20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

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

WOODSIDE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-08-30(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not, as Plaintiff alleges, improperly reject the opinion of Mr. Jones in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC, but rather, the ALJ fulfilled his duty as fact-finder to evaluate Mr. Jones’s opinion, considering a number of factors, and in light of all the evidence presented in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. ... Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in declining to give Mr. Jones’s opinion substantial weight in his analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Medley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-03(c)(2)

A treating source’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to provide good reasons for assigning less than substantial weight to a treating physician’s opinion, and the ALJ need not expressly discuss every listed factor.

McCraw v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-05(d)(2)

The ALJ can consider six factors when judging whether the treating physician’s opinions are well supported: “(1) [the] length of the treating relationship and frequency of examination; (2) [the] nature and extent of the treating relationship; (3) [the] supportability [of the physician’s conclusions]; (4) [the] consistency [of the physician’s conclusions]; (5) [the physician’s] specialization; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 n.7 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)–(6), 416.927(d)(2)–(6)). That said, the ALJ does not need to reference all of these factors when explaining why he rejected the treating physician’s opinion. See Grant v. Astrue, 857 F. Supp. 2d 146, 154–55 (D.D.C. 2012). Instead, the ALJ only needs to provide “good reasons” for according less than substantial weight to the treating physician’s findings. See Turner v. Astrue, 710 F. Supp. 2d 95, 106 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives more weight to treating-source medical opinions because treating sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant's impairment and a perspective not available from objective medical findings alone.

Norwood v. Saul · filed 2019-09-05(c)(2)

Finally, the ALJ’s reasoning for discounting Dr. Sutter’s opinions is at odds with the regulations. The regulations state that “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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using specified factors, while a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight.

Weakley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-05(c)

All medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, but is not inherently entitled to it. ... A treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see also Hacker, 459 F.3d at 937. ... “Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, the regulations provide that the ALJ must ‘always give good reasons’ for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating source opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors, including treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, when deciding the weight of an opinion that is not controlling.

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(c)(2), (c)

Under the regulations then in effect, the opinions of treaters are entitled to the greatest deference because they “are likely to be . . . most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... A treater’s opinion must be given “controlling weight” if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... Even if a treater’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” ... In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, an ALJ must “evaluate all medical opinions” with regard to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s). ... Initially, the undersigned notes that the ALJ erred in failing to specifically mention the applicable concept of controlling weight, analyze the controlling weight factors, or decline to give Dr. Singh’s opinions controlling weight. ... In failing to conduct a proper controlling weight analysis, the ALJ did not follow the Commissioner’s own procedural regulations, and reversal is mandated even if “substantial evidence otherwise supports the decision of the Commissioner.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fitzgerald v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-10(c)(2)

If the treating source’s opinion “is well-supported by medically and acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); § 416.927(c)(2). If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless analyze other factors such as the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship; the supportability and consistency of the opinion; and the degree of medical specialization possessed by the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c); § 416.927(c); see also Sameena, Inc. v. U. S. Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] federal agency is obliged to abide by the regulations it promulgates.”). “In many cases, a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *4 (July 2, 1996). In sum, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); § 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the length and frequency of a treating source’s relationship and to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Utley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-10(c)(2)(i), (d)(2)

Dr. Samaritoni treated Plaintiff a total of eleven times between May 12, 2014 and October 10, 2016, before completing the MSS. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treated source has treated [a claimant] and the more times [a claimant] has been seen by a treating source, the more weight [the ALJ] will give to the source’s medical opinion.”). ... “Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for doing so.” Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1013 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to cite each non-controlling factor specifically, so long as the ALJ clarifies whether and why the treating-source opinion was discounted.

Hall v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-10(c)

Although the ALJ did not specifically address all of the non-controlling factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), the ALJ is not required to cite specifically to the regulations but need only clarify whether he discounted the opinion and why.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits a treating physician's opinion to receive less than controlling weight when persuasive contrary evidence exists and the ALJ gives good reasons supported by the record.

Ball v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12(c)(2)

With regard to Dr. Jaff, a treating physician’s opinion is traditionally afforded “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.” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). When there is “persuasive contrary evidence,” and if the ALJ gives “good reasons” that are supported by the record, the ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less weight. Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 563 (4th Cir. 2006); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats whether a person meets the statutory definition of disability as an issue reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion, and makes consistency with the record and the length and extent of the treatment relationship relevant to the weight given a treating source’s opinion.

Hapner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(d)(1), (c)(4), (c)(2)(i)

According to §404.1527(d), an opinion that a patient is disabled is not actually a medical opinion, but instead an opinion “on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” The regulations provide that: “We are responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability. In so doing, we review all of the medical findings and other evidence that support a medical source’s statement that you are disabled.” §404.1527(d)(1). ... Inconsistency with other medical evidence is a valid consideration in the weight to be given a treating physician’s opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). ... The length and extent of a treatment relationship is a factor the governing regulations explicitly provide is relevant to the weight given a treating doctor’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine the weight of a treating physician’s opinion by considering specified factors when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

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

Even if a treating physician’s opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless determine the proper weight to give them by analyzing the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. Id. The factors are: (i) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (iii) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (iv) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (v) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (vi) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... The ALJ’s treatment of the opinions of Dr. Matus and Dr. Sundaram, as described above, meets these standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight absent good cause, and to clearly state legally correct, substantially supported reasons when declining to do so.

Smith v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-13(d)(2)

Eleventh Circuit case law provides that controlling weight must be given to the opinion, diagnosis and medical evidence of a treating physician absent good cause to do otherwise. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1159–1160; Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240–1241; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “[G]ood cause exists when the (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240–1241. When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must clearly articulate his reasons, which must also be legally correct and supported by substantial evidence in the record. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1159–60; Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703–704 (11th Cir. 1988).

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 and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned when controlling weight is denied.

Aurilio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, “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 v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “The regulations further provide that even if controlling weight is not given to the opinions of the treating physician, the ALJ may still assign some weight to those views, and must specifically explain the weight that is actually given to the opinion.” Schrack v. Astrue, 608 F. Supp. 2d 297, 301 (D. Conn. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to determine the opinion’s weight by considering specified factors when controlling weight is not warranted.

Belangia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

With regard to a treating physician,8 the Regulations instruct ALJs how to properly weigh such a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Because treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s medical opinion is to be afforded 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. Id. When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight it should be given by considering the factors identified above (the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with the other evidence, and the specialization of the physician). Id. ... In sum, the ALJ detailed the weight assigned to Dr. Potter’s opinions, and she articulated specific reasons amounting to good cause for discounting the opinions. The ALJ properly considered Dr. Potter’s opinions, and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to determine the opinion's weight by considering the relevant regulatory factors.

Burks v. Saul · filed 2019-09-16(c)

The ALJ additionally erred by failing to expressly consider the relevant regulatory factors under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). See Gerstner, 879 F.3d at 263; Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697-98 & n.48 (7th Cir. 2014) (noting the significance of the regulatory factors and declining to find the ALJ’s failure to consider these factors harmless).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jamison v. Saul · filed 2019-09-16(d)(2)

Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, “[t]he regulations require that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.” Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Hullender v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician is only entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by “clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(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 source's medical opinion.

