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 requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, while allowing an ALJ to give more weight to a specialist than a non-specialist.

DENNIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-07-15(c)(2), (c)(5)

In order for a treating physician’s opinion to receive “controlling weight” it must be: (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Under the regulations, an ALJ may give more weight to the opinion of a specialist related to her area of specialty than to the opinion of a non-specialist. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(5); ... In this case, the record shows that Dr. Kern provided treatment to Plaintiff for her seizures. (R. at 1685–86). Thus, Dr. Kern permissibly opined how Plaintiff’s seizures would affect her ability to work. While the ALJ could have given Dr. Kern’s opinion less weight than that of a neurologist or other specialist, she was not entitled to reject it entirely, nor to forgo recontact.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion substantial weight absent good cause, including when the opinion is unsupported, contradicted by the evidence, conclusory, or inconsistent with the physician's records.

Colclough v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-07-31(d)

The ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir.1985). Absent the existence of “good cause” to the contrary, however, the ALJ must give substantial weight to the opinion, diagnosis, and medical evidence of a treating physician. Crawford v. Comm;r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir.2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). “‘[G]ood cause’ exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240–41 (11th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician's opinion more weight, requires controlling weight when it is properly supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Weddington v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-06(c)(2)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, when the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. Id. “However, [a]n ALJ may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to provide a good reason for the weight assigned to treating physicians’ opinions.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2020-08-13(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 directs adjudicators to give more weight to a treating source’s opinion when the source has treated the claimant longer and seen the claimant more often.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13(d)(2)(i)

Finally, the ALJ noted that, at the time he wrote the letter, “Dr. Wolfgang had seen the claimant for only eight sessions, beginning in December 2015,” and therefore, “had not established a longitudinal treatment relationship with claimant, admitting he saw the claimant only eight times over the span of six months.” ... Despite Plaintiff’s argument, this, too, was a proper consideration. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(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(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Mahoney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-17(d)(2)

An ALJ must, therefore, give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source if: (1) the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). ... If an ALJ accords less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for doing so. Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... On this record, the ALJ sufficiently explained his determination to give little weight to Dr. Waldron’s conclusory opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider six factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

TURANO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-14(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding the weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the listed factors and provide specific reasons.

Dicologero v. Saul · filed 2020-08-19(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an applicant’s impairments “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(c)(2). If an opinion does not receive controlling weight, the ALJ must determine how much weight to give to the opinion by considering the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, whether the treating source specializes in the area, and any other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ by the parties. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The ALJ must also provide “good reasons” for assigning particular weight to a treating source’s opinion and must state “specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion . . . [which] must be sufficiently specific to make [it] clear to any subsequent reviewers.” ... Accordingly, the ALJ identified substantial evidence in the record that contradicts Dr. Abate’s opinions, thereby satisfying the requirements of § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rieara v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source's medical opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ may give it less weight.

LEARSON v. SAUL · filed 2020-08-27(c)(2)-(4)

The rule also recognizes, however, that not all treating sources or treating source opinions merit the same deference. The nature and extent of each treatment relationship appreciably tempers the weight an ALJ affords an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). Moreover, as subsections (2) through (4) of the rule describe in great detail, a treating source’s opinion, like all medical opinions, deserves deference only if well-supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(4). “[I]f a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions than to opinions from doctors who did not treat the claimant.

Gebhardt v. Saul · filed 2020-08-31(c)(2)

The ALJ should afford each physician’s opinion a certain amount of deference based on that physician’s classification. A treating physician’s opinion proves entitled to the greatest weight. Id. (“As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who did not treat the claimant.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An examining physician’s opinion is entitled, in turn, to a greater weight than a nonexamining physician’s opinion. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ weighing a treating-source opinion to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Cunningham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-02(d)(2)

When determining weight and articulating good reasons, the ALJ “must apply certain factors” to the opinion. Rabbers v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647, 660 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). These factors include the length of treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. Id. While an ALJ is required to delineate good reasons, he is not required to enter into an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” to satisfy the requirement. See Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 414 F. App’x 802, 804-05 (6th Cir. 2011). ... Taken together, the Court find that the ALJ’s explanation, although brief, provided substantially supported “good reasons” – addressing the regulatory factors of consistency and supportability – for rejecting Dr. Morton’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to evaluate medical-source opinions and generally give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Peltier v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-16(d)(2)

Ordinarily, the opinions, diagnoses, and medical evidence of a treating medical source who is familiar with the claimant’s medical history and treatments, and responses to treatment, should be accorded considerable weight in determining disability. ... (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (if a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight”). ... However, a treating medical source’s opinion does not necessarily govern. When good cause is shown, less weight, little weight, or even no weight may be given to the treating source’s testimony or opinion. ... Here, the ALJ did not err in assigning “little weight” to the opinions of Dr. Chauvin in his Medical Source Statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider the length and frequency of a treating relationship when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but that factor alone cannot justify rejecting the opinion.

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

An ALJ may consider the length and frequency of treatment in evaluating what weight to give the opinion of a treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i); see also Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2003) (duration of treatment relationship and frequency and nature of contact relevant in weighing opinion); Allen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 498 Fed. App’x 696, 697 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding a “limited treatment relationship with [the claimant] was a specific and legitimate reason” to assign little weight” to the treating physician’s opinion). However, a limited treatment relationship cannot alone support the rejection of a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to opinions from nonmedical sources.

