20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the decision to explain the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion.

Beckles v. Barnhart · filed 2004-10-13(d)(2)

The notice of determination or decision must explain the weight given to the treating physician’s opinion. ... However, the ALJ’s decision neither explained the relative weight applied to Dr. Touliop-oulos’s medical opinions nor provided any reason for not crediting the opinion of plaintiffs treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to treating physicians’ opinions; failure to do so warrants remand.

Ulloa v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-13(d)(2)

Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ is required to explain the weight given to the opinions of claimant’s treating physicians. ... However, the ALJ never explained why Dr. DePhillips’ or Dr. Segura’s opinions were not entitled to controlling weight. Because the ALJ failed to explain the weight given to the opinions of Dr. DePhil-lips and Dr. Segura, the ALJ did not build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to his conclusion. Therefore, remand is appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ should give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; identified record evidence inconsistent with that opinion can satisfy this requirement.

Neely v. Barnhart · filed 2007-03-27(d)(2)

An ALJ should provide “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The Court therefore finds that the ALJ’s observations, when considered alongside the description of Dr. Kaspar’s reports, constitute “good reasons” for the weight attributed to Dr. Kaspar’s medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion; a brief explanation based on selected activities does not satisfy that requirement.

Ratliff v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-05(d)(2)

Moreover, the brief explanation given by the ALJ for his total discount of Dr. Alamir’s opinions falls woefully short of § 404.1527(d)(2)’s requirement that “[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must consider the factors governing the weight of a treating source’s opinion, but need not address each factor methodically if the decision makes clear they were considered.

Morin v. SSA · filed 2011-06-06(d)(2)

Because these factors are “malleable,” Lalime, 2009 WL 995575, at * 5 , an ALJ is not required to methodically apply them so long as the ALJ’s decision makes it clear that these factors were properly considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.

Swanburg v. SSA · filed 2012-04-10(d)(2)

The ALJ, therefore, failed to give a good reason for discounting her opinion, as he was required to do.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion; an ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor when the reasons are clear and supported by substantial evidence.

Figueroa v. SSA · filed 2012-06-07(c)(2)

I am able to discern the rationale the ALJ used to reach his determination and that determination is founded on “good reasons” that are supported by substantial record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. I therefore decline to reverse the ALJ’s decision on the basis of the weight he gave to D r . Gorman’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Farringer v. Colvin · filed 2013-09-17(c)(2)

And the ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given the treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons when assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Brumbaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-11-25(c)

Because the ALJ failed to consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 in determining the weight to give Plaintiffs treating physicians, failed to adequately discuss his discrediting of Plaintiffs treating physicians’ opinions, and incorrectly supplanted his own findings for those of Plaintiffs treaters and the ME, the ALJ’s non-disability finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

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 explain the weight assigned using the regulation’s factors.

Knight v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-30(c)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain what weight, if any, was assigned to the opinion “using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.”5 Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (quotation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when the ALJ adequately considers the regulatory factors and gives good reasons.

Medina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-30(c)(2)

In sum, a “searching review of the record” assures the Court “that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96, and the ALJ’s decision demonstrates adequate consideration of the regulatory factors in weighing and affording little weight to Dr. Shah’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive less than controlling weight when the ALJ gives good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Gonzalez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-10(c)(2)

The ALJ’s determination and decision to afford Dr. Lopez’s opinion less than controlling weight is therefore supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ therefore did not violate the treating physician rule by affording Dr. Lopez’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Olcott v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-05(c)(2)

Although the ALJ gave lengthy and specific reasons for discounting Dr. Hussain’s and Dr. Tidwell’s opinions, the undersigned concludes the ALJ failed to give “legitimate” and “good” reasons for doing so. 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 give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; an explanation grounded in the medical record can satisfy that requirement.

Rashid v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-17(c)(2)

The ALJ does not have to consider each fact expressly but must give “good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s medical opinion. ... As the ALJ weighed the physicians’ opinions and provided an explanation for the weight he accorded, consistent with evidence in the medical record, his findings were based upon substantial evidence and does not constitute reversible error as Rashid contends.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when the ALJ clearly states good cause supported by substantial evidence.

Wilson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

Those stated reasons “clearly articulated” “good cause” to assign less than substantial or considerable weight to Dr. Timberlake’s opinion, and substantial evidence supports those reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; failure to give them warrants remand.

King, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(c)(2)

Failure to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion constitutes grounds for remand. ... Remand is necessary for the ALJ to reconsider Dr. Clarke’s medical opinion and the weight it merits.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when the ALJ gives good reasons supported by the record.