Lalama v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-17(c)(2)

The ALJ must always give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The undersigned concludes the ALJ failed to give “good reasons” or “legitimate reasons” in the decision for rejecting Dr. Koenig’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh it using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Burgos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-22(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). ... The ALJ failed to discuss Dr. Richter’s specialty as a hand surgeon who performed Plaintiff’s surgery, administered injections, and prescribed her medications with regard to her hands. AR 378, 382–84. ... The failure to properly weigh the treating specialist’s opinion is not harmless, as the VE testified that limiting Plaintiff to occasionally handling, fingering, and feeling on the right side would preclude Plaintiff from her past occupations as well as others he identified. On remand, the ALJ should provide a complete analysis of Dr. Richter’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating physician’s medical opinion the most weight and permits controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Morillon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-23(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight, and may be “controlling” if it 1s “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the clatmant’s] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors when determining the weight to give treating physicians’ opinions.

Gibson v. Colvin · filed 2019-08-26(c)(2)-(6)

Further, the ALJ did not apply other appropriate factors under C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining the extent to which treating physicians Drs. Budde and Lee should be credited such as the length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ did not provide “specific and legitimate” reasons for granting little weight to the opinions of treating physicians Drs. Budde and Lee, and he did not apply the requisite factors under C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in weighing the opinions of the treating doctors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports giving it less weight, and to clearly articulate the reasons for doing so.

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

The ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the contrary.” ... We have explained that the ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician. ... For all these reasons, we conclude that the ALJ failed to articulate good cause for discounting the opinions of Drs. Hernandez and Assad.

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

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

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

“After considering the pertinent factors, the ALJ must ‘give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision’ for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than to opinions from non-treating physicians, although a treating-source opinion is not automatically controlling.

Roberson v. Linda McMahon, etc. · filed 2007-04-02(d)(2)

Though a treating doctor's opinion may sometimes be controlling, and is often given more weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians, Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), one difficulty here is that Dr. Ilivicky's opinion is unclear. Although he diagnosed Ms. Roberson with bipolar disorder and his office records refer to various symptoms over the years, as we have already said, we think that the evidence available at the time of the hearing did not clearly state Dr. Ilivicky's opinion of Ms. Roberson's ability to function in the workplace for a period of at least twelve months.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally calls for greater weight to be given to treating-source opinions, particularly when they reflect expert judgment based on prolonged, continuing observation of the claimant.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-04-17(d)(2)

We find no error in discounting Dr. Baharlias’s reports as they conflicted with Dr. Cramer’s detailed report, which was entitled to more weight in light of his status as Rodriguez’s family doctor since 1979. As we explained in Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422 (3d Cir. 1999), “[t]reating physicians’ reports should be accorded great weight, especially ‘when their opinions reflect expert judgment based on a continuing observation of the patient’s condition over a prolonged period of time.’” Id. at 429 (quoting Rocco v. Heckler, 826 F.2d 1348, 1350 (3d Cir. 1987); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, consistency, expertise, supportability, and nature and extent of treatment when weighing a treating-source opinion.

Baty v. Barnhart · filed 2007-06-13(d)(2)

However, when weighing the strength of medical opinion, the ALJ should consider: 1) the length of the treatment relationship, 2) consistency with other opinions, 3) particular expertise of the treating source, 4) supportability, and 5) the nature and extent of the treatment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). As the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, in this case these factors weigh in favor of granting little deference to the treating source. Further, the ALJ specifically addressed these factors in coming to the conclusion. Tr. 32.

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

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the opinion is weighed under the applicable factors, and the ultimate disability determination remains reserved to the Commissioner.

Salles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-06-26(d)(2), (e)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment will be given controlling weight only where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001). If, however, the treating physician’s opinion conflicts with other medical evidence, then the ALJ is free to give that opinion less than controlling weight or even reject it, so long as the ALJ clearly explains her reasons and makes a clear record. See Jones, 954 F.2d at 129. When a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is evaluated and weighed under the same standards applied to all other medical opinions, taking into account numerous factors including the opinion’s supportability, consistency and specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ need not defer to a treating physician’s opinion about the ultimate issue of disability because that determination is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to weigh a contradicted treating physician’s opinion using the regulatory factors and to give good reasons for the weight assigned; remand is not required merely because the ALJ failed to discuss every factor.

Lipke v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-24(d)(2)

When, however, the record contains well-supported contradictory evidence, the treating physician’s opinion “is just one more piece of evidence for the administrative law judge to weigh,” taking into consideration the various factors listed in the regulation. ... These factors include how often the treating physician has examined the claimant, whether the physician is a specialist in the condition claimed to be disabling, how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the evidence as a whole, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An administrative law judge must provide “good reasons” for the weight he gives a treating source opinion. ... For example, I am not persuaded that remand is required simply because the administrative law judge failed to discuss each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

A treating source opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, with the treatment relationship and examination frequency also relevant.

Casey v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-04(d)(2)

see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) ("If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight."). ... In considering how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion, an ALJ must also consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i). ... Given the sporadic nature of the treatment relationship and the dearth of clinical or laboratory diagnostic data to support Dr. Rettenmaier's conclusory opinion, we hold that the ALJ acted within the acceptable zone of choice in declining to give Dr. Rettenmaier's opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion that is not given controlling weight to receive deference and be weighed using all of the regulatory factors.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-28(d)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion using the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization factors even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Neave v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-31(d)

Therefore, the matter must be remanded for reconsideration of Dr. Shah’s report under all of the factors set forth in SSR 96-2p and § 404.1527(d), even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.

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

If an ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion, § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to determine the opinion’s weight using the listed regulatory factors.

Jopson v. Astrue · filed 2007-09-24(d)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is rejected, the ALJ must still determine the weight to award the physician’s opinion considering the factors mentioned in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ to expressly discuss every listed factor for each medical opinion when the decision permits meaningful review.

Oldham v. Astrue · filed 2007-12-07(d)(2)

That the ALJ did not explicitly discuss all the § 404.1527(d) factors for each of the medical opinions before him does not prevent this court from according his decision meaningful review. Ms. Oldham cites no law, and we have found none, requiring an ALJ’s decision to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source opinion using the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned, although the ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor.

Cagle v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-25(d)(2)

And although, as we have recently explained, an ALJ is not required to expressly apply in his decision each of the six factors of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 when deciding what weight to give to a medical opinion because not every factor will apply in every case, he must at least provide “good reasons in [the] decision for the weight” given to the opinions of treating sources. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). The ALJ in this case did not do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source opinions controlling weight on the nature and severity of impairments, gives no special significance to opinions on the ultimate disability determination, and permits the ALJ to weigh conflicting evidence.

Zulinski v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-14(c)(2), (d)(2), (e)(2)-(3)

The opinion of a treating or primary physician is generally given controlling weight when evaluating the nature and severity of an individual’s impairments. However, no special significance is given to the source of an opinion on other issues which are reserved to the ALJ, such as the ultimate determination of disablement. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2) & 404.1527(e)(3). The ALJ has the discretion to weigh any conflicting evidence in the case record and make a determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion under specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned, while giving controlling weight when the opinion is well supported and consistent with the record.

