his alleged disabling physical limitations. AR 725. The ALJ therefore reasonably discounted their check-box opinion. ... 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it using the listed factors without an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

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

The treating physician doctrine requires opinions from treating physicians to be given controlling weight when the opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Even when a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine how much weight to assign to the opinion by applying specific factors set forth in the governing regulations. ... Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the source. ... The ALJ, however, is not required to provide an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” in the decision. ... The court, therefore, finds that the ALJ adequately addressed the Section 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion that lacks controlling weight.

Nordness, Lisa v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-09-30(d)

Even where a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, a number of factors must be considered by the ALJ to determine how much weight to give different medical opinions, including “[l]ength of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; “[n]ature and extent of the treating relationship”; supportability; consistency; specialization; and “[o]ther factors . . . which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give specific reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and treats a physician’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as non-controlling.

Green v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2), (e)

As long as the ALJ provides ‘good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the . . . opinion[], [n]othing more [is] required[.]’ . . . What matters is that the decision is ‘sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewer[] that weight the adjudicator gave to the . . . opinion and the reasons for that weight.’” Mounts v. Astrue, 479 Fed. Appx. 860, 865 (10th Cir. 2012), quoting Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Finally, Dr. Barney’s opinions that Claimant was unable to work were discussed by the ALJ, but they were not entitled to controlling weight as they address issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (stating that opinions that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” are not medical opinions); Balthrop v. Barnhart, 116 Fed. Appx. 929, 932-33 (10th Cir. 2004) (finding an opinion couched as conclusive on an issue reserved to the Commissioner is not a medical opinion entitled to controlling weight analysis or any special significance); Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *5 (indicating that an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner is still evidence and cannot simply be disregarded).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source medical opinions, but does not require controlling weight and permits less weight when the adjudicator has a good reason.

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

The disability determination process generally gives “more weight to medical opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). But, the ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians. Barrientos v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir. 1987); Rivera-Tufino v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 731 F. Supp. 2d 210, 216 (D.P.R. 2010). Rather, the ALJ can give less weight to a treating physician’s opinion if she has good reason to do so. Pagán-Figueroa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 623 F. Supp. 2d 206, 210-11 (D.P.R. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to give more weight to treating-source medical opinions because treating professionals can provide a detailed longitudinal picture and unique perspective on a claimant's impairments.

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

The Commissioner must give more weight to medical opinions from a claimant’s treating sources since treating professionals are most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s medical impairments and may provide a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be drawn from objective medical findings along or from reports of individual examinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating medical source’s opinion more weight because the source can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairment and a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

Conken v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-15(c)(2)

Generally, a treating doctor’s opinion is entitled to more weight than an examining doctor’s opinion and a reviewing doctor’s opinion. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). This is because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence, and otherwise weigh it using specified factors such as supportability and consistency.

WITHERSPOON v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-10-15(c)(2)-(4)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If an ALJ does not afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he or she may instead give it “more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.” Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999). Factors to be considered by the ALJ in assigning appropriate weight to a medical opinion include the following: the length of the treating relationship and frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treating relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to a treating source's medical opinion when the source has treated the claimant longer and seen the claimant more times, enough to develop a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

Zabala v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-04(c)(2)(i)

If anything, the record of Dr. Danna’s treatment history supports giving more rather than less weight to Dr. Danna’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(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. When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the medical source’s medical opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give treating-source medical opinions more weight, give controlling weight to well-supported and record-consistent opinions, and explain the weight assigned using the regulatory criteria when an opinion conflicts with the record.