Brown v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-29(f)(2)

To the extent the statements contain opinions, the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to [nonmedical source] opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to opinions from treating sources because of their longitudinal perspective on the claimant's medical evidence.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-01(c)

The ALJ generally will give more weight to opinions from treating sources because they have treated the claimant over a period of time and “bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone” or from one-time evaluations performed by consulting physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Gibbons v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-01(c)(2)

In fact, the regulations demand that a medical opinion from a treating source be afforded “controlling weight” where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to treating-source medical opinions that provide a detailed longitudinal picture and to sources with longer, repeated treatment relationships.

Davis v. Saul · filed 2020-10-09(c)(2)(i)

When determining the weight to give a medical opinion, the SSA gives more weight to treating physicians who can provide a “detailed, longitudinal picture” of the medical impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(c)(2)(i).1 The SSA also considers the length of the treatment relationship and gives more weight to sources that have treated a claimant multiple times over a longer period of time. Id. Therefore, the ALJ in this case did not err in discounting Dr. Rexroat’s opinion because he had only examined Plaintiff once.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the relevant regulatory factors and determine the appropriate weight to give it.

Leach v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-30(d)(2)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits a treating provider who is not an acceptable medical source to receive greater weight than an acceptable treating provider only when the former has seen the claimant more often, provided better supporting evidence and explanation, and offered an opinion more consistent with the evidence as a whole.

Lopez v. Saul · filed 2020-11-10(f)(1)

Under certain circumstances, the opinion of a treating provider who is not an acceptable medical source may be given greater weight than the opinion of a treating provider who is an acceptable medical source, but only if that provider has seen the claimant more often, has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for the opinion, and the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed checklist factors in deciding what weight the opinion deserves.

Zeek v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(c)

On remand, the ALJ shall address each step of the treating physician rule. If the ALJ properly determines that Dr. Parikh’s opinions do not deserve controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the checklist factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to give to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require controlling weight for a medical opinion from a source with only a limited and intermittent treating relationship.

Eich v. Saul · filed 2020-12-03

The ALJ clearly stated that Dr. McGrath only evaluated Plaintiff twice, more than a year apart, and had no other treatment or interaction with Plaintiff outside of those evaluations. As Defendant correctly argues, such a limited relationship does not necessarily entitle Dr. McGrath’s opinion to controlling weight as a treating source. ... Further, Dr. McGrath was not entitled to consideration as a treating provider due to her limited and intermittent relationship with Plaintiff, and the ALJ provided good reasons for giving little weight to Dr. McGrath’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Mikunda v. Saul · filed 2020-12-14(d)(2)

The “treating physician” rule “directs the administrative law judge to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.’” Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375, 376 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), which codifies the rule)). An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of a treating physician. Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to address the six regulatory factors sufficiently to permit meaningful review and give good reasons for the assigned weight.

Gibson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-16(d)(2)-(6)

Here, neither the ALJ’s analysis of Dr. Davy’s opinions nor his analysis of Plaintiff’s impairments adequately attack Dr. Davy’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s condition. The Undersigned also finds that the Court cannot engage in a meaningful review of the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Davy’s opinion because he did not explicitly discuss how each of the six factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) either supported or undercut rejection of the opinion. ... Because the Undersigned cannot otherwise trace the ALJ’s path of reasoning, and because the ALJ has not provided good reasons for the “partial weight” given to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician, remand is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ generally to give more weight to a treating-source opinion, to give it less weight when unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to consider specified factors if it is not controlling.

Twigg v. Saul · filed 2020-12-22(c)(2), (c)(1)-(6)

However, where a treating physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be afforded significantly less weight. Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 867 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)). ... Ifa treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding the appropriate weight to give the treating source’s opinion: (1) the length and frequency of the treatment relationship; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the amount of evidence supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is a specialist giving an opinion about his area of specialty; and (6) any other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding how much weight to give it.

AELING v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-30(c)(1)-(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6); see also SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise directs the ALJ to weigh the opinion using specified factors and give good reasons.

Nair v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-04(c)(1)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the record; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed using specified treatment-relationship, supportability, and consistency factors.

Nichole Caprice Klocko v. Saul · filed 2021-01-14(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a 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 doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency of the record.” ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Barrett v. Saul · filed 2021-01-12(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight, and may be “controlling” if 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), 416.927(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider a treating physician’s opinion and give good reasons for discounting it.

Kovacic v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-10

An ALJ is required to consider a treating physician’s opinion and provide “good reasons” if discounting it. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and to provide good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, when assigning it less weight.

Foth v. Saul · filed 2021-02-12(c)(2)

If the opinion of a treating source is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the opinion is given “controlling weight.” Jd. ... The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. The ALJ must give reasons “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p. An ALJ can reject a treating physician’s opinion only for reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003). ... I do not find the ALJ erred in assigning little weight to Dr. Painton’s opinion. ... For these reasons, I do not find the ALJ erred in assigning little weight to Dr. Painton’s statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned with good reasons.

Umfleet v. Saul · filed 2021-02-12(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician controls if it is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. ... In assessing a medical opinion, an ALJ may consider factors including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of treatment relationship, supportability with relevant medical evidence, consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole, the physician’s status as a specialist, and any other relevant factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. ... Although an ALJ is not required to discuss all the relevant factors in determining what weight to give a physician’s opinion, the ALJ must explain the weight given the opinion and give “good reasons” for doing so. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions because they provide a detailed, longitudinal view of the claimant's impairment, so the ALJ must consider the treating relationship and explain the weight assigned.