Foster v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-30(d)(2)

Under SSA regulations, the opinion of a “treating source” like Dr. Ortell is entitled to “special consideration.” ... If well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, the ALJ must afford such an opinion “controlling weight.” ... Even if the ALJ finds that the opinion does not meet the standard for controlling weight, she may not simply reject it. ... Rather, she must evaluate the opinion’s weight by looking at the length, nature and extent of the claimant’s and physician’s treatment relationship; the degree to which the opinion is supported by the evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the doctor is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... “Regardless of the weight the ALJ ultimately gives the treating source opinion, she must always ‘give good reasons’ for her decision.” ... (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

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

Section 404.1527 requires treating-source medical opinions that are not entitled to controlling weight to receive deference and be weighed using all of the regulation's factors.

Harris v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-10

‘[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in [§] 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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-24(d)(2)

If the opinion of a “treating source” 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 must receive “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). If a treating source’s opinion is not given “controlling weight,” specified factors must be used to determine what weight such an opinion will receive, and “good reasons” must be given in the determination or decision to explain the resulting weight given to the treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating physician opinion, and otherwise to weigh it under specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Burgess v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-08(d)(2)

According to this rule, 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." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see, e.g., Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 106; Shaw, 221 F.3d at 134. ... Finally, even when a treating physician's opinion is not given "controlling" weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... After considering the above factors, the ALJ must "comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion." Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that the agency "will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant's] treating source's opinion" (emphasis added)). Failure to provide such "'good reasons' for not crediting the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is a ground for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion and to state good, specific reasons for the weight assigned to it.

Germany-Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-11-05(d)(2)

That provision requires an administrative law judge to give more weight to opinions from treating sources if the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Moreover, the regulation also requires the judge to state “good” reasons for the weight given the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight or explain with good reasons why it receives less weight, considering the prescribed factors.

Ogden v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-23(d)(2)

There can be no dispute that Dr. Khan is Plaintiffs treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 states: ... Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion. ... Here the ALJ found Dr. Khan’s report “overstated” in contrast with the longitudinal medical evidence, meaning it was not supported by the evidence or not consistent with the record as a whole. This finding was based in large part on the ALJ’s error regarding the dosage of Lasix Plaintiff was taking, as noted above, and the doctor’s comment regarding the use of a nebulizer, which was also discussed above. The undersigned finds these errors adversely and improperly affected the weight accorded Dr. Khan’s opinion.

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, including when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Harris v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-26(d)(2)

The Commissioner is correct that the opinions of both Dr. Burke and Dr. Spahic-Mihajkovic do not relate back to the period prior to plaintiffs DLI and, thus, neither opinion may be particularly probative of plaintiffs condition during the relevant time period. However, the ALJ was still required to articulate his analysis of Dr. Burke’s opinion, at least at some minimal level, especially in light of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, which states that the SSA “will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and controlling weight when they are well-supported and consistent with the record.

Davis v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-18(d)(2)

Generally, the SSA gives greater weight to the opinions of 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 impairments) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). A treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight where the opinion “of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... The ALJ’s decision discusses at length the weight accorded to each medical opinion and the reasons therefor. For example, he explains that he accorded less weight to Dr. Whelton’s opinion as to the diagnosis of fibromylagia because he had seen plaintiff only twice when he completed his assessment. Where Dr. Whelton’s assessment as to plaintiffs functional limitations is consistent with other evidence in the record, particularly Dr. Miknowski’s report, the ALJ gives Dr. Whelton’s assessment significant weight. Further, the ALJ explains that he gave little weight to Dr. Blake’s assessment as to plaintiffs disability caused by migraine headaches because no objective findings supported it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Newbury v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-26(d)(2)

Nonetheless, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth [the] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the adjudicator to give good reasons in the notice of determination for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Macaulay v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-27(d)(2)

Further, the ALJ should have provided the rationale explaining the probative value of Dr. Borie’s opinion, regardless of whether it is entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives significant weight to a medical opinion 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.

Poupore v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-21(d)(2)

A medical opinion may be given significant weight only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Dr. Amir’s September 2004 assessment that Poupore was limited to less than sedentary work was unsupported by any medical evidence. Dr. Amir did not support his conclusion with any clinical findings made in the course of his treatment, but rather relied upon the “evaluation by Dr. Black, orthopedics,” as support for his assessment. However, as discussed above, Dr. Black’s treatment notes do not support a conclusion that Poupore is entirely unable to perform even light, sedentary work. Thus, the ALJ did not err in according Dr. Amir’s assessment with lesser weight.

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship’s length, frequency, nature, and extent when deciding what weight to give it.

Wells v. Barnhart · filed 2009-07-30(d)(2)

To the contrary, §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 expressly provide that where “the treating source’s opinion” is not given “controlling weight,” the ALJ should consider the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” id. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i); see also id. § 416.927(d)(2)(i) (same), along with the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship,” id. § 404.1527(d)(2)(ii); see also id. § 416.927(d)(2)(ii) (same), in determining the weight to give to a claimant’s treating physician.

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

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

Price v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2009-08-18(d)(2)

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ reasonably weighed Dr. Ashbaugh’s opinions in light of the factors set forth in the regulations, considering the extent to which his interrogatory responses were supported by relevant medical evidence and consistent with other evidence. ... Under the applicable regulations, the Commissioner generally gives “more weight to opinions from [] treating sources,” and will give such an opinion “controlling weight” where it is “supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 requires treating-source medical opinions to be evaluated for controlling weight and, when controlling weight is not given, under specified factors including supportability and consistency.

Adams v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-03(d)(2)

Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 provides guidance for how the opinions of treating and nontreating sources are to be evaluated and explains as follows: ... The ALJ in this case decided that the opinions of Dr Vix regarding Plaintiffs need for excessive absences was not entitled to controlling weight. Specifically, the ALJ gave “limited weight to Dr. Vix’s opinion as there are few objective signs and findings to support excessive absences from a sedentary job.” (R. 19). ... Given that Dr. Vix’s opinions concerning the amount of time Plaintiff would miss from work was not supported by objective medical evidence and that opinion was inconsistent with the more objectively based findings of Dr. Hingtgen and the Mayo Clinic, it was not error for the ALJ to reject some portions of Dr. Vix’s opinion.

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

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

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-08-31(d)(2)

Substantial weight must be given to the opinion, diagnosis and medical evidence of a treating physician unless there is good cause to do otherwise. ... 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), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Choquette v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-02-18(d)(2)

The Regulations maintain that the administrative law judges “will always give good reasons in [their] ... decision for the weight [they] give [a] treating source's opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate non-reserved medical opinions under specified factors, while opinions on disability status and impairment severity are reserved to the Commissioner and do not receive controlling weight.