Ngo v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-12(c)

An ALJ must generally give more weight to the opinions of treating physicians than non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1); 416.927(c)(1); see also Richards v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 592 F.3d 232, 240 n. 9 (1st Cir. 2010) (“[T]reating physicians’ opinions are ordinarily accorded deference in Social Security disability proceedings.”). Thus, if a treating source opinion is well-supported by objective evidence and consistent with the record, the ALJ must accord it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating source opinion contradicts the record, however, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion “against six criteria in order to fulfill the mandate that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ when determining the weight a treating opinion deserves.” Santana v. Colvin, 2016 WL 7428223, at *3 (D. Mass. Dec. 23, 2016); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (identifying six relevant criteria which tend to support or contradict a medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a treating physician's opinion because that physician can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant's impairment and a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

Bailey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-11-06(c)(2)

Generally, the ALJ gives “more weight” to an opinion from a treating physician because the treating physician is “likely to be the medical professional[] most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture” of the claimant’s medical impairment and “may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

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, to evaluate the regulatory factors when deciding the weight it deserves.

Byrd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-18

Since the ALJ did not point to substantial evidence inconsistent with any of Dr. Vyas’ opinions, she should have given them controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; SSR 96-2p. Even if Dr. Vyas’ opinions were not entitled controlling weight, the ALJ must still evaluate the relevant regulatory factors, and determine the weight warranted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Scrogham, 765 F.3d at 697. However, the ALJ’s decision demonstrates no factor analysis, rendering her decision to give Dr. Vyas’ opinions “little weight,” not supported by substantial evidence. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial record evidence, while the regulation requires the ALJ to weigh a non-controlling opinion using specified factors and gives no deference to opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or cannot work because those issues are reserved to the Commissioner.

Dodge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-20(c)(2), (d)(1)-(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s condition is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... In so doing, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the following non-exclusive factors identified in Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... “At both steps, the ALJ must give good reasons in its notice of determination or decision for the weight it gives the treating source’s medical opinion.” ... The treating physician rule does not require an ALJ to give deference to issues reserved for the Commissioner’s judgment such as whether a claimant is “disabled and cannot work.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors in § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) to determine the opinion's weight, and failure to do so is reversible legal error.

Nichols v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-22(c)(2)-(6)

In the event that the opinion of a treating physician is not entitled to “controlling weight,” the ALJ is instructed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) to consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) to determine what weight to accord the opinion of the treating physician. The Ninth Circuit has held that a failure to do so “alone constitutes reversible legal error.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ostuni v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-25(d)(2)

The treating physician rule stipulates that “the opinion of a [plaintiff’s] treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ as long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also Mariani v. Colvin, 567 F. App’x 8, 10 (2d Cir. 2014) (“A treating physician’s opinion need not be given controlling weight where it is not well-supported or is not consistent with the opinions of other medical experts” where those other opinions amount to “substantial evidence to undermine the opinion of the treating physician”). ... The ALJ’s analysis presents good reason for his decision not to afford Dr. Matza controlling weight. The ALJ therefore did not violate the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and requires controlling weight when the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; before assigning less weight, the ALJ must explicitly consider the treating relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Steele v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-26(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.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 Fed. App’x 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Ignoring two of the Burgess factors—"the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment” and “the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion,” see Greek, 802 F.3d at 375—and then assigning less-than-controlling weight to Dr. Kalata’s opinion was procedural error. See Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the listed treating-physician factors and explain the weight assigned, but does not require rote recitation when the reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Litwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-04(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.” ... 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. ... “[R]ote recitation of every factor is not required, as long as the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear. At core, an ALJ must comprehensively explain the reasons for the weight he or she ultimately assigns to a treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Herrick v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-09(c)(2)(i)

The ALJ noted Dr. Buzzard saw Plaintiff “on only three to six month[] intervals” from January 2015 through August 2017 for a total of only seven visits before Dr. Buzzard offered his opinion. 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to medical opinions consistent with the record and gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Contreras v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-16(c)(4), (d)(2)

The more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it is given. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record; if not, the opinion must still be given deference and weighed under the regulatory factors, with good reasons stated for the assigned weight.