Fox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-21(c)(2)

In this case, the ALJ gave good reasons for giving little weight to the opinions of Fox’s neurologist, Dr. Teener.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give reasons supported by substantial evidence for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, though the ALJ need not discuss every factor.

Upton v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-23(c)

While the ALJ did not need to cite every § 404.1527 factor, her opinion analysis must be supported by substantial evidence. ... Therefore, the Court finds the ALJ erred in her analysis of Dr. Aldahhan’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally favors treating source opinions and requires stronger evidentiary support to give greater weight to a nonexamining source.

Weller v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-21(c)

First, this judgment ran contrary to the general preferences articulated by regulations and case law that call upon ALJs to give significant weight to treating and examining source opinions, and to only favor an opinion rendered by a non- examining or non-treating source when that opinion draws greater evidentiary support from the medical record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Priola, III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-27(c)(2)

Although the ALJ mentioned the inconsistency of the opinion ... with the overall record, the decision does not address the frequency, length, nature, and extent of Plaintiffs treatment with Dr. Vella, the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion, or whether Dr. Vella was a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Campbell v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-29(c)

The Commissioner makes no attempt to explain how the ALJ complied with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which requires an ALJ to “give good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” Giving their opinions little weight because they were “effective pronouncement[s] of disability,” Tr. 24-25, ignores their relationship with Plaintiff and the substance of their opinions, which went beyond “effective pronouncements of disability.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

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 failed to support with substantial evidence her decision to give little weight to the opinion of Wolfgram-Kennedy’s treating provider, Dr. Bensi.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Winston v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-19(c)(2)

Moreover, the ALJ must always give “good reasons” to support the weight he ultimately assigns to the treating physician’s opinion. See § 404.1527(c)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). ... Overall, the ALJ did not give good reasons for discounting Dr. Luy’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a physician’s statement reflecting judgments about an impairment, including its symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining capabilities, or physical or mental restrictions.

Adcock v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2018-10-02(a)(1)

To the extent Dr. Speer meant to suggest that Ms. Adcock could not maintain employment, his opinion was not a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (“Medical opinions are statements from [physicians] that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”). To the extent Dr. Speer intended to offer a medical opinion regarding Ms. Adcock’s functional limitations, there is evidence—including notes from Dr. Speer—that indicates her medications were helpful; she was oriented; she exhibited no signs of psychosis or mania; her behavior, speech, and affect were appropriate or unremarkable; and she was cooperative. ... Doing so, however, compelled the ALJ to consider the relevant factors in weighing Dr. Speer’s opinion. See Mays, 739 F.3d at 576 (holding that only the relevant factors must be applied). On this score, the ALJ recognized Dr. Speer was a treating psychiatrist who had a lengthy treatment history with Ms. Adcock, but he also realized the extent to which Dr. Speer’s opinion was inconsistent with the evidence. We conclude the ALJ properly evaluated the medical source evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating-source medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Al-Daghamin v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-09(c)(2)-(6)

In addition, although the ALJ was not required to give Dr. Warikoo’s opinion controlling weight, he still was required to address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ afforded Dr. Warikoo’s opinion little weight, but failed to address many of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, other than acknowledging that Dr. Warikoo was Claimant’s treating physician, the ALJ did not discuss the extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, the supportability of the decision, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, or whether Dr. Warikoo had a relevant specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lucus v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-25(c)(2)

Social Security Administration regulations in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision provide that treating source opinions are entitled to controlling weight so long as the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [a claimant’s] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to account for relevant factors, including the treatment relationship, examination, supportability, consistency, and specialty, and to connect the evidence to the weight assigned.

Wilson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-03(c)

Chris also argues that the ALJ did not explicitly refer to the regulatory factors required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when he rejected Dr. Khosla’s opinion. Under such circumstances, the relevant inquiry is “whether the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and built an ‘accurate and logical bridge’ between the evidence and his conclusion.” ... The court finds that the ALJ met this standard because his decision shows that he was aware of and considered many of those factors, and he logically connected the evidence in the record to his rejection of Dr. Khosla’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating-source opinion when it is well supported by objective evidence and not inconsistent with the record, while opinions not entitled to controlling weight must still be evaluated under the regulation's six criteria.

Kem v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-11(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Walker v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2018-12-20(c)(2)

Because the ALJ failed to acknowledge Dr. Thakor’s opinion at all—let alone Dr. Thakor’s opined postural and weightlifting restrictions—in his written decision, we cannot say he provided good reasons for his treatment of that opinion as he was required to do under the applicable regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (2015).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, including the opinion’s consistency with the record.