Campos v. Astrue · filed 2010-04-19(d), (e)

Medical source opinions on certain issues reserved to the Commissioner are not given controlling weight, even when provided by a treating physician. ... Campos’ disability status, and the nature and severity of his impairments, are issues reserved to the Commissioner. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e); see also SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *5 (July 2, 1996). Accordingly, Dr. Branson’s determination that Campos was disabled was not entitled to controlling weight. ... For those issues not reserved to the Commissioner, we conclude that the ALJ properly followed the analysis required by §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires deference to a treating physician’s medical opinion unless the ALJ gives good reason not to defer, but § 404.1527(e) gives no particular weight to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Carter Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-06-07(d)(2), (e)

Under Social Security regulations, when a treating physician submits a medical opinion, the ALJ must either defer to the opinion or provide “good reason” for refusing to defer to the opinion. ... Yet a treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to such special attention and deference when it is a medical opinion. ... When a treating physician instead submits an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner—such as whether the claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work”—the opinion is not entitled to any particular weight.

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 medical opinion after considering the pertinent regulatory factors.

Knight v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-21(d)(2)

“After considering the pertinent factors, the ALJ must ‘give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision’ for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (brackets omitted)). See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2). “Finally, if the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must then give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ performed none of this analysis with regard to Dr. Campbell’s opinions about Knight’s depression.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an adjudicator to give good reasons when assigning limited weight to a treating source’s opinion and permits rejecting it when inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Amaral v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-07-13(d)(2)

Generally, the hearing officer gives more weight to the opinions of examining sources than those of non-examining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). On issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as residual function capacity findings, examining sources are not given special significance by mere virtue of the existence of a treating relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)-(3). The hearing officer may choose not to adopt examining source opinions if they are inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Should the hearing officer decide to give the opinion of a treating source limited weight, he must provide “good reasons” for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion only when it is supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ weighs it using the regulatory factors and gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Merida v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-30(d)(2)

However, treating physicians’ opinions are only given such deference when supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... If the ALJ concludes that either criterion is not satisfied, he applies the following factors in determining how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.... ” ... Accordingly, an ALJ may elect not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, as long as he provides “good reasons” for so doing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating physicians’ opinions more weight, but an ALJ may discount them for good cause such as lack of evidentiary support, contrary evidence, or inconsistency with the physician’s records, if the reasons are clearly articulated.

Majkut v. Commr. of Social Sec. · filed 2010-08-30(d)(2)

When weighing medical opinions, treating physicians are generally accorded more weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “Testimony of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. Good cause exists, for example, where the conclusion was not bolstered by evidence, the evidence supported a contrary finding, or where the opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own records. Id. The ALJ must clearly articulate its reasons for doing so. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

McIntire v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-09(d)(2)

The Regulations provide: “We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). In this case, however, the Commissioner failed to give good reasons for the weight it gave to the second opinion of Delaney, Mclntire’s treating physician. ... Even if the ALJ’s decision and analysis regarding Delaney’s first opinion were proper, the Commissioner failed to comply with the regulations because the Appeals Council failed to meet its burden of providing plaintiff with good reasons for the lack of weight attributed to the treating physician’s second opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion when the RFC assessment conflicts with it.

Costa v. SSA · filed 2010-11-03(d)(2)

Where an ALJ’s RFC assessment is at odds with a medical source opinion, he must explain his reasons for disregarding that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at * 7 ; Marshall v . Astrue, N o . 08-cv-147-JD, 2008 WL 5396295, at *4 (D.N.H. Dec. 2 2 , 2008). ... The court agrees with Costa that the ALJ erred because he improperly ignored a treating source’s opinion in direct conflict with his final determination that Costa was capable of “almost a full range of light work that is only reduced by a need to avoid smoky environments.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Calzada v. ASTURE · filed 2010-11-17(d)(2)

The SSA regulations specify that "the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments 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.’"

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

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, while requiring the adjudicator to weigh it using the listed factors and not treat it as automatically controlling.

Bannister v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-06(d)(2)-(6)

A treating source’s opinion is given “controlling weight if the opinion is supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence.” ... The ALJ applies the following factors to determine the weight to be given the treating source’s opinion: “(1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of treatment relationship; (3) medical support for the opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) specialization of the treating source; and (6) other factors the claimant brings to the ALJ’s attention.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). However, a treating physician’s opinion “does not automatically control or obviate the need to evaluate the record as whole.”

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports giving it less weight, and to explain that good cause.

Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2010-10-21(d)(2)

Further, a treating physician’s opinion “must be given substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the contrary.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Good cause exists “when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (11th Cir. 2004). “The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (requiring the agency to “give good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to determine the weight of a treating physician’s opinion by considering factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests performed, and the opinion’s consistency and support.

Campbell v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-06(d)(2)

Even if an ALJ gives good reasons for not giving controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, she has to decide what weight to give that opinion. Larson, 615 F.3d at 751 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The applicable regulations guide that decision by identifying several factors that an ALJ must 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 support for the physician’s opinion.” Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)(i) supports giving greater weight to opinions from sources who have seen the claimant multiple times, so a one-time examiner’s opinion is not entitled to treating-source controlling weight.

Dupont v. SSA · filed 2010-12-28(d)(2)(i)

There were ample reasons for the ALJ to discount this opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (detailing factors used in the evaluation of opinion evidence). First, Dupont was only examined by Diamond once, and therefore his opinion is not entitled to the controlling weight of a “treating source.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i) (explaining that greater weight is given to sources that have seen the claimant multiple times).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pyatt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-01-12(d)(2)

“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” ... The ALJ did not state the weight he gave to Dr. Hard’s opinions nor did the ALJ describe the factors that led him to disregard many of Dr. Hard’s findings. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the ALJ erred by failing to articulate good reasons for discounting and/or dismissing the opinions of Plaintiffs treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Social Security Administration to give good reasons in its notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

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

As the Sixth Circuit has held, a complete failure to mention a treating source’s restrictions violates the terms of the Commissioner’s regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), which assures claimants that the Social Security Administration “will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”

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

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to determine the weight given to a claimant's treating physicians' opinions as part of the residual-functional-capacity analysis.

Catchings v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-28(d)

As part of this analysis, the ALJ must determine what weight to give the opinions of the claimant’s treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996).

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

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

SOLSBEE v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-23(d)(2)

The Regulations specify that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) will be given ‘controlling weight’ if the opinion is ‘well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in your ease record.’ ”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good, evidence-supported reasons when assigning less than controlling weight to a treating source’s medical opinion.

Delafontaine v SSA · filed 2011-01-07(d)(2)

More weight is given to treating source opinions because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture” of the claimant’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). When an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight, he is required to “give good reasons . . . for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to articulate good reasons for doing so.

Vorholt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-02-02(d)(2)

Where an ALJ chooses not to grant a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ “must articulate ‘good reasons’” for doing so.

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

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to give appropriate weight to treating physicians’ opinions and provide sufficient reasons for rejecting them.

Rosa v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-08(d)

I therefore find that ALJ Resnick’s dismissal of Dr. Rapoport and Dr. Mendes’ evaluations and recommendations was unsupported by the record and violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) and Social Security Ruling (SSR) 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions and generally give greater weight to treating physicians because they provide a more detailed and longitudinal picture than individual or consultive examinations.