Freeman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-19(c)(2)

More weight is generally given to medical opinions from treating sources since these are likely to be: most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [Plaintiff’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. ... Because the ALJ did not discuss the nature and extent of the treating relationship, any of Dr. Legler’s more restrictive findings, or why Dr. Legler’s specialized knowledge of Plaintiff was not accorded any weight, this Court would be left to guess whether she did so. ... In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ’s failure to assign weight to Dr. Legler’s opinions or to consider his history of treating the Plaintiff was not supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute harmless error.

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 medical opinion.

MARTIN v. SAUL · filed 2021-02-19(c)(2)

An ALJ is obliged to give good reasons for the weight she attributes to medical 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(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by objective evidence and is not inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

Dyas v. Saul · filed 2021-02-24(d)(2)

The ALJ must give the opinions of a treating physician controlling weight if the opinions are supported by objective evidence and are not inconsistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider evidence from treating sources, generally give their opinions more weight, and deny controlling weight when a treating-source opinion is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Welker v. Saul · filed 2021-02-25(a)(2), (c)(2)

However, the law is clear that, when determining an individual’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all the evidence of record, regardless of its source, including evidence from a claimant’s treating sources. ... Additionally, as mentioned supra, treating sources have the closest ties to a claimant, and therefore their opinions are generally entitled to more weight. ... Notwithstanding these legal tenets, the law also provides that a “treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record. ... In the present case, however, Dr. Qamar’s mental status examinations were consistent with other substantial evidence in the case record. ... Therefore, because the Court finds that the ALJ’s assessment of the evidence in this case complied with the requirements of the law, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in affording significant weight to the treatment notes of Welker’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Qamar.

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 treating physicians’ opinions.

Pulst v. Saul · filed 2021-02-26(c)(2)

Put simply, the ALJ must provide a good reason for the weight that the ALJ affords the treating physicians’ opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ’s justification for granting the treating physicians’ opinions such little weight remains insufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating source’s supported, consistent opinion and gives more weight to an opinion addressing limitations within the source’s area of specialty.

McGowan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-01(c)(5)

Generally, the opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if (1) it is supported by objective evidence, and (2) is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Moreover, Dr. Yergler is an orthopedic surgeon (i.e., a specialist) whose opinion is entitled to more weight as it relates to limitations due to a medical issue in his area of specialty and Plaintiff’s conditions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Thus, Dr. Yergler’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight under the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) entitles a supported and consistent treating-source opinion to controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and explain the weight given; § 404.1527(a)(2) defines a treating source by an ongoing treatment relationship.

Riege, Jennifer v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-03-05(a)(2), (c)

Under the regulations in effect at the time of Riege’s claim, the opinions of treating sources are entitled to controlling weight if they are supported by medical evidence and are consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Even if the ALJ does not give a treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider several factors when deciding what weight to give the opinion: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability of the medical opinion, its consistency with the record as a whole; whether the medical source has a specialty; and any other relevant factors. Id. The ALJ need not expressly address each factor, but the ALJ must provide a sound explanation of his conclusion. ... I agree with Riege that Wilson was not a treating source, which the regulations define as a provider who has “an ongoing treatment relationship” with a patient. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Wilson only saw Riege once. ... On remand, the ALJ must reevaluate the opinions of both Augustson and Wilson.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Boardman, Krista v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-03-04(c)(2)–(6)

Under the treating physician rule in effect at the time of Boardman’s application,2 the ALJ had to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it was “well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Stage v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 1121, 1126 (7th Cir. 2016); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). ... If the ALJ did not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s views, the ALJ had to assign it a weight based on factors including the length and nature of the physician-patient relationship, the opinion’s consistency with the record, and the physician’s area of specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) identifies the length and frequency of the treatment relationship as factors an ALJ may consider when weighing a treating physician’s opinion; a limited relationship cannot alone justify rejection.

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

Notably, an ALJ may consider the length and frequency of treatment in evaluating what weight to give the opinion of a treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i); see also Benton v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 1030, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2003) (duration of treatment relationship and frequency and nature of contact relevant in weighing opinion). However, a limited treatment relationship cannot alone support the rejection of a treating source’s opinion.” Rodriguez v. Berryhill, 2017 WL 896304 at *10 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2017); see also Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 2012) (holding that a limited treating relationship may be a valid reason for not according a giving controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, “it is not by itself a basis for rejecting them”). Although the treatment Plaintiff received could not alone support the ALJ’s decision to reject the limitations identified by the physician, it was only one of the factors considered. Thus, the limited treatment supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Rambo’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and an ALJ may discount an opinion that is unsupported or inconsistent with other evidence.

NOVAK v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-28(d)(2)

Generally, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians are entitled to substantial and, at times, even controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.6 To be entitled to controlling weight, however, the treating physician’s opinion must be well supported by medical techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001). To determine the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ may consider a number of factors, including consistency, length of treatment, corroborating evidence, and supportability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to always give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fogal v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-17(d)(2)

Where an ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, “[t]he regulations require that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.” Reed _v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Here, the ALJ found that “the record does not indicate that the claimant’s mental abilities are as limited as Dr. Mozenter suggested” and assigned Dr. Mozenter’s opinion “some weight.” (Tr. 30) The ALJ explained that the evidence “show[ed] few medication changes and consistently normal mental status examinations, including a logical and sequential flow of thought and intact attention/concentration.” (Tr. 30) The Court finds that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to assign Dr. Mozenter’s opinion partial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight and requires controlling weight when it is supported by proper medical testing and consistent with substantial evidence, while requiring good reasons for the weight assigned to the opinion.