York v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-14(c)

In determining the amount of weight to give Dr. Steen’s opinion, the ALJ considered factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Furthermore, Virginia did not cite objective evidence supporting her need to elevate her legs. (R. 18, Pl.’s Mem. at 11, 15-17; R. 27, Pl.’s Reply at 3-6); see also Britt v. Berryhill, 889 F.3d 422, 426 (7th Cir. 2018) (declining to find reversible error where the ALJ determined that no objective medical evidence supported a medical source’s allegation that a claimant must elevate his leg at work); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). ... Substantial evidence therefore supports the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Steen’s opinion to the extent that it was not consistent with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed regulatory factors when deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Costa v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-18(c)

On remand, the ALJ should re-evaluate the proper weight to give to Dr. Miran’s opinion, specifically accounting for the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight and requires the ALJ to give good reasons explaining the weight assigned.

Hughes v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-24(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). A treating physician’s opinion may be disregarded if it is unsupported by clinical or other data or is contrary to the weight of the remaining evidence in the record. See Pena v. Chater, 76 F.3d 906, 908 (8th Cir. 1996). 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). Upon remand, the ALJ must provide good reasons, supported by evidence in the record, explaining the weight afforded Dr. Gunda’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives treating-source opinions greater deference, requires controlling weight for a well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the record, and requires noncontrolling opinions to be evaluated under specified criteria with good reasons for the assigned weight.

Oliveras v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-01-02(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with the record controlling weight and calls for greater weight based on examination, an extended treatment relationship, specialization, diagnostic testing, and consistency with the record.

Derry v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-04(c)(2)

Under the regulations in effect at the time of the ALJ’s decision, a treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with the record is generally entitled to “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011). An ALJ must give more weight to the opinions of doctors who have (1) examined a claimant, (2) treated a claimant frequently and for an extended period of time, (3) specialized in treating the claimant’s condition, (4) performed appropriate diagnostic tests on the claimant, and (5) offered opinions consistent with objective medical evidence and the record as a whole. Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (ii)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating-source medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, but does not require an explicit discussion of every factor; § 404.1527(f)(2) requires an explanation that allows review of the reasoning.

Hoverson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-14(c), (f)(2)

If an ALJ determines not to grant controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, such opinions must be further evaluated under the factors described in 20 CFR §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. ... Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), medical opinions from treating sources are weighed using several factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, such as the (i) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination and the (ii) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... “[T]he regulations do not strictly require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).” ... Rather, when assigning weight to a medical opinion, the ALJ should explain her decision regarding the weight given to a medical opinion to “allow[ ] a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). ... The Court finds that the ALJ adequately provided her basis for the little to no weight assessed to the opinions of Drs. Kirmani and Bunkers and adequately addressed the factors under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... As such, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ failed to consider the factors under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to determine the opinion’s weight by considering factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and source specialization.

Moruzzi v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-12-21(d)(2)

If the ALJ determines that controlling weight should not be afforded to a treating physician’s opinion, however, the ALJ must still determine how much weight to give it by considering a number of factors, including “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, testing, and support and consistency when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion.

Primm v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-07(c)(2)

If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider various factors to determine what weight, if any, to afford the treating physician’s opinion. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008). Those factors include: 1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; 2) the frequency of examination; 3) the physician’s specialty; 4) the types of tests performed; and 5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If, after consideration of these factors, the ALJ discounts the treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ’s decision will stand so long as the ALJ “minimally articulate[d]” his or her reasons for doing so. Elder, 529 F.3d at 415 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lopez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-25(c)(2)

The regulations mandate that the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight given to a treating physician 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 give 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 other substantial evidence in the record.

Fazen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-02-27(c)(2)

An ALJ must accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion regarding a claimant’s ability to work, if that opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion to consider the listed factors in deciding what weight to assign.

Garcia v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-11(c)(2)-(6)

Although the ALJ is not required to give Dr. Patras’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ is required to address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ afforded Dr. Patras’s opinion “limited” to “no weight,” but failed to address many of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Other than acknowledging that Dr. Patras was Claimant’s treating psychiatrist and had treated her for several years, the ALJ did not discuss, and seemed to disregard, the frequency of examinations, the supportability of the decision, the consistency of his opinion with the record as a whole, and the import of Dr. Patras’s relevant specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ declining controlling weight to consider the evidence supporting a treating physician’s opinion and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Heaman v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-13(c)(3)-(4)

An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various “factors” to determine how much weight to give to the opinion, including the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion and the consistency of the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4). The ALJ here provided “good reasons” for giving the treating physicians’ opinions less weight, see Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir. 1998), including that their opinions were “merely checkbox forms that offer little or nothing with regard to clinical findings and diagnostic results,” and, further, were inconsistent with the moderate findings reflected in the doctors’ notes, Admin. Record at 22.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions from treating sources to be weighed using specified factors, and § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Schauls v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-15(c), (c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Conetta v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-19(c)(2)

An ALJ must accord "controlling weight" to a treating source's medical opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments if the opinion "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed regulatory factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating medical opinion.