Simmons v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-08(b), (d)(1)-(2)

In making a disability determination, an ALJ must consider medical opinions in the case record. ... In evaluating various medical opinions, the ALJ will generally give greater weight to treating physicians, as these sources provide a more detailed and longitudinal picture than individual or consultive examinations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating-source opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527 still requires the Commissioner to defer to and weigh it using the regulation’s specified factors.

Pratt v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-14(d)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 favors a treating physician's opinion over the opinions of non-treating physicians when the Social Security Administration evaluates medical evidence.

Stone v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-29

By rule, the Social Security Administration favors the opinion of a treating physician over non-treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give greater deference to a treating physician’s opinion, but it does not automatically receive controlling weight; the ALJ may discount it when it does not meet the applicable standards if the ALJ gives good reasons.

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-01(d)(3)-(4)

An ALJ is entitled to discount the medical opinion of a treating physician if it does not meet the above standards, provided that he gives “good reasons” for not according controlling weight.

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

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

Alker v. SSA · filed 2011-05-10(d)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (treating physician's opinion is given "controlling weight" as long as it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and further, is "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in . . . [the] record.").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ gives less than controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion, § 404.1527(d)(2) requires an explanation sufficiently specific for later reviewers to understand the weight assigned and the reasons for it.

Mendoza v. SSA · filed 2011-05-10(d)(2)

Nevertheless, when, as here, an ALJ gives less than controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians, he or she must explain the reason(s) for doing so, in a manner that is "sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reasons for that weight."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to treating-source medical opinions and the reasons for that weight.

Kenerson v. SSA · filed 2011-05-20(d)(2)

Accordingly, this case is remanded to the ALJ to obtain the required discussion and determination with respect to Dr. Fallon’s treating source medical opinions, consistent with the mandate set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hovenga v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-07(d)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is to be given controlling weight where it is supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and where it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives greater weight to treating-source opinions when supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Antoniewicz v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-10(d)(2)

Treating source opinions are entitled to greater weight when they are supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with “other substantial evidence” in the record.

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) requires an ALJ who discounts a medical source opinion to explain the reasons for doing so and consider the factors relevant to the weight assigned.

Beck v. SSA · filed 2011-09-23(d)

Where an ALJ’s RFC assessment is at odds with a medical source opinion, he must explain his reasons for disregarding that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at * 7 ; Marshall v . Astrue, N o . 08-cv-147-JD, 2008 WL 5396295, at *3 (D.N.H. Dec. 2 2 , 2008). ... In this instance, the court concludes that the ALJ’s decision to grant little weight to Dr. Scirica’s functional evaluations was not adequately supported, and therefore her order should be reversed.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires greater weight for treating-source opinions when they provide a detailed longitudinal picture, but does not require controlling weight when they are inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Lill v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-23(d)(2)

Generally, the hearing officer is bound to lend “more weight to 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] medical impairment(s)____”20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). This, however, is only true when these opinions are not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... If a hearing officer decides not to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating sources, he must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not make a treating physician’s opinion dispositive; controlling weight may not be given when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Paquette v. Rhode Island Dept. of Human · filed 2011-10-18(d)(2)

However, the treating physician's opinion is not always dispositive. 20 CFR § 404.1527 (d)(2). ... In addition, the hearing officer may not afford controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is inconsistent with other substantial 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(d)(2) generally favors treating-source opinions because treating sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant’s impairments.

Foster v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-22(d)(2)

This is precisely why “[generally, [the Commissioner] give[s] more weight to opinions from treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairments.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-physician opinions, grants controlling weight only when supported by diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons if controlling weight is denied.

Gorayeb v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-23(d)(2)-(6)

In evaluating the opinions of treating sources, an ALJ must generally give more weight to the opinion of a treating physician because the physician is most able to provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s alleged disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... If the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion should not be accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must then analyze and weigh all the evidence of record, taking into account the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner and does not require controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it conflicts with other substantial evidence.

Giunta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-12-05(d)(2), (e)(1)

However, the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act is “reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). As noted by the ALJ and district court, a claimant’s subjective report of the effects of his impairment is not controlling, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529, and the opinion of a treating physician is not controlling if it conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record. Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to examining or treating physicians’ opinions than to nonexamining or nontreating physicians’ opinions unless good cause supports giving them less weight.

Carroll v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2011-12-12(d)(1), (2)

Generally, the opinions of examining or treating physicians are given more weight than nonexamining or nontreating physicians unless “good cause” is shown. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (2); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to provide good reasons for that decision.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-12-19(d)(2)

The ALJ in this case did not give adequate reasons for rejecting Dr. Mallary’s opinion. ... If the ALJ declines to accord Dr. Mallary’s opinion controlling weight, he must provide “good reasons” for his decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits the Commissioner to reject a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks sufficient medical support or conflicts with other substantial evidence.

Lane v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-27(d)(2)

Further, the Commissioner may properly reject a treating physician’s opinion if it is not supported by sufficient medical data or if it is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion under specified factors and give good reasons.

Burbo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-01-30(d)(2)

Treating-source analysis proceeds in two steps. First, “[a]n ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’ ” ... Second, where an ALJ finds that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must consider the following nonexhaustive list of factors to determine how much weight to give the opinion: (1) “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” (2) “the nature and extent of the treatment relationship,” (3) the relevant evidence presented by a treating physician to support his opinion, (4) “consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole,” and (5) “the specialization of the treating source.” ... In addition, the treating-source rule contains a procedural, explanatory requirement that an ALJ give “good reasons” for the weight given a treating-source opinion.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to explain precisely any decision not to do so.

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

When assessing the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must give it controlling weight if she finds that it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case....” If the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to the opinions of a treating physician, the ALJ must explain in precise detail the reasons for deciding to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-physician opinion controlling weight, give good reasons for the weight assigned, and consider specified factors when the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent.

Lynch v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-12(d)(2)-(6)

Further, a treating physician’s opinion will typically be given controlling weight when the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... Such opinions, however, do “not automatically control, since the record must be evaluated as a whole.” ... Opinions of treating physicians may be discounted or disregarded where other “medical assessments ‘are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence.’ ” ... Whatever weight the ALJ accords the treating physician’s report, be it substantial or little, the ALJ is required to give good reasons for the particular weight given the report. ... If the opinion of a treating physician is not well supported or is inconsistent with other evidence, 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 the 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 which may contradict or support the opinion. ... The undersigned finds that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons for assigning “very little weight” to Dr. Ali’s opinion that plaintiff could only rarely lift or carry even ten pounds.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give specific reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion after considering the factors relevant to that opinion.

Mitchell v. SSA · filed 2012-03-13(d)(2)

Given the discrepancy between his determination and that of Dr. Baker, the ALJ was required to give specific reasons for discounting Dr. Baker's opinion on Mitchell's ability to work full-time. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-2p. Apparently failing to recognize the existence of a discrepancy, however, the ALJ did not attempt to reconcile his own conclusions with the contrary portions of Dr. Baker's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it under all listed factors and articulate specific, legitimate good cause to reject it.