Haralson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-08(c)(2)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, when the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. Id. “However, [a]n ALJ may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider each listed factor in deciding how much weight to give it.

Floyd v. Saul · filed 2021-03-09(c)(2)(i)–(6)

Without determining whether the analysis sufficiently explains why Dr. Lewis’ opinions were not given controlling weight, it is not apparent that ALJ Adams considered each factor identified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(6) when deciding to assign little weight to Dr. Lewis’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to opinions from treating sources, and a one-time consultative examiner’s opinion receives no special deference.

Gladney v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give partial weight to Dr. Powell’s opinion. Because Dr. Powell only examined Gladney once, her opinion is not entitled to any special deference. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (providing more weight is generally given to opinions from treating sources); Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1160 (holding the ALJ correctly found that because the doctor only examined the claimant once, the doctor’s opinion was not entitled to great weight).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an adjudicator to determine whether a treating source’s opinion merits controlling weight and, if not, weigh it with deference while giving sufficiently specific good reasons.

Silva v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-13(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must determine whether the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... What is necessary, however, is that the ALJ give good reasons—reasons that are “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers”—for the weight that he ultimately assigns to the opinions. Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to opinions from treating sources than to opinions from non-treating sources, and only a treating-source opinion may be given controlling weight.

Fletcher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-03(c)(2)

To the contrary, the ALJ expressly stated that he gave Dr. Dave’s opinion only “significant weight,” which is consistent with the regulatory provision that only a treating source opinion may be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416927(c)(2). Moreover, the ALJ was not required to accept every portion of Dr. Dave’s opinion. ... Consistent with the Commissioner’s regulations, the ALJ resolved this conflict in favor of the opinion from Plaintiff's treating source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (treating sources are generally given greater weight than non-treating sources).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and requires the adjudicator to consider specified factors and give good reasons when assigning weight.

Glass v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-05-06(c)(2)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion carries controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... Even if the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must still give the opinion deference and weigh it using all of the factors set forth in the regulations. ... In particular, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which relevant evidence supports the physician’s opinion; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2-6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) gives a treating source's opinion more weight when the source has reasonable knowledge of the claimant's impairments than it would receive from a nontreating source.

(SS) Fields v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-07(c)(2)(ii)

“When the treating source has reasonable knowledge of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), 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(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating-source medical opinion, and failing to do so is reversible error.

Tomasello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-11(c)(2)-(6)

“When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.” Revels, 874 F.3d at 654 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2)-(6) (same). ... The failure to consider these factors, by itself, constitutes reversible error. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676.

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 is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

(SS) Grace Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-17(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a treating physician's medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record, even when the opinion is contradicted.

Taylor v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-30(c)(2)-(6)

Even if a treating physician's opinion is contradicted, the ALJ may not simply disregard it. The ALJ is required to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining how much weight to afford the treating physician's medical opinion. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). These factors include the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination” by the treating physician, the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship” between the patient and the treating physician, the “[s]upportability” of the physician's opinion with medical evidence, and the consistency of the physician's opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

PALADINO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-01-31(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating source's opinion 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.” Several factors may also be used to determine the weight given to a medical opinion including: the length of the treatment relationship; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability by the medical evidence; and consistency with the record as a whole. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by the treatment record, while the opinion remains entitled to deference under the regulation.

Beck v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-31(c)(2)

The opinions of treating physicians are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). ... If, however, a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by the opinion of another physician, the ALJ must provide “specific, legitimate reasons” for discrediting the treating physician’s opinion. Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983). ... Thus, viewing the record as a whole, the ALJ’s rationales for rejecting the otherwise valid opinions of the treating physicians do not rise to the specific-and-legitimate standard, and disregard the deference such treating opinions are entitled to under the regulations. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (“Even when contradicted, a treating or examining physician’s opinion is still owed deference and will often be entitled to the greatest weight . . . .”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); 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 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to defer to it, weigh specified factors, and give good reasons for the assigned weight.

Wilson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-02-05(c)(2)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion carries controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p, Titles II And XVI: Giving Controlling Weight To Treating Source Medical Opinions, 1996 WL 374188, at *2 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996). Even if the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he or she must still give the opinion deference and weigh it using all of the factors set forth in the regulations. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300; see Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569, 574 (10th Cir. 2014); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4. In particular, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which relevant evidence supports the physician’s opinion; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2-6); see Newbold v. Colvin, 718 F.3d 1257, 1265 (10th Cir. 2013). After considering the factors, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight he gives the treating source opinion. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300; see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating medical source’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, while subsection (c)(3) directs that opinions supported by relevant medical evidence receive more weight.

Hurlbut v. Saul · filed 2021-06-10(c)(2), (c)(3)

The opinion of a treating medical source should be considered controlling 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); Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2002). ... An ALJ may reject a physician’s opinion when it is not consistent with the objective medical evidence. See Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 853 (8th Cir. 2015); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(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.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, otherwise weigh it using specified relationship, consistency, and specialty factors, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Prock, Ada v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-06-11(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives more weight to a well-supported treating physician’s opinion because the treating physician is most familiar with the claimant’s conditions and circumstances.

Lux v. Saul · filed 2021-06-17(c)

The Court agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ appropriately credited the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating neurosurgeon in accordance with the agency regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) (more weight is given to well-supported treating physicians’ opinions because they are most familiar with the claimant’s conditions and circumstances).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported and record-consistent opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to weigh it using six listed factors and explain the weight assigned.