Walus v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-25(c)

That said, the Court is troubled by the ALJ’s failure to assign any particular weight to Dr. Gutta’s treating opinion, or to clearly address the regulatory factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ should take the opportunity on remand to remedy these issues, reassess all of the medical and testimonial evidence of record, and obtain updated VE testimony as appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole when weighing it.

Mosley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(c)(4)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). ... But, the ALJ must explain the reasons for and basis upon which the opinion(s) of a treating physician (and here there are four) were discounted sufficient for a reviewing court to determine whether the ALJ took into account the appropriate factors when considering the opinion evidence and whether the ALJ’s rationale—and ultimately the residual-functional-capacity determination—is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. ... The Court is not able to do so here, and remand is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight, and potentially controlling weight, to a treating source's opinion when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other medical evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fawn Duchesne v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-03-19(c)(2)

In general, an ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a treating source and may give that opinion controlling weight if it is well supported and not inconsistent with other medical evidence in the record. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ is required to give “good reasons” in the disability decision for the weight given to treating source opinions. Id. ... The ALJ gave good reasons for discounting the weight given to Dr. Chin’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Maurizzio v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-29(c)(2)

Additionally, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight, if less than controlling, assigned to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004).

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 not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to discount it only for good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Hansen v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-10(c)(2)

The record establishes that Dr. Gamze had known Claimant almost nine years at the time he completed her mental RFC assessment, which weighs heavily in favor of affording his opinion great, if not controlling, weight. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2)(i). An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is both “well-supported” by medical evidence and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). Because a treating physician has “greater familiarity with the claimant’s condition and circumstances,” an ALJ may only discount a treating physician’s opinion based on good reasons “supported by substantial evidence in the record.” See Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010); Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Augustin v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-23(c)(2)

The ALJ must give "[c]ontrolling weight ... to a treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments if the opinion is 'well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence' in the record."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to treating-source opinions or ensure that the decision lets a claimant or subsequent reviewer follow the reasoning when the opinions may affect the outcome.

Butterfield v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-21(f)(2)

Under the Commissioner’s regulations, the ALJ should explain the weight given to treating source opinions or “otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the . . . decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2). ... However, neither of these reasons are explained such that the Court can follow the ALJ’s reasoning. ... Because Dr. Kuich’s MSSM opinions, if deferred to, may affect the outcome of the case, the ALJ’s failure to articulate good reasons for discounting the opinions is not harmless. Upon remand, if the ALJ discounts Dr. Kuich’s MSSM opinions, the ALJ must articulate what opinions she is discounting, why she discounts those opinions, and how the opinions are contradictory to the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs that a treating physician's opinion receive controlling weight when supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, it may receive reduced weight when conclusory or inconsistent with the record.

Schwandt v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-14(c)(2)

“A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.” Julin, 826 F.3d at 1088; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Even if not entitled to controlling weight, such opinions “typically are entitled to at least substantial weight, but may be given limited weight if they are conclusory or inconsistent with the record.” Julin, 826 F.3d at 1088.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stallsmith v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-19(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). ... The ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Anderson, 696 F.3d at 793. ... The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Adams’ opinion because the limitations he set forth were not consistent with his treatment records, the observations and examination findings of other physicians, and Plaintiff’s daily activities. See Cline, 771 F.3d at 1104; see also Davidson v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 838, 843 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting “[i]t is permissible for an ALJ to discount an opinion of a treating physician that is inconsistent with the physician’s clinical treatment notes.”). The Court finds the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Adams’ opinion and the RFC is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Urena v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-05-15(c)(2)

An ALJ must accord "controlling weight" to a treating source's medical opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments but only 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 claimant's] case record."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes the weight given a treating or examining physician’s opinion depend on whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and consistent with other evidence in the record.