Rios v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-23(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is generally entitled to 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... Even if a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference “and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... In all events, a treating source opinion may not be rejected absent good cause for specific, legitimate reasons clearly articulated in the hearing decision. ... To the extent plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to examine each of the section 404.1527(d) factors individually, the regulations require only that the ALJ “apply” them, not that he recite them as a litany. ... I find nothing in the ALJ’s detailed and meticulous opinion that suggests these factors were not considered and applied here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) identifies factors an ALJ may consider when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, including treatment history, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Payton v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-07(d)

Relevant factors the ALJ may consider include: ... (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. ... Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... We conclude the ALJ’s decision not to give controlling weight to Dr. Babb’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence and is free from legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

More importantly, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight only 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. ... It must follow, then, that once well-supported contradicting evidence is introduced, the treating physician’s evidence is no longer entitled to controlling weight. ... Similarly, an ALJ may properly discount a treating physician’s opinion if it is internally inconsistent.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives more weight to opinions from treating sources, but permits less weight when good cause supports that decision, such as a conclusory or inconsistent opinion or contrary evidence.

Hughes v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2012-08-02(c)

“[T]he opinion of a treating physician is entitled to substantial weight unless good cause exists for not heeding the treating physician’s diagnosis.” Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 583 (11th Cir. 1991); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that, generally, more weight is given to opinions from treating sources). However, we have found “good cause” to afford less weight to a treating physician’s opinion where the opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records or where the evidence supported a contrary finding. See Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, the ALJ “is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985) (quotation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and requires good reasons when the adjudicator declines to give one controlling weight.

Constance Leach v. SSA · filed 2012-08-09(c)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to 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) . . . When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed [in this section] in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... In deciding to afford the opinions of D r . Wagner “little weight,” the ALJ echoed the view espoused by D r . Kutcher, the non-examining medical expert who testified at claimant’s hearing. In short, D r . Kutcher testified - and the ALJ agreed - that D r . Wagner’s notes were not sufficiently detailed to permit him to conclude that D r . Wagner’s opinions about claimant’s abilities were adequately supported. ... The problem is this: viewed in its entirety (including the testimony given before the ALJ) the record does support D r . Wagner’s conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to determine its weight using the listed factors.

Hunt v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-31(c)(2)

If the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ must afford it “controlling weight.” ... Even if the ALJ finds sound reasons for not giving the opinion controlling weight, he may not simply reject it, SSR 96-2p; rather, he must then decide what weight the opinion does deserve, considering a “checklist” of factors including 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 support for the physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits an ALJ to discount it for minimally articulated reasons, including inconsistency with a consulting physician’s opinion or reliance on subjective complaints.

Merritt v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-02(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... However, an ALJ may discount such an opinion as long as she “minimally articulates [her] reasons” for doing so. ... As a result, “if the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with the consulting physician’s opinion ... or based solely on the patient’s subjective complaints, the ALJ may discount it.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require express discussion of every factor if the ALJ gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Chapin v. SSA · filed 2012-09-28(c)(2)-(6)

While, as discussed supra, § 404.1527(c) lists factors for the ALJ to consider in deciding how much weight to give any medical opinion, it stops short of “requiring an ALJ’s decision to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion,” so long as he provides “good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the [medical] opinions.” Oldham v . Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial record evidence, and § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires consideration of specified factors when evaluating that opinion.

Nicholson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2012-09-28(d)(2)-(6)

Under Social Security regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is “entitled to ‘controlling weight’ if [it is] not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence and [is] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)); see SSR 96-2p, Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions, 1996 WL 374188 (SSA July 2, 1996) (“A case cannot be decided in reliance on a medical opinion without some reasonable support for the opinion.”). To be given controlling weight, the medical opinion must also address “the nature and severity of [the applicant’s] impairment(s).” 28 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). Furthermore, prior to adopting a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion by considering the following six factors: “(1) length of the treating relationship and frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treating relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 n.7 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(6), 416.927(d)(2)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

Seignious v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-26(d)

In determining the weight owed to a treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give treating physicians’ opinions more weight than other medical opinions and controlling weight when they are well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Ballester-Salgado v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-07(c)(2)

The ALJ is generally required to give more weight to the opinions of treating physicians than to other medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The applicable regulation makes clear that an ALJ should give controlling weight to treating physicians’ opinions if the opinions are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Briscoe v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-25(c)(2)

The ALJ must give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’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 Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion considerable weight unless good cause supports giving it less weight, and to clearly articulate that good cause.

Boehm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-05-06(d)(2)

The testimony of a treating physician must be given considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary, and failure of the ALJ to clearly articulate the reasons for giving lesser weight to the opinion of a treating physician constitutes reversible error. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (1999). This Circuit has held that the requisite “good cause” exists where the treating physician’s opinion is not supported by the evidence, where the evidence supported a contrary finding, or where the physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with their own medical records.

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 provides that the weight given to a treating physician's conclusory statements depends on the extent to which they are supported by medical findings and other evidence.

Taylor v. Heckler · filed 1983-12-14

Although a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to great weight, the weight to be given conclusory statements depends upon the extent to which they are supported by medical findings and other evidence.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion under the specified regulatory factors even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Rothgeb v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-06(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then it must be weighed against other medical source opinions under a number of factors set forth in the Commissioner’s Regulations — “namely, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source — in determining what weight to give the opinion.”

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 a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other evidence of record.

Yates v. Colvin · filed 2013-02-28(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is to be given controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every listed factor when weighing a treating-source opinion and give specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting it completely.

Maiorano v. Astrue · filed 2013-03-13(d)(2)

Nevertheless, the ALJ must consider every factor in determining the weight to be assigned to a medical opinion, and “if the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must then give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ellington ex rel. C.K.S. v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-26(d)(2)

The Commissioner, as reflected in his regulations, also demonstrates a similar preference for the opinion of treating physicians. Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultive examinations or brief hospitalizations. ... Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir.1997) (citing 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to provide a sound explanation when rejecting a treating physician’s opinion and to sufficiently account for the relevant factors, but it does not require explicit discussion of every factor.

Schreiber v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-27(c)(2)

Schreiber also argues that the ALJ failed to properly analyze Dr. Belford’s opinion because he did not specifically address each factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. When an ALJ chooses to reject a treating physician’s opinion, she must provide a sound explanation for the rejection. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). Here, while the ALJ did not explicitly weigh each factor in discussing Dr. Belford’s opinion, his decision makes clear that he was aware of and considered many of the factors, including Dr. Belford’s treatment relationship with Schreiber, the consistency of her opinion with the record as a whole, and the supportability of her opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). While we may not agree with the weight the ALJ ultimately gave Dr. Belford’s opinions, our inquiry is limited to whether the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, see Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 425-26 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of benefits where ALJ discussed only two of the relevant factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527), and built an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his conclusion. We find that deferential standard met here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial record evidence, although a contradicted opinion may still receive significant weight.