Nino v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-18(c)(2)

Social Security regulations require that, in determining disability, the opinions of treating physicians be given controlling weight when those opinions are well-supported by the medical evidence and are consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2012). ... In order to receive controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion must be both supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record. If not, the opinion may not merit controlling weight but still must be given deference and weighed using the following six factors: ... However, not every factor is applicable in every case, nor must an ALJ always analyze all six factors. What is absolutely necessary, though, is that the ALJ give good reasons—reasons that are “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers”—for the weight she ultimately assigns to the opinion. ... In sum, when properly rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must follow two distinct phases. First, the ALJ must find that the opinion is not supported by medical evidence and/or is not consistent with the record. Second, the ALJ must still give deference to the opinion and weigh it according to the factors listed above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives treating-source opinions greater weight because of their longitudinal perspective and requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight to consider specified treatment-relationship and supportability factors.

Barnes, Deborah v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-12-19(d)(2)

“An ALJ who does not give controlling weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician must offer ‘good reasons’ for declining to do so.” ... Generally, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician are “give[n] more weight” because he or she is “likely to be the medical professional[] 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2011). ... If an ALJ chooses not to 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 consistent and supportability of the physician’s opinion.”

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 not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and permits the ALJ to weigh the opinion using factors including treatment duration, examination frequency, support, and consistency with the record.

Odam v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-08(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)

When a medical opinion comes from a treating source, the ALJ must give it controlling weight if it is both “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons for giving Dr. Morgan’s opinion no weight. ... Generally, the “longer a treating source has treated [a claimant] and the more times [a claimant has] been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). ... Here, the ALJ made clear that he considered not only the length of relationship but also how well Dr. Morgan’s opinion was supported and whether it was consistent with the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Raymond v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2020-01-10(c)(2)

In discussing the weight that will be ascribed to the opinions of “treating sources,” the regulations applicable to claimant’s appeal provide that, “Generally, we give more weight to medical opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors in deciding what weight to give the opinion, but requires good reasons rather than an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Nordhausen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-16(c)(2)-(6)

Finally, while the ALJ’s decision does not reflect an extensive analysis of the regulatory factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), the regulations require only that an ALJ’s decision include “*good reasons . . . for the weight give[n] [to the] treating source’s opinion’-— not an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” ... Here, the ALJ’s decision reflects a consideration of the regulatory factors, albeit not explicitly. The ALJ considered Dr. Garrison’s length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination with plaintiff. (Tr. 21). The ALJ also considered the consistency and supportability of Dr. Garrison’s opinions with the record as a whole, including his own treatment notes and plaintiff's self-reported activities. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ complied with the requisite two-step inquiry and gave “good reasons” for assigning Dr. Garrison’s opinions “partial weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Robinson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-22(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) favors more weight for a treating source seen often and long enough to provide a longitudinal picture, and subsection (c)(5) favors a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s field.

Taylor v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-24(c)(1), (c)(5)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(1), generally, the longer a treating source has treated the patient and the more times the patient have been seen by a treating source, more weight will be given to the source's medical opinion. If the treating source has seen the patient several times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of that patient’s impairment, that medical source's medical opinion will be given more weight than if it were from a nontreating source. ... Dr. Balsiger is also neurologist which makes him a specialist. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(5), more weight is given 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. Thus, this regulatory factor weighs in favor of Dr. Balsiger.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally favors medical opinions from treating sources, but controlling weight requires adequate medical support and consistency with the substantial evidence, while consistency with the record as a whole—including daily activities—supports giving an opinion more weight.

Lynn M. Perry, Claimant v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant · filed 2020-01-28(c)(2), (c)(4)

In discussing the weight that will be ascribed to the opinions of “treating sources,” the regulations applicable to claimant’s appeal provide that, “Generally, we give more weight to medical opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... 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). ... 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(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good cause to discount it.

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-06(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than substantial or considerable 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 (citing Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241).

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 not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while requiring good reasons when the ALJ assigns it less weight.