Nadon v. Saul · filed 2019-07-01(d)(2)

The weight given a treating or examining physician’s opinion depends on whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and is consistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s noncontrolling opinion using the regulatory factors and offer a good reason for disregarding it.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-07-02(c)

The ALJ must evaluate a treating physician’s noncontrolling opinion by considering the regulatory factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), Lambert v. Berryhill, 896 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 2018), and offer “a good reason” for disregarding the opinion of a treating physician. Walker v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 479, 485 (7th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) entitles a treating-source opinion to 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.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2019-07-03(d)(2)

Treating source opinions are entitled to 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(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); see also Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996). ... The ALJ’s explanation for discounting the opinions of these two treating physicians is inadequate and perfunctory. Such rejection of treating source opinions is grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an administrative law judge to give controlling weight to the opinion of a non-treating source.

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-03(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s relationship with Dr. Mount was a one-time examination, Dr. Mount is considered a “non-treating source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). An ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to a non-treating source’s opinion. Andrews v. Astrue, 917 F. Supp. 2d 624, 637 (N.D. Tex. 2013); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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 by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons tied to the regulatory factors when it is not controlling.

Crampton v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2019-07-11(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion usually receives more weight than other physicians’ opinions “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). But this is not always the case. In evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, “the ALJ must complete a sequential two-step inquiry, each step of which is analytically distinct.” Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1330. First, the ALJ must consider whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is both “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “[]consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Id.; accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Second, if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must make clear how much weight the opinion is being given (including whether it is being rejected outright) and give good reasons, tied to the factors specified in [20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927] . . . for the weight assigned.” Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1330.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion, but that requirement does not apply to a non-treating source’s opinion.

LAVOIE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-07-12(c)(2)

Dr. Burden was not a treating physician and, accordingly, the ALJ was not required to supply good reasons for her handling of his opinion. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Nonetheless, she did so, supplying rationales that suffice even to afford a treating source’s opinion little weight. See, e.g., Campagna, 2017 WL 5037463, at *4 (“[L]ack of support and inconsistency with other substantial evidence of record are well-recognized bases for affording a treating source’s medical opinion little or no weight.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally favors treating-source opinions but permits significantly less weight when such an opinion lacks clinical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Claggett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-16(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must generally give a treating physician’s opinion “more weight . . . since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the patient’ s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” 20 C.F_R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... 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)). ... The Court disagrees with Plaintiff and finds that the AL] properly evaluated and assigned Dr. Lowtan’s opinion little weight because it was inconsistent with other objective medical evidence in the record. See id. ... Consequently, the Court finds that the reasons for assigning Dr. Lowtan’s opinion little weight were articulated in the ALJ’s written decision and supported by good reasons and substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate opinions from treating sources who are not acceptable medical sources using the same factors applied to opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Hammood v. Saul · filed 2019-07-17

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (stating that an ALJ must evaluate opinions from treaters who are not acceptable medical sources in accordance with the same factors applicable to acceptable medical source opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion that is denied controlling weight using the applicable regulatory factors, including supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, and specialization.

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

While the ALJ could have been clearer about the weight assigned to Dr. Neece’s opinion on Plaintiff’s physical limitations, the court finds that her analysis and treatment of the opinion indicates that, in substance, the ALJ applied the Langley factors identified above and gave Dr. Neece’s opinion no weight. The court will proceed by analyzing each of the factors in turn. Id. (“Even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527].” (emphasis added, quoting Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96–2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified treatment, examination, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability factors and to explain the reasons for discounting it.

TAYLOR v. SAUL · filed 2019-07-09(c)

“If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... However, so long as the ALJ “minimally articulates” his reasoning for discounting a treating source opinion, the Court must uphold the determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating-source opinion to apply the regulatory factors when deciding what weight to give it.

RICKS v. SAUL · filed 2019-07-12(c)(2)

When an ALJ does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight the ALJ must apply the regulatory factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) in determining the weight to accord the opinion. § 404.1527(c)(2). These factors include: (1) the examining relationship, (2) the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability and consistency of the opinion, (4) the specialization of the physician, and (5) other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 263 (7th Cir. 2018). The ALJ did not apply them in assigning the opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than full weight when it is conclusory, unsupported, contradicted by the evidence, or inconsistent with the physician’s own records.

McKee v. Berryhill (CONSENT) · filed 2019-07-23(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ gave Dr. Russell’s opinion “partial weight.” This is not “substantial weight.” However, an ALJ is not obligated to accept a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is conclusory, it is not supported by the evidence, the evidence supports a contrary finding, or it is inconsistent with the physician’s own records. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004); Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240–41 (11th Cir. 2004)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator weighing a treating source's non-controlling medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Vallecillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-26(c)(2)

When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the following factors will be applied to determine the weight to give the opinion: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). I find that the ALJ did not err in failing to give Dr. Folk’s opinion controlling weight because it is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The proper weight to give this non-controlling physician opinion is determined through an analysis of the six factors listed above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence and gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Andrews v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-30(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The opinion of a treating physician is given “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion to evaluate it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Stedman v. Saul · filed 2019-07-31(c)(2)-(6)

When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician, they then evaluate the opinion by following the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(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 weigh treating-source opinions using the regulatory factors, giving good reasons for the assigned weight.