Nimmer v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-18(c)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source when 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.” ... In making this determination, the ALJ must apply the checklist of six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ did not acknowledge or analyze the two steps of the rule, nor did the ALJ mention the six checklist factors. ... In sum, the ALJ did not minimally articulate the reasons for his conclusions and did not demonstrate that he adequately considered the relevant factors. A remand is required so that the ALJ can fully and fairly consider Dr. Kramer’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-physician opinions more weight and gives them controlling weight when they are well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

(SS) Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-04(c)(2)

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that more weight is generally given to the opinion of treating physicians, which are given controlling weight when well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tyler v. Saul · filed 2021-06-23(c)(2)

Put simply, the ALJ must provide a good reason for the weight that the ALJ affords the treating physicians’ opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ’s justification for granting the consulting state physicians’ opinions such great weight proves insufficient. As explained above, the ALJ failed to explain adequately why their interpretations, rather than the objective medical record, were correct. The ALJ accordingly erred by affording such little weight to the treating source’s opinions, discounting Plaintiff’s testimony, failing to consider Plaintiff’s frequency of treatment, and according too much weight to state agency medical consultants. The ALJ committed legal error when failing to provide a good reason for declining to afford sufficient deference to the treating physician’s medical findings. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(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 well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ weighs it using the regulatory factors and gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Shepard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-24(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2). ... If the ALJ gives the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must provide good reasons for doing so. ... If not afforded controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion is given weight according to a non-exhaustive list of enumerated factors, including (i) the frequency of examinations and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the physician’s opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the physician has a relevant specialty. ... In rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ need not expressly enumerate each factor considered if the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the treating physician rule is clear. ... The ALJ adequately considered the regulatory factors in this case.

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 an ALJ must have good cause to assign it less weight.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-13(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, permits discounting an opinion that fails that standard, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned; when controlling weight is not given, the ALJ considers the regulation’s listed factors.

Guadagno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to provide a sound explanation when rejecting it.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(d)(2)

An ALJ must give “controlling weight” to a treating source’s opinion if it 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). When an ALJ does reject a treating source’s opinion, a sound explanation must be given for that decision. Id. Here, the ALJ erred in failing to give controlling weight to Plaintiff’s treating doctors’ opinions while giving substantial weight Dr. Lace’s opinion that Plaintiff’s general mental status was variable with good recovery between hospitalizations and periods of decompensation. That opinion simply is not supported by the substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, with explicit consideration of weighing factors and good reasons for any lesser weight; § 404.1527(d) reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner.

Bartron v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-21(c)(2), (d)

The treating physician rule requires that “[t]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment [be] given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95 (quoting Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128). ... If an ALJ decides not to give the treating source controlling weight, then she must “determine how much weight, if any, to give it,” by “’explicitly consider[ing]’ the following, nonexclusive ‘Burgess factors’: (1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95–96 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). “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.’” Id. at 96 (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004)). ... Moreover, Dr. Fogelman’s conclusion that Plaintiff would be “unable to maintain gainful employment” is, as the ALJ points out, conclusory, and a disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“We are responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition or disability. . . . A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled; or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”). Thus, the ALJ provided a “good reason” for rejecting this aspect of Dr. Fogelman’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Ponzini v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c)(2)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, “SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive.” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3)-(6)). To override the treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider “(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.” ... After considering these factors, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth his reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” ... The ALJ’s decision not to accord Dr. Shein’s opinion controlling weight was supported by good reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions than to non-treating physicians’ opinions when evaluating medical evidence for claims governed by that regulation.

Page v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

The opinions of treating physicians are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight to give good reasons and consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-21(c)(2)

When an ALJ gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight assigned and consider the following factors: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization and other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight and otherwise requires the opinion to be weighed under the specified factors, with specific reasons for the assigned weight.

Bentz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-02(c)(2)-(6)

Medical opinions are to be weighed by the process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c),3 and “[t]he source of the opinion . . . dictates the process by which the Commissioner accords it weight.” Id. ... A treating source opinion must be given “controlling weight” if such opinion (1) “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Indeed, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 408.6 ... If the ALJ determines a treating source opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must provide ‘good reasons’ for discounting [the opinion], reasons that are ‘sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’” Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require an ALJ to follow a treating physician’s opinion when it conflicts with other medical evidence.

Peck v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-11-04(c)(2)

The judge found that Dr. Smith’s opinions conflicted with the other medical evidence. The medical evidence was “unremarkable” and did not justify Dr. Smith’s suggestion that Peck could do only sedentary jobs. AR 67. So the judge did not have to follow Dr. Smith’s opinions. 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 physician's opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors in determining the weight assigned.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2021-11-01(c)(2)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, “SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive.” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source opinions more weight than non-examining opinions and requires an ALJ to consider the listed weighing factors and explain the weight assigned to each medical source.