Shisslak v. Saul · filed 2020-02-07(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2), a “treating source” is an “acceptable medical source who provides [a claimant] with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [the claimant].” ... Under that rule, “[c]ontrolling weight” must be given “to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments” as long as 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.” ... However, the ALJ may decline to treat the treating physician’s opinion as controlling and assign it less weight if the opinion “is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, including treatment notes and evaluations by examining and non-examining physicians.” ... An ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to “the treating source’s opinion.” ... Factors considered by the ALJ in determining the weight given to a medical opinion include “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the degree to which the opinion can be supported by relevant evidence, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole.” ... I conclude the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision to give less weight to Dr. Vandor’s opinion regarding the severity of Plaintiff’s conditions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

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

These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination as well as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating source’s opinion; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the treating source is a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

An ALJ will give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If an ALJ does not give the treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ will apply the following factors to determine what weight to give the medical opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) evidentiary support of the medical opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the opinion was rendered by a specialist; and (6) any other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to give it deference, apply the specified factors, and provide sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned.

Hartshorn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-13(d)(2)-(6)

Even when inconsistent with other evidence, a treating source’s medical opinions remain entitled to deference and must be weighed using the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. ... The ALJ did not explicitly apply the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § § 404.1527 and 416.927 in his decision to assign little weight to Dr. Frank’s opinions and his reasoning is not “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers . . . the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.

Peel v. Saul · filed 2020-02-21(d)(2)

The regulations require that the ALJ give good reasons for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation. Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The ALJ did not totally disregard Dr. O’Hara’s opinion but gave good reasons for assigning little weight to his evaluation of Plaintiff’s functional limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pacheco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-26(c)(2)

The first is the “treating physician rule.” ... The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Closely associated is “the good reasons rule,” which requires an ALJ always to give “good reasons . . . for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source opinion.” ... In order to meet the “good reasons” standard, the ALJ’s determination “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)(i) directs that a treating source’s opinion receives more weight when repeated, sufficiently lengthy treatment has provided a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

(SS) Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-28(c)(2)(i)

In assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the regulations expressly permit an ALJ to consider the length and frequency of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the source’s opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires good reasons for declining to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight and treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions entitled to special significance.

BAUCOM v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-28(c)(2), (d)

Where an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating source opinion, he must “sive good reasons in [his] . . . decision for the weight” assigned, taking the above factors into account. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ correctly discounted that opinion as involving “an issue tesetved to the Commissioner pursuant to 20 CFR 404.1527(d)”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source medical opinions because treating sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's medical impairments.

Dukes v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-03(c)(2)

In light of this record, and given that the Commissioner generally gives “more weight to medical opinions from … treating sources” because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [claimants’] 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[,]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2),16 Dr. Taylor’s January 5, 2018 opinion was presumptively based on his treatment of Dukes occurring prior to the ALJ’s decision; the Commissioner has cited no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the Appeals Council was incorrect that Dr. Taylor’s opinion was not chronologically relevant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight and requires the ALJ to consider controlling weight first, then explain the assigned weight using the regulatory factors when controlling weight is not warranted.

Guillar v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-03(c)(2)

The evaluation of a treating physician’s opinion requires “a sequential two-step inquiry, each step of which is analytically distinct.” Brownrigg, 688 F. App’x at 548 (quoting Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011)). “First, the ALJ must consider whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight.” Brownrigg, 688 F. App’x at 548. This analysis requires findings that the physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Id. (quoting Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1330) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). “Second, if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must make clear how much weight the opinion is being given (including whether it is being rejected outright) and give good reasons, tied to the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 . . . for the weight assigned.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the treatment relationship, examination frequency, nature and extent of treatment, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors; isolated episodes of improvement do not alone justify giving the opinion only little weight.