Cordeiro v. Saul · filed 2019-08-02(c)(2)

The ALJ must give "[c]ontrolling weight ... to a treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments if the opinion is 'well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence' in the record." ... Even if not given controlling weight, a treating source's medical opinion generally receives more weight than opinions from other medical sources. ... However, a number of factors determine the appropriate weight to give to the opinions of treating and other medical sources. ... For all sources, the ALJ must consider whether the source examined the claimant, the support the source provides for her opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the source. ... For a treating source, the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination are also relevant considerations. ... An ALJ need not expressly address each factor identified by the regulations but must provide "good reasons" for the weight assigned to the opinion of a treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Zayas v. Saul · filed 2019-08-02(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if supported by the medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In light of Dr. Valluripalli’s failure to detail Adrian’s functional limitations and failure to support his claim of a childhood TBI with corroborating medical findings, the ALJ did not err in denying those opinions controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to determine its weight using factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Woods, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-05(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally directs adjudicators to give more weight to treating-source medical opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal view of the claimant’s impairment.

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

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, 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 or brief hospitalizations.”). ... Accordingly, the ALJ erred by rejecting Dr. Guernsey’s opinion without providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) governs how an ALJ weighs medical opinions, generally giving a treating physician’s opinion the greatest weight and an examining physician’s opinion more weight than a non-examining physician’s, without making the treating opinion binding on disability’s ultimate issue.

(SS) Serrato v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-07(d)(2)

In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight but it is not binding on the ultimate issue of a disability. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, an examining physician’s opinion is given more weight than the opinion of non-examining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Thus, the courts apply a hierarchy to the opinions offered by physicians. ... Because the limitations identified by Dr. Moelleken conflicted with the opinions of Drs. Van Kirk, Nasrabadi, and Fast, the ALJ was required to identify specific and legitimate reasons to reject the limitations identified by Dr. Moelleken.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to apply the listed factors when assigning it less weight.

Peters v. Berryhill(CONSENT) · filed 2019-08-08(c)(2)

According to the Act, “[i]f we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Act states: “When we do not give the treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the medical opinion.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The undersigned finds that the ALJ has clearly articulated good cause to disregard the opinion of Dr. Bish. ... Hence, the ALJ did not err by affording “little weight” to the medical opinion of Dr. Bish.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(c)(5) permits consideration of the physician’s specialty when weighing the opinion.

Barber v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-09(c)(2), (c)(5)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to controlling weight if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... However, even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference, and the ALJ must consider: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... In applying these factors, the ALJ must make findings and reasoning sufficiently specific so the weight given is clear to subsequent reviewers. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s Decision not to give controlling weight to Dr. Murillo’s 2016 opinion was error and not supported by substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... While it is true that a physician’s specialty is a proper factor to consider pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5), here, the ALJ does not identify a conflicting opinion from a specialist or articulate a reason why Dr. Murillo’s opinion should be discredited because he is not a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, even when the opinion is given less than controlling weight.

Bevers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-08-12(c)(2)

The ALJ is not required to explain how she considered each of these factors but must nonetheless give “good reasons” for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight. Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir. 2011); see also Morr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 616 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding “good reasons” must be provided “that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight given to the treating physician’s opinion and the reasons for that weight”) (citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rosa Maria Pena Martinez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-14(c)(2)(i)

The ALJ also properly rejected Dr. Alvarado’s opinions based on the short length of time, and the limited number of times, Dr. Alvarado treated Plaintiff (from September 27, 2016 to November 8, 2016, at most four times, see AR 1016). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sexton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-15(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion after applying the controlling-weight rule and considering the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Keener v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion like Dr. Hanna’s is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. That involves assigning a specific weight to the report by considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 7 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see also Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 515 (7th Cir. 2009). ... The regulations require an ALJ to consider that fact. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”). ... The ALJ is therefore directed to restate her reasons for the weight given to Dr. Hanna’s report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) generally gives more weight to opinions from experts who have treated a claimant over time than to opinions from experts less familiar with the claimant’s condition.

Alar v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2)(ii)

It is true that greater weight is ordinarily given to the opinions of experts who have treated a claimant over a period of time than to those who are less familiar with his condition. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)(ii).