Tankisi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-04-02(c)(2)

Although the RFC is assessed using “all the relevant evidence in [the] case record,” id., the medical opinion of a treating physician is given “controlling weight” as long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Even if the treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by other substantial evidence, and so is not controlling, it may still be entitled to significant weight “because the treating source is inherently more familiar with a claimant’s medical condition than are other sources.” Schisler v. Bowen, 851 F.2d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 1988).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sheila Ann Perry, Claimant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Respondent · filed 2013-04-26(c)(2)

Because Dr. Blencowe had an ongoing treatment relationship with claimant, her medical opinions are entitled to controlling weight, provided they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [they are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [claimant’s] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed [in this section] in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion. ... Stated simply, the ALJ did not adequately justify her decision to discount the opinions of claimant’s treating source, Dr. Blencowe. The ALJ did not give "good reasons" for disregarding the opinions of a treating source as required by regulation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs ALJs to evaluate medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialty; treating-physician opinions generally receive more weight and require good reasons for rejection but are not binding if unsupported, while state-agency consultant opinions may receive significant weight when supported by the record.

Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-07-09(c), (c)(2), and (e)(2)(i)

The ALJ assesses a medical source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments relative to various factors, including: the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant; the evidence the medical source presents to support an opinion; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and the medical source’s specialty. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight and requires an ALJ to give good reasons for rejecting it. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). But the treating physician’s opinion is not binding on the Commissioner, who may discredit it if it is not supported by record evidence. See Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 336 F.3d 469, 477 (6th Cir. 2003). ... The opinions of such consultants may be entitled to significant weight where, as here, they are supported by record evidence, including that from Lee’s own physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fee v. Astrue · filed 2013-05-10(d)(2)

It is well-settled that “the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is ... given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1)-(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion substantial or considerable weight absent good cause and to clearly articulate the reasons for assigning it less weight.

Evans v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-01-06(d)(1)-(2)

Absent good cause, an ALJ is to give the medical opinions of treating physicians substantial or considerable weight. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), 416.927(d)(1)-(2). Good cause exists when: (1) the opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) the opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor's own medical records. Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. An ALJ may disregard a treating physician's opinion for good cause, but he must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so. Id. Moreover, the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor. Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987). ... Because the evidence was inconsistent with Samera’s opinion, the ALJ clearly and specifically articulated his reasons for affording less weight to Samera’s opinion and stated that he was affording great weight to Schoenrock’s opinion. Accordingly, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s rejection of Samera’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) identifies treating-physician medical opinions as covering the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, functional ability, and resulting restrictions, to which an ALJ generally must defer.

Henning v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-22(a)(2)

An ALJ generally must defer to a treating physician’s medical opinions about the nature and severity of an applicant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what an applicant is capable of doing despite the impairment, and the resulting restrictions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-09-16(c)(2)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating-source opinion to give specific good reasons for the weight assigned, sufficient to permit meaningful review.

Arsenault v. SSA · filed 2014-01-16(c)(2)

In other words, giving "good reasons" for discounting the opinions of treating sources means providing "specific reasons" that will allow "subseguent reviewers [to know] . . . the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reasons for that weight." SSR 96-2P, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996). Accordingly, when no such specific reasons are given, remand is appropriate if the failure renders meaningful review impossible. See Lord v. Apfel, 114 F. Supp. 2d 3, 14 (D.N.H. 2000).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, and source specialization, and gives controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion.

Phaneuf v. SSA · filed 2014-06-24(d)

The ALJ attributes weight to a medical opinion based on a variety of factors including the nature of the relationship between the medical source and the applicant, the extent to which the opinion includes supporting information, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the specialization of the source, the source’s understanding of the administrative process, and the source’s familiarity with the applicant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996). ... A treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” § 404.1527(d). ... The ALJ correctly and appropriately reviewed the medical records and found that Dr. DiCesare’s opinions were inconsistent with that evidence. Because of the inconsistencies, the ALJ properly assigned little weight to those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(6) require an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating source’s opinion if it is not given controlling weight.

Garrison v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-14(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

Social Security regulations provide that, when a treating source’s opinions are not given controlling weight, ALJs must apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i–ii) and (c)(3–6) in determining how much weight to give each opinion. These factors are length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), nature and extent of the treatment relationship, § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), “supportability,” § 404.1527(c)(3), consistency, § 404.1527(c)(4), specialization, § 404.1527(c)(5), and other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion, § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(4) treated supportability and consistency as factors but did not require ALJs to articulate their consideration of those factors for every medical opinion.

Guzman · filed 2026-03-12(c)(3)–(4)

The prior regulations listed supportability and consistency among the factors to be considered,70 and ALJs had to give “good reasons . . . for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.”71 But unlike the current regulations, the prior regulations did not specifically require ALJs to articulate their consideration of the supportability and consistency factors for all medical opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ generally must give greater weight to a treating source's opinion when the source has treated the claimant long and often enough to develop a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

Vorhis-Deaton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-07-22(d)(2)

The treating physician rule requires the ALJ to generally give greater deference to the opinions of treating physicians than to the opinions of non-treating physicians because: ... Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion. When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the source’s opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence; if the opinion is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it using the relevant treatment factors and give specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Reagan v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-01(d)(2)

The law governing the weight to be given to a treating physician’s opinion, often referred to as the treating physician rule, is well settled: A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to complete deference if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... Even if the ALJ determines that the treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the opinion is still entitled to substantial deference or weight commensurate with “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.” ... The ALJ is not required to explain how he considered each of these factors, but must nonetheless give “good reasons” for rejecting or discounting a treating physician’s opinion. ... These reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation directs adjudicators to give more weight to a treating source’s medical opinion when the source has treated the claimant longer and seen the claimant more often.

Desantis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-06-04(d)(2)(i)

In this case in particular, the treating physicians saw Plaintiff a significant number of times over an extended period. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i) (“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) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Dyer v. Social Security Administration · filed 2014-06-11(c)(2)

When according weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the opinion must be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). ... The administrative law judge must give “good reasons” for the weight—or lack of weight—given a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s finding that Dr. Dunaway’s proposed severe limitations were inconsistent with the evidence in the record and the treating physician rule was not violated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to opinions from treating sources because they can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant's impairment.

Debartolo v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-15(d)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from ... reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that the weight given to a nonexamining source's opinion depends on the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations for the opinion.

St. Louis ex rel. D.H. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-06-25

“[B]ecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions”.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion and permits giving it little weight when it is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Marshall v SSA · filed 2014-08-27(c)(2)

Nevertheless, “an opinion from a treating source can be accorded little weight - less than that accorded a non-treating source - if the ALJ finds the opinion to be inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... Here, the ALJ permissibly concluded that Dr. Quirbach’s opinion was “not well supported by or consistent with the evidence of record,” explaining that: ... This thorough assessment provides a number of “good reasons” for the ALJ’s decision to accord little weight to Dr. Quirbach’s opinion and indicates sufficient consideration of the factors that must be evaluated before reaching that conclusion. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not given controlling weight, it must still be weighed under the regulation's factors and may not be rejected without specific, legitimate reasons.