Santiago v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-06(c)

When controlling weight is not assigned, the ALJ assigns an otherwise appropriate weight by considering the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record, the treating source’s specialty, and other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(6). ... Here, the reasons provided by the ALJ to accord only little weight to Dr. Canale’s opinions appear to run afoul of the Regulations. ... Accordingly, while I agree that the lack of specificity in Dr. Canale’s treatment notes regarding Santiago’s limitations is a valid basis to give his MSS opinions less than controlling weight, see Cline v. Colvin, 771 F.3d 1098, 1104 (8th Cir. 2014), the ALJ’s selection of isolated episodes of improvement to significantly discount the opinions runs afoul of the Regulations. Substantial evidence on the record as a whole does not support the ALJ’s decision to accord this treating source’s opinions only little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to opinions from treating providers than to opinions from other medical sources.

Stoutmeyer v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-13(c)(2)

Per Social Security regulations, more weight is generally given to opinions of treating providers than to opinions of other medical sources. 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 evaluating a treating doctor's opinion to apply the regulation's criteria, including the length and frequency of treatment, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Baechle v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2)(i), (d)(2)

Therefore, the ALJ was required to apply the criteria set forth in § 404.1527. As explained below, the Court finds that the ALJ's decision considers the appropriate criteria for assessing the opinion of a treating doctor, and further finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision to discount Dr. Noble's opinions. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) ("Generally, the longer a treated source has treated [a claimant] and the more times [a claimant] has been seen by a treating source, the more weight [the ALJ] will give to the source’s medical opinion."). ... "Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for doing so." Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1013 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally requires an ALJ to give substantial weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record, and to provide good cause for giving it less weight.

Carson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-18(c)

The ALJ must give substantial weight to the opinion of a treating source if medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques supports it and the opinion is not inconsistent with the other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004). If the ALJ does not assign substantial weight to a treating physician’s opinion, then the ALJ must provide good cause for doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440–41 (11th Cir. 1997).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ to give weight to a treating-source opinion offered after the claimant’s date last insured when the opinion does not relate back to the insured period.

Emard v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-03-19(d)(2)

Emard’s reliance on Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security, 581 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2009), is inapposite. The court in Blakley determined that the ALJ had not complied with the requirement in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) to give treating-source opinions controlling weight. Id. at 406. But, as is obvious from the context of the case, the medical opinions in Blakley were rendered during the claimant’s insured period and related to his condition at that time. Id. at 401, 407–09. Because the ALJ in Blakley had plainly failed to comply with the regulations, the presence of substantial evidence in the record did not excuse the ALJ’s procedural error. Id. at 409–10. In contrast, this court has made clear that an ALJ makes no such procedural error by declining to give any weight to the opinion of a treating source offered after the claimant’s date last insured when the opinion does not relate back to the insured period. See, e.g., Johnson, 535 F. App’x at 506.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to a treating source’s opinion than to an opinion from a doctor who does not treat the claimant.

Bast v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant. Winans v. Bowen, 853 F.2d 643, 647 (9th Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating-physician opinions the greatest weight and gives examining-physician opinions more weight than non-examining opinions, while not making them binding on the ultimate issue of disability.

(SS) Dodson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(d)(2)

In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight but it is not binding on the ultimate issue of a disability. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, an examining physician’s opinion is given more weight than the opinion of non-examining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating physicians and to specialists addressing issues within their specialty than to non-treating or non-specialist sources.

Deisenroth v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-26(d)(2), (c)(5)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-treating physician. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... “[w]e generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5); see Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1013 (9th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to a treating source’s medical opinion and permits controlling weight only when the opinion is well-supported and consistent; an ALJ may give it less weight when substantial evidence contradicts it.

Donofrio v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-27(c)(2)

Per this rule, the ALJ must generally give “more weight to medical opinions” from a claimant’s “treating source” when determining if the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... The Commissioner is correct that Dr. Shein’s opinion regarding the relevant period is not entitled to controlling weight. ... Yet, an ALJ need not afford these opinions significant weight where “there is substantial evidence that the opinion is contradicted by other evidence.” ... The ALJ’s decision, then, was supported by substantial evidence.