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 by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons for the assigned weight.

Taylor v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-19(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” he must “apply the factors listed” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including “(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.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Once the ALJ has considered these factors, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh treating-source medical opinions using factors such as supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, and specialization.

Lefort v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19(c)

Under the pertinent regulations in place at the time of plaintiff's application, the treating physician rule “generally requires deference to the medical opinions of a [plaintiff's] treating physician[.]".. Hallorn v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) (The opinion of a treating physician is to 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] record[.]’). ... When controlling weight is not given to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must consider the following factors to determine how much weight to give the opinion of a treating source: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship: (3) what evidence supports the treating physician’s report; (4) how consistent the treating physician's opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the area of specialization of the physician in conirast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant in a claimant's particular case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ correctly applied the treating physician rule. Here, the most detailed clinical findings were from Dr. Siddiqui, which contradicted Dr. Elliott’s opinion. (See supra at 7-8; Tr. 319-21) As these clinical findings did not support Dr. Elliott’s assessed limitations, the ALJ reasonably rejected such opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to evaluate the specified factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, consistency, and supportability.

Hatcher v. Saul · filed 2019-08-20(c)

Critically, the ALJ also failed to assess Dr. Eler’s opinion using the required regulatory factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1427(c) (stating that an ALJ “will evaluate every medical opinion” by considering the nature, extent, and length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, and the consistency and supportability of the opinion). Before discounting the opinion of a psychiatrist who treated Plaintiff on a regular basis for years and whose treatment focused on Plaintiff’s disabling impairments, the ALJ had an obligation to assess these regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally directs greater weight to treating-source opinions than to opinions from non-treating sources.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-21(c)(2)

Operative law generally directs courts to accord treating sources’ opinions more weight than non-treating sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires a treating physician's opinion that is not given controlling weight to be evaluated using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

(SS) Hornbeak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-23(c)(2)-(6)

And when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(5) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, give good reasons when declining to do so, and consider the listed factors in assigning its weight.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-26(c)(2)-(5)

The social security regulations require that an ALJ give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”8 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... The ALJ must give “good reasons” for not affording controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); ... Further, if the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s medical opinion is not deserving of controlling weight, the following factors must be considered to determine the appropriate weight to which the opinion is entitled: (1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the opinion’s support by medical evidence; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) the treating physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(5), 416.927(c)(2)-(5). “None of these factors may be omitted or disregarded by the ALJ in weighing the value of a treating physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) directs the ALJ to weigh doctors’ opinions by considering the doctor’s examining and treating relationship with the claimant and the opinion’s supportability and consistency.

Mackey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-08-26(c)(1)-(6)

The weight given to the opinions of doctors depends on the doctor’s examining and treating relationship with the claimant, as well as the supportability and consistency of that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating doctor's opinion, but does not require an express analysis of every factor if the record shows they were considered.

Quinones v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-14(c)

In addition to providing specific reasons for rejecting a treating doctor’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The failure to do so alone constitutes reversible legal error. ... The ALJ’s consideration of the § 404.1527(c) factors is sufficient as the Ninth Circuit has never required an ALJ to expressly analyze each and every factor listed as long as they have been considered. ... Even if the Court had found that the ALJ’s discussion of the § 404.1527(c) factors was insufficient, the Court would also have found that any such error was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating source's opinion using factors including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination.

Flores v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(c)

Nor did she evaluate Dr. Patel’s opinion according to the factors prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, along with the frequency of examination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while subsection (d)(2) gives no special significance or controlling weight to a treating source's opinion on the claimant's residual functional capacity and requires good reasons to reject it.

CARTONIO v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2), (d)(2)

A “treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and … not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Gilson, 2013 WL 5674359, at *2 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)). ... The question of a claimant’s RFC is, moreover, “among the issues reserved to the commissioner, with respect to which even the opinion of a treating source is entitled to no ‘special significance’ and cannot be assigned controlling weight.” Gilson at *2 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)). ... The ALJ was free to decline to adopt Dr. Silvia’s RFC assessment here, “so long as she supplied ‘good reasons’ for doing so.” Vining v. Astrue, 720 F. Supp. 2d 126, 134 (D. Me. 2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)). ... The ALJ’s reasons for rejecting Dr. Silvia’s mental RFC assessment are supported by substantial evidence of record and constitute good reasons. ... Nothing further was required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and good reasons for the weight assigned when controlling weight is denied.