Athanas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-30(a)(2), (c), and (f)(2)

For disability benefit applications filed prior to March 27, 2017, treating medical sources are generally given more weight than non-examining sources due to a treating physician’s heightened familiarity with a claimant’s condition. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). If the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider several factors—including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, the length and nature of treatment, supportability, consistency, and specialization, among other factors—in deciding how to weigh the source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must thereafter provide an explanation for the weight given to each medical source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) generally favors giving more weight to a treating doctor with a longer treatment relationship and more visits, while § 404.1527(d) gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Manheimer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-10(c)(2)(i), (d)

Generally, the ALJ should give more weight to a treating doctor who has had a longer treating relationship with the claimant and who has had more visits with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). The ALJ noted the length of Dr. Felton’s treating relationship with plaintiff, discussing treatment notes from 2008 through 2017, but also noted that Dr. Felton saw plaintiff only two times between the amended alleged onset date and the date last insured and thus provided minimal treatment during the relevant period. Tr. 1445. The ALJ was entitled to find that the minimal treatment during the relevant period outweighed the length of the treatment relationship. The Court cannot reweigh these factors. ... And an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, such as an opinion that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work,” is not a medical opinion and is not entitled to any special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The ALJ validly discounted Dr. Feltner’s 2010 opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and relevant evidence, generally give greater weight to a treating physician’s opinion, and provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount a contradicted treating physician’s opinion.

Duval v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-10(b), (c)(2)

An ALJ’s decision to give “little weight” to a treating physician’s opinion must be “supported by substantial evidence.” Id. An ALJ must consider all “medical opinions” and “relevant evidence” in the administrative record in determining whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to greater weight than the opinions of non-treating doctors. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). If a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by other record evidence or another doctor’s opinion, however, an ALJ may reject it if he provides “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by “substantial evidence” to discount that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Champ v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-21(d)(2)

In general, a treating physician’s opinion is afforded the greatest weight, but the opinion is not binding on the ultimate issue of a disability. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751. Further, an ALJ generally gives more weight to an examining physician’s opinion than a non-examining physician’s opinion. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... Because the opinions of Drs. Del Rosario, Greenspan, and McNairn were contradicted by Dr. Len and the state agency physicians, the ALJ was required to identify specific and legitimate reasons for giving less weight to the examining and treating physicians’ opinions. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 831. ... The ALJ failed to identify legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the limitations identified by Plaintiff’s treating physician and an examining physician. These limitations are related to the determination of Plaintiff’s mental residual functional capacity, and the ultimate determination of whether Plaintiff can perform work in the national economy. Because the ALJ failed to resolve conflicts in the medical opinions regarding mental Plaintiff’s limitations, the matter should be remanded for the ALJ to re-evaluate the medical evidence and identify legally sufficient grounds to support the decision. See Moisa, 367 F.3d at 886.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source's well-supported, non-inconsistent opinion controlling weight and, when determining other weight, to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Vicena v. Saul · filed 2021-12-29(d)(2), (c)(2)-(5)

It is well-settled that “[a]n ALJ must give ‘controlling weight’ to a treating source’s opinion if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.’” ... the ALJ is required by regulation to consider certain factors in order to decide how much weight to give the opinion: (1) the ‘[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,’ because the longer a treating physician has seen a claimant, and particularly if the treating physician has seen the claimant ‘long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture’ of the impairment, the more weight his opinion deserves; (2) the ‘[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship’; (3) ‘[s]upportability,’ i.e., whether a physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence, such as ‘medical signs and laboratory findings’; (4) consistency ‘with the record as a whole’; and (5) whether the treating physician was a specialist in the relevant area. ... The purpose of the regulatory factors is to guide the ALJ’s reasoning when deciding what amount of weight to assign to the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician's opinion to be 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 in the record.

FREDRICK V. SAUL · filed 2022-01-03(c)(2)

Under the regulations that apply in this case, the “treating physician rule” requires that the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to more weight than the opinion of an examining physician, and more weight is given to the opinion of an examining physician than a non-examining physician. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014). Where a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating source’s opinion, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor if the explanation permits meaningful judicial review.

Oliver v. Saul · filed 2022-01-05(c)(2)–(c)(6)

The applicable regulations provide that if “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the Commissioner “will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Where the Commissioner does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, it analyzes the opinion in accordance with a number of factors including, the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the “[s]upportability” of the opinion, the “[c]onsistency” of the opinion with the record as whole, the “[s]pecialization” of the treating source, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(c)(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(c)(6). ... Although an ALJ must consider the regulatory factors, he or she is not always required to explicitly discuss each of the regulatory factors. Moreta Mejia v. Berryhill, No. CV 3:16-2558, 2018 WL 6930266, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 16, 2018). And if the ALJ’s “explanation allows meaningful judicial review, it suffices.” Id. Here, the ALJ’s discussion of Dr. Manning’s opinion could have been more robust, but given the conclusory nature of Dr. Manning’s opinion and the ALJ’s overall discussion of the evidence, including the other opinion evidence in the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s explanation allows for a meaningful judicial record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the regulatory factors to determine how much weight to give it.

Anisetty v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-21(c)

Social Security regulations provide that, when a treating source’s opinions are not given controlling weight, an ALJ must apply the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i-ii) (length of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship) and (c)(3-6) (“supportability,” consistency, specialization, and other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion) in determining how much weight to give each opinion. ... However, once again, the ALJ did not discuss the § 404.1527 factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence, but requires good reasons for doing so.

Roberson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-21(c)(2)–(3)

The crux of Roberson’s challenge seems to rest on a general presumption that ALJs usually assign the opinions of treating physicians greater weight than those of non-treating consulting doctors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally we give more weight to medical opinions from your treating sources.”); Wilson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (same). That is only a presumption, however. The treating doctor’s opinion may lack support in the record or contradict other evidence. Blakley v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009). And in weighing the treating doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may consider whether the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable … techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” § 404.1527(c)(2). If not, the ALJ may discount that opinion relative to the opinion of a non-treating source—so long as the ALJ gives “good reasons” for doing so. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight or, otherwise, weigh it using specified factors and explain the assigned weight with good reasons.