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 is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, and requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Chicora v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

The treating source’s opinion must be given “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... In declining to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider (1) “the length of the treatment relationship” (2) “the frequency of examination,” (3) “the nature and extent of the treatment,” (4) the “supportability of the opinion,” (5) the “consistency . . . with the record as a whole,” and, (6) “the specialization of the treating source.” ... As to the remaining § 404.1527(c)(2) factors, the ALJ was not required to provide a written explanation for each of the remaining factors. ... Nonetheless, the remaining factors related to the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment are all implicitly addressed by the ALJ’s chronological analysis of Dr. Castillo’s treatment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it using the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Santi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(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). ... As a treating physician, Dr. Martorell’s opinions were entitled to substantial weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on factors including the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, and consistency with the record, and permits less weight for unsupported or inconsistent treating-source opinions.

DEASE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-03-31(d)(2)

Generally, the regulations dictate that an ALJ must give medical opinions the weight he deems appropriate based on factors such as: whether the physician examined or treated the claimant, whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... An ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating physician when it is unsupported and inconsistent with the other evidence in the record. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Accordingly, this Court finds that the ALJ acted in accordance with the Commissioner’s regulations and Third Circuit case law when he sufficiently explained his reasons for attributing little weight to her opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to account for a treating source's unique perspective gained through an ongoing treatment relationship.

D'Apolito v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-16(c)

The Court also notes that the ALJ erred by not assessing Ms. Ward’s opinion as that of a treating medical source. Ms. Ward counseled Plaintiff monthly for three years, but the ALJ’s analysis did not account for her “unique perspective.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when it lacks medical support or conflicts with other record evidence.

Manning v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-06(c)(2)

The ALJ can afford less weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is not well-supported by medical evidence, and if the opinion is inconsistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... On the Court’s review of the record, the ALJ correctly concluded that the two treating physician’s opinions were not well-supported by the medical evidence and inconsistent with much of that evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally treats a treating physician’s opinion as controlling over a non-treating physician’s opinion and requires consideration of treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors.

Valiant v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-14

Generally, a treating physician's opinion is controlling over a non-treating physician's opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... An ALJ must consider specific factors in determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, including: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, and (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. ... Factors relevant in evaluating the weight of any medical opinion, not just treating physician opinions, include: (1) the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided, (2) the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (3) the specialty of the physician providing the opinion, and (4) other factors such as the degree of understanding a physician has of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements and the physician’s familiarity with other information in the record. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stewart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-16(c)(2)-(6)

In addition to applying an improper legal standard, the ALJ ignored or overlooked evidence that weighed in favor of crediting Dr. Baula’s opinions, failed to provide good reasons for rejecting Dr. Baula’s opinions, and failed to consider many of the regulatory factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) and 416.927(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive more weight and substantial or considerable weight absent good cause, while § 404.1527(d)(2) reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner.

Hunt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-04-17(c)(2), (d)(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.” ... “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.” ... An ALJ also “must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician.” ... An ALJ is not required to accept as true an opinion from a medical source that a claimant is “disabled or unable to work” because the decision of these issues is reserved for the Commissioner. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Accordingly, good cause exists for the ALJ to give partial weight to Dr. Khadir’s opinion about the Plaintiff’s limitations and substantial evidence supports this decision. Therefore, the ALJ did not err concerning this claim.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating source’s opinion when the source has treated the claimant longer and seen the claimant more often.

BECKSTROM v. SAUL · filed 2020-04-21(c)(2)(i)

Second, even if Dr. Wasserman constituted a treating psychiatrist at the time of the 2015 Letter, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length of the treatment relationship when determining how much weight to afford an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated [a claimant] and the more times [a claimant] ha[s] been seen by a treating source, the more weight [an ALJ] will give to the source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions and, absent controlling weight, requires consideration of the treatment relationship, specialization, support, and consistency when assigning weight.