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

The regulations require administrative law judges to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c). The source of a medical opinion dictates the process by which the administrative law judge gives it weight. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). Treating sources must be given controlling weight if their opinions are “well supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and are “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... ALJ Thomas’ decision to not afford controlling weight to Dr. Smith’s treating physician opinion addressed the appropriate regulation factors and listed good reasons for her weight determination, notably the inconsistencies between Dr. Smith’s restrictive opinion and his treatment notes. The Court finds ALJ Thomas’ decision to afford Dr. Smith’s assessment little weight is supported by substantial evidence in the record and comports with the applicable regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs the ALJ to assess a treating source’s opinion using the listed factors, and a very limited treating relationship may justify giving the opinion limited weight.

Fortin v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2019-08-27(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ’s assessment appropriately applies the factors used to assess the opinion of a treating source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... Substantial evidence thus supports the ALJ’s assessment that the very limited treating relationship between Dr. Catino and Fortin, among other factors, justified giving limited weight to Dr. Catino’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Melanie S. v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(c), (d)(2)

Substantial weight should be given to the opinion, diagnosis and medical evidence of a treating physician unless there is good cause to do otherwise. See Rohrberg v. Apfel, 26 F. Supp. 2d 303, 311 (D. Mass. 1998); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion or report regarding an inability to work if it is unsupported by objective medical evidence or is wholly conclusory. See Keating v. Sec’y of HHS, 848 F.2d 271, 275-276 (1st Cir. 1988). Where a treating physician has merely made conclusory statements, the ALJ may afford them such weight as is supported by clinical or laboratory findings and other consistent evidence of a claimant’s impairments. See Wheeler v. Heckler, 784 F.2d 1073, 1075 (11th Cir. 1986). When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on the (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in the medical conditions at issue; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c). However, a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a consulting physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Matthewson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-28(c)(2)

Should the ALJ decide not to give the treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient relationship, the frequency of evaluations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ articulated specific and legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence for assigning very little weight to the opinion of Dr. Pulido.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to determine the weight owed using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, supportability, consistency, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

Asbury v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(c)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the weight the opinion should be given based on a number of factors, including the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, as well as the medical specialization of the source, how well-supported by evidence the opinion is, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires specific, evidence-supported reasons when assigning it less weight.

Wojtkowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-28(c)(2)

Under the pertinent regulations in place at the time of plaintiff's application, the treating physician rule “generally requires deference to the medical opinions of a [plaintiff's] treating physician[.]’. Hallorn v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) (The opinion of a treating physician is to 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] record[.]’). To that end, the Commissioner is required to “always give good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source opinion. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)). The reasons must be specific and supported by evidence in the record. Marth v. Colvin, No. 15-cv-0643, 2016 WL 3514126, *6 (W.D.N.Y. June 28, 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions, requires controlling weight when the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to weigh a non-controlling opinion using specified factors.

Crowe v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-29(c)(2)

Although not required to do so, see Arroyo v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 82, 89 (1st Cir. 1991), an ALJ generally gives “more weight to medical opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s). . . . ” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record. Id. ... When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the amount of weight it should receive based on factors that include the length of the treatment relationship, the nature and extent of the source’s relationship with the applicant, whether the source provided evidence in support of the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the source is a specialist in the field. Gagnon v. Astrue, No. 11-10481-PBS, 2012 WL 1065837, at *5 (D. Mass. Mar. 27, 2012); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires consistency between a medical opinion and the record as a whole to be considered when determining the opinion’s weight.

Hudson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-28(c)(4)

The ALJ chose to reject the treating source opinion based upon contradictory medical evidence, an analysis that follows the regulatory directives of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (listing “consistency” as a proper factor to consider when weighing opinion evidence and explaining that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the Commissioner] will give to that medical opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, the opinion must be evaluated using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization; failing to discuss those factors is reversible legal error.

(SS) Ealy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(c)(2)-(6)

And when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight unless inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Tiegland v. Saul · filed 2019-08-30(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Herbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(c)

When an ALJ or Appeals Council refuses to assign a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, a number of factors must be considered to determine the appropriate weight to assign, including: (i) the frequency of the examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician's opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration's attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Upon review of the ALJ's decision, it is clear that the ALJ considered the level of support for Dr. Finn's opinion and the consistency of that opinion with the record as a whole. See id. at 27. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the weight of the medical opinions in relation to the record evidence and sufficiently explained the basis for his conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(c)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must balance the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining what weight to give the opinion. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. ... While the ALJ’s decision does not reflect an extensive analysis of the regulatory factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), the regulations require only that an ALJ decision include “‘good reasons . . . for the weight give[n] [to the] treating source’s opinion’—not an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” Francis v. Comm Soc. Sec. Admin., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 547).