Russ v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-15(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Even if a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference “and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... In either event, a treating source opinion may not be rejected absent good cause for specific, legitimate reasons clearly articulated in the hearing decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(d)(3) supports giving less weight to cursory opinions.

Haskell v. SSA · filed 2015-02-02(d)(2), (d)(3)

Unsurprisingly, then, the ALJ gave Mattin’s responses “little weight because his opinion is a pro forma statement of [Haskell’s] functional limitations without any elaboration as to what objective medical signs or symptoms led [Mattin] to conclude that [Haskell] was limited in the manner [Mattin] articulated.” ... This court has repeatedly ruled, in fact, that “[w]hen an opinion is given in cursory fashion, the ALJ can properly give it less weight.” McGrath v. Astrue, 2012 DNH 060, 13 n.13 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)); ... Haskell, predictably, invokes the SSA’s rule as to the deference generally due the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). But that rule applies only insofar as such an opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [his] case record.” Id. ... So the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Mattin’s opinions because they lacked “elaboration as to what objective medical signs or symptoms led [Mattin] to conclude that [Haskell] was limited in the manner [Mattin] articulated” was both sufficiently supported and sufficiently explained.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record, requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned using specified factors, and reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Saenz v. Colvin · filed 2014-11-24(c)(2), (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2)

The opinions of a treating source may be given controlling weight if “the treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the amount of weight to give the opinion based on factors that include (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) whether the treating source provided evidence in support of the opinion, (3) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and (4) whether the treating source is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... However, opinions that a claimant is “disabled or unable to work” are legal conclusions “reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... Because the ALJ cited substantial evidence in the record that was contrary to, or at least inconsistent with, Dr. Wortman’s opinions, the ALJ fulfilled his burden under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) to provide valid reasons for affording diminished weight to those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship’s length, examination frequency, and nature and extent when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Colcord v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-11(c)

“Length ... of the treatment history and the frequency of examination by the treating physician, [and] the nature and extent of the treatment relationship between the patient and the treating physician” are all factors an ALJ must consider in determining how much weight to accord to a treating physician’s medical opinion.

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 weigh other treating-source opinions using the listed factors and explain specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting them.

Ferrier v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-19(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Even if a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference “and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... In either event, a treating source opinion may not be rejected absent good cause for specific, legitimate reasons clearly articulated in the hearing decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight unless it lacks support from medically acceptable techniques or conflicts with other substantial evidence.

Mace v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2015-03-27(c)(2)

The Social Security regulations provide that a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight unless it is not supported by medically acceptable techniques or is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. 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) provides that the Social Security Administration gives more weight to the opinion of a treating physician.

Hunter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-04-23(c)(2)

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (providing, among other things, that the Social Security Administration gives more weight to the opinion of a treating physician). We have found good cause to exist where the doctor’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence, the evidence supported a contrary finding, or the doctor’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with his or her own medical records. ... To the extent that the administrative law judge erred by failing to state with particularity the weight assigned to Drs. Homra’s and Kulick’s medical opinions, the error is harmless because it did not affect the administrative law judge’s ultimate determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives more weight to opinions from treating sources because they can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's medical impairment.

Meriwether v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-19(c)

Considering that these records come from Ms. Meriwether’s treating source, Anchor Mental Health—information that is afforded special significance and can be entitled to controlling weight—their assessments regarding her concentration abilities are particularly important. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s).”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence, but permits less weight when persuasive contrary evidence exists.

Dunn v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-01(d)(2)

According to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) & 416.927(d)(2), a treating source’s opinion on issues of the nature and severity of the impairments will be given controlling weight when well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and when the opinion is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Conversely, however, “the ALJ holds the discretion to give less weight to the testimony of a treating physician in the face of persuasive contrary evidence.” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (finding that “if a physician’s opinion in not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight”). ... Based upon all of the medical evidence, the ALJ gave the opinion of Dr. Francis “significant weight because [it was] consistent with objective findings made upon examination of [Appellant].” J.A. 18. Further, the ALJ “assigned limited weight to the opinions of Dr. Swing and Ms. Gosnell, [Appellant’s] treating psychiatric sources, as they are inconsistent with their treatment notes contained throughout [Appellant’s] medical records.” Id. As to Dr. Merrion, the ALJ gave her opinion “greater but not controlling weight because she had the opportunity to examine [Appellant], but only saw her on one occasion.” Id. We are of the opinion that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to assign the weight that he did to the various medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion greater weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician.

Sanborn v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2015-06-01(c)(1)

We will address each medical source of evidence in turn, bearing in mind that the opinions of a treating physician are generally entitled to greater weight than the opinions of a non-examining physician, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), and the opinion of a treating physician’s assistant, too, is entitled to some weight as an “other source,” SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2 (Aug. 9, 2006).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight over an unexamined agency doctor’s opinion unless the ALJ persuasively explains why the treating opinion is unsupported by the record.

Engstrand v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-04(c)

As the treating physician, Dr. Retzinger’s opinion should have controlled over the conclusions of the agency doctor who did not examine Engstrand, unless the ALJ could persuasively explain why Dr. Retzinger’s opinions about Engstrand’s serious limitations were not supported by the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Minnick, 775 F.3d at 937–38; Roddy, 705 F.3d at 636–37.

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, with an explanation specific enough for subsequent review.

Juanita Cox v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-06-11(d)(2)

Regulations require that an ALJ always give good reasons in her decision for the weight given to opinions from a claimant’s treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ’s discussion of treating source evidence “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when deciding what weight to assign a treating source's opinion that is not given controlling weight.

Emrich v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-02(c)

Where, as here, a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors set out in § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight, if any, to assign that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine the opinion’s weight by considering the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Wark v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-07(c)(2)

The ALJ must do so by considering the following factors: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the degree to which the physician presents relevant medical evidence in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the degree to which the opinion relates to an area in which the physician specializes, and any other factors “which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise evaluate medical opinions using the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-08-18(c)

Thus, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source if the ALJ finds that opinion well-supported by medically acceptable evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ failed to mention or provide explanation concerning any of the § 404.1527(c) factors. The ALJ’s conclusory assessment thus fails to satisfy his obligation to provide a meaningful analysis of the weight accorded all medical source opinions of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pinnick v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-21(c)(2)

Controlling weight will be granted to the opinion of the treating physician when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hey v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-30(c)(2)

“[A] treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons, supported by the record and sufficiently specific, for the weight assigned to a treating-source medical opinion.

Garrett Fox v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-17(c)(2)

Because the ALJ failed to give “good reasons . . . for the weight [he] g[a]ve [Appellant’s] treating source’s opinion” and did not provide any support as to why he was giving the physician less weight in certain areas, the ALJ’s analysis was insufficient and merits vacating the judgment. ... Such a cursory and conclusory analysis does not provide any reason, let alone a “good reason[],” why the ALJ concluded that Dr. Armstrong’s opinion was inconsistent with other medical findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 61 Fed. Reg. at 34,492.