Ziegler, Amanda v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2020-05-08(c)(2)

Unless an opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding the weight to give to a treating physician’s opinion: the length, frequency, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the source’s area of specialty, the degree to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence, and the degree to which the opinion consistent with the record as a whole. § 404.1527(c). ... First, the ALJ appears to give no consideration to the presumptive, greater weight due treating physician opinions like Dr. Lawler’s. See § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) generally gives more weight to a treating source’s medical opinion when the source has greater knowledge of the claimant’s impairment, based on the treatment, examinations, and testing the source performed or ordered.

Manning v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-08(c)(2)(ii)

While her surgeons may have indicated that Plaintiff could lift more weight, Dr. Hodges has the benefit of a broader picture of all of her impairments and resulting limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) (“Generally, the more knowledge a treating source has about your impairment(s) the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion. We will look at the treatment the source has provided and at the kinds and extent of examinations and testing the source has performed or ordered from specialists and independent laboratories.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant’s impairment, and places an examining opinion above a non-examining opinion when no treating opinion is available.

Clevenger v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-18(c)(2)

The regulations provide that a treating physician’s assessment should be given more weight than that of other physicians’ opinions “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s)[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The record contains no opinion evidence about Plaintiff’s physical impairments from a treating physician. Thus, Dr. Afra’s opinion, i.e., the opinion of an examining physician, sits highest in the hierarchy of opinion evidence in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require a medical provider’s opinion to have been prepared solely for a Social Security application before an ALJ may give it weight.

Langer, Tristian v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2020-05-22

Moreover, the court also questions whether the fact that this form was completed for a different purpose -- namely, in support of his grandmother’s guardianship application -- is a valid basis for discounting it. To the contrary, as plaintiff points out, the regulations do not require that a provider’s opinion be submitted solely for the purpose of a social security application for it to be entitled to weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) supports giving more weight to a treating source's opinion when the source has treated the claimant routinely for a sufficiently long and frequent period to develop a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

Koulentiky v. Saul · filed 2020-05-29(c)(2)(i)

A doctor who treats a patient routinely over the course of a year has a treatment relationship sufficiently long and frequent “enough [for him] to have obtained a longitudinal picture of [her] impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)G). Generally, an opinion from this type of treating source is entitled to more weight than an opinion from a non-treating source. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Smith v. Saul · filed 2020-06-05(c)(2)

Put simply, the ALJ must provide a good reason for the weight that she affords the treating physicians’ opinions. 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 a treating physician's opinion to receive substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports assigning it less weight, including when the opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the evidence or the physician's own records.

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

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than substantial or considerable 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the adjudicator to consider how long and how frequently a treating source has treated the claimant when weighing the source's medical opinion.

Snyder v. Saul · filed 2020-06-25(c)(2)(i)

Moreover, the record reflects that NP Greis treated plaintiff on only one occasion prior to issuing her RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i); 416.927(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.”). These factors were appropriate considerations in weighing NP Greis’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(4) gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight and permits the ALJ to give less weight to an opinion that lacks support or conflicts with the medical record, considering supportability and consistency.

Roe v. Saul · filed 2020-07-07(c)(2)-(4)

A treating physician’s opinion is given “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2012). However, when “the treating physician’s opinion is internally inconsistent or conflicts with substantial evidence contained within the medical record as a whole, the ALJ may afford it less weight.” ... And, so, the ALJ was right to discount what is a quintessential example of a “conclusory” MSS that fails to find—or, more helpfully, cite to—corroborative evidence in the record. See Pemberton, 953 F.3d at 517; Chesser, 858 F.3d at 1165; Anderson, 696 F.3d at 794; Johnson, 628 F.3d at 994; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) (2012) (identifying “supportability” and “consistency” as two factors to consider in determining whether to given an opinion more or less weight). The ALJ did not err in giving “little weight” to Blanner’s MSS opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization in deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Keck v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-09(c)(1-6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ considers the examining and treating relationship, length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, and specialization in deciding the weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1-6); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1-6).