Choden v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(c), (d)(2)

If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the appropriate weight: length and frequency of the treatment relationship; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the source’s level of specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, “[t]he regulations require that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.” Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... The ALJ’s conclusory statement that Dr. King’s opinions were not supported by her own treatment notes or the medical record as a whole did not constitute “good reason” for discrediting Dr. King’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) requires the ALJ to give more weight to a treating source’s opinion when the source has treated the claimant longer, seen the claimant more often, and developed a longitudinal picture of the impairment, and to explain why that factor does not change the assigned weight.

Van Buskirk v. Saul · filed 2022-02-15(c)(2)(i)

The regulations direct that such circumstances should make a difference: “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). Further, “[w]hen 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.” Id. The ALJ must, at a minimum, note this factor and discuss why it does not alter his assessment that Dr. Siddiqui’s opinion merits no weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stockton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-24(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, while requiring the ALJ to consider relevant factors and give good reasons when declining that weight.

Rudd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-07(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” of the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... For the following reasons, this court finds that the ALJ’s evaluation of NP Grett and Dr. Herron’s opinion sufficiently aligned with the treating physician rule. Although the ALJ did not explicitly discuss the Burgess factors in his analysis, it is clear from his decision that he considered them and otherwise provided good reasons to support his determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless the ALJ provides good cause for assigning it less weight.

Phillips v. Saul · filed 2022-03-13(c)(2)

Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim for benefits, the ALJ should assign controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician unless he supplies a good reason for assigning the opinion less weight. ... The Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Panarites’s functional assessment opinions was supported by substantial evidence. It is undisputed that Dr. Panarites was a treating physician and the ALJ was therefore required to supply good cause before discounting her opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Here, the ALJ did so, noting that Dr. Panarites’s opinions were both not supported by the record evidence and inconsistent with her own treatment records. [R46]; Schink, 935 F.3d at 1259. And that assessment was correct.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to give more weight to medical opinions from a claimant's treating sources than to opinions from consultative doctors who examined the claimant only once.

Derrick v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-16(c)(2)

The social security regulations also provide that the Commissioner gives “more weight to medical opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Thus, Dr. Oguntuyo’s and Dr. Kennon’s opinions are not entitled to the same deference as Derrick’s treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using the listed factors when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Raulerson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-23(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(6) requires the decision-maker to weigh it using the listed factors and meaningfully consider each factor.

Bruce v. Saul · filed 2022-03-30(c)(2)(i)-(6)

The weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight is determined by reference to the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(6). ... Although the ALJ was “not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician, it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he [or she] meaningfully considered each of the factors [from 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(6)] before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.” ... The ALJ does not mention or make reference to these factors, which was an error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to an other source's opinion when it may affect the outcome of the case.

Sherer v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-29(f)(2)

Though “other” sources are not entitled to any weight, an ALJ generally “should explain the weight given” to their opinions “when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) directs adjudicators to evaluate nonmedical-source evidence under the same framework used for medical-source evidence, while allowing that some factors may not apply.

BLASBERG v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-08-05(f)(1)

Nonmedical sources are evaluated under the same framework as medical sources, though, depending on the facts of the case, not all factors may apply. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs an ALJ to give more weight to treating-source medical opinions because those sources may provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's impairment and a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

Ellis v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-19(c)(2)

To begin, it was proper for the ALJ to consider the lack of a treating relationship between Plaintiff and Dr. Singh and Dr. Skoczylas. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“we give more weight to medical 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 consultative examinations”).

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 in the record.

Drogitis v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-26(c)(2)

Where a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... However, considering the record as a whole, the first two reasons given by the ALJ—the inconsistency between Dr. Kwok’s opinions and Plaintiff’s own self-reported symptoms/activities and the inconsistency between Dr. Kwok’s opinions and other medical record evidence—are sufficiently specific, clear, and convincing to support the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Kwok’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors and determine the appropriate weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is not given controlling weight.

Morris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-29(d)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Carrillo v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-30(c)(2)

A treating physician's opinion is generally given the most weight and may be “controlling” 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); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654 (citation omitted). Here, the ALJ assigned “little weight” to Dr. Doty’s medical opinion. ... The ALJ identified inconsistencies between Dr. Doty’s medical examinations and the prescribed right-hand limitation, ultimately finding that Dr. Doty’s opinions do not merit controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to apply the listed factors to determine the weight of a treating doctor's opinion when it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Groff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-07(c)

A treater’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight only where it is supported by medical findings (“medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques…”) and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... If the ALJ determines that a treating doctor’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must apply the § 404.1527(c) factors to determine what weight to give it. ... The ALJ is required only to “minimally articulate” his reasons for accepting or rejecting evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits discounting it when superior evidence or inconsistency supports doing so.

VanHoosear v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-10(d)(2)

“[A] treating physician's opinion regarding an applicant's impairment will be granted ‘controlling weight,’ provided the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.’” Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012–1013 (8th Cir.2000), quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The record must be evaluated as a whole to determine whether the treating physician’s opinion should control. Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2009). The ALJ may discount or disregard a treating physician’s opinion if other medical assessments are supported by superior medical evidence, or if the treating physician has offered inconsistent opinions. Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d at 961 (8th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) treats the length and frequency of a physician’s treatment relationship with a claimant as relevant considerations when evaluating the physician’s opinion, but they do not alone justify rejecting it.

Lacy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-24(c)(2)(i)

But even the authority Plaintiff cites to support this proposition confirms that while the number of times a physician has treated a claimant may not by itself justify rejecting that physician’s opinion, it is certainly a relevant and permissible consideration. ... The ALJ permissibly considered this factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires substantial or considerable weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless good cause supports discounting it.

Goodwill v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-07-25(d)(2)

Under the Treating Physician Rule, “[t]he testimony of a treating physician must ordinarily be given substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the contrary.” See MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986); see also Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Good cause exists when (1) the treating physician’s opinion “was not bolstered by the evidence,” (2) “evidence supported a contrary finding,” or (3) the “treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” See Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004). The ALJ is required to “clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” See Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, but failure to discuss every factor does not require reversal when the ALJ gives good reasons and does not traverse the substance of the treating physician rule.

Rivera v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-15(c)

If the ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must determine how much weight, if any, to give that opinion. ... In doing so, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the following, non-exclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian, 708 F.3d at 418 (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527)). While failure to explicitly apply the Burgess factors is a procedural error, a reviewing court will not reverse the Commissioner’s decision when the Commissioner has given “good reasons” for its weight assessment. ... Here, the ALJ complied with the treating physician rule. She analyzed each medical opinion of record and explained the basis for the weights she afforded each opinion. ... And, although the ALJ did not explicitly address all the Burgess factors in evaluating the opinions of each doctor, the Court finds that “the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion under the regulatory factors and give good reasons, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor.

Foth v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-27(c)(2)

For claims like Foth’s that were filed before 2017, the opinion of a treating physician must be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c); Reinaas v. Saul, 953 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 2020). An opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight need not be rejected. Instead, the opinion is entitled to deference, and the ALJ must weigh it using several factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the claimant’s relationship with the treating physician; the frequency of examination; whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see also Ramos v. Astrue, 674 F. Supp. 2d 1076, 1087 (E.D. Wis. 2009). Moreover, the ALJ must always give “good reasons” to support the weight she ultimately assigns to the treating physician’s opinion. See §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). ... Foth correctly points out that the ALJ did not address each of the checklist factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... However, it is well established that an ALJ need not explicitly consider every factor. See Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013); Henke v. Astrue, 498 F. App’x 636, 640 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012); Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415–16 (7th Cir. 2008). ... Based on my comprehensive review of the record, I find substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Painton’s opinions are not adequately supported by his treatment records or consistent with each other. Therefore, I affirm the ALJ’s decision to afford little weight to these opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if the ALJ gives it less weight, the ALJ must give good reasons and consider the regulatory factors, though no exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis is required.

Parsley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-29(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6)

Under the treating physician rule, “[t]reating 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) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). ... If an ALJ gives a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight, she must provide “good reasons” for the weight she assigns. ... In deciding the weight to be given, the ALJ should consider: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the source, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... However, an ALJ is not required to provide “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” of the factors considered when weighing medical opinions. ... As an initial matter, the ALJ properly considered the consistency of Dr. Fox’s opinion with evidence of “reported activities.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6). ... For the reasons set forth in more detail above, the undersigned finds that the ALJ’s assignment of little weight to Dr. Fox’s opinion is sufficiently explained and supported by both good reasons and substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported medical opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and, when controlling weight is unwarranted, requires consideration of the listed factors in deciding the opinion’s weight.

GROSSMANN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-02-29(c)(1)–(6)

When evaluating medical evidence, an ALJ must give controlling weight to and adopt the medical opinion of a treating physician if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the treating physician's medical opinion is not required to be given controlling weight under the regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) provide factors to consider in determining the weight afforded to opinions, including the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, length of relationship, frequency of examination, supportability of the opinion afforded by the medical evidence, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when the ALJ evaluates the regulatory factors and gives specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-04-01(c)(2)

The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Berman’s opinion by showing how it is inconsistent with the rest of Plaintiff’s medical record and was a one-off diagnosis not representative of the totality of Plaintiff’s medical condition because she had undergone surgery a mere two months prior. The ALJ properly used factors from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) and gave specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount the opinion of Dr. Berman.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a treating specialist’s opinion under § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), an ALJ must explain the basis for assigning it little weight by using the listed factors.

Kimball v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2025-01-03(c)(1)-(6)

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the decision of the Commissioner be reversed and remanded to the Agency because the Administrative Law Judge’s decision failed to explain the basis for giving little weight to the opinions of Dr. Eagerton, Plaintiff’s treating specialist physician, utilizing the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6)1, and there was not substantial evidence to support some of the Administrative Law Judge’s statements in analyzing Dr. Eagerton’s opinions. (Dkt. No. 27 at 17). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge ably ... addressed the deficiencies in the ALJ’s decision and correctly concluded the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed and remanded to the Agency for further processing in accord with the R & R.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors and adequately explain the weight given to a treating source’s opinion.

White v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-24(d)

The ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Anwar’s opinion “some weight” is both supported by substantial evidence and sufficiently articulated in compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a nonmedical source’s opinion or make the reasoning clear enough to follow; the source’s close relationship with the claimant can justify giving the opinion less weight.

Anderson v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2022-05-24(f)

Under then-applicable SSA policy, ALJs could consider “the relationship between the source and the individual” and “whether the opinion is consistent with other evidence,” among other factors. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (requiring the ALJ to “explain the weight given to opinions from [non-medical] sources or otherwise ensure that [his] discussion of the evidence . . . allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning”). ... Thus, the ALJ supported his credibility determination with permissible reasons for assigning the statements less weight than other pieces of evidence.