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(a) treats a medical source's opinion about a claimant's ability to work as an administrative finding reserved to the ALJ, rather than a medical opinion subject to evaluation.

JAMES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-10(a)

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Roque’s opinion that Plaintiff would have difficulty being gainfully and satisfactorily employed because this is an administrative finding that rests exclusively within the ALJ’s purview. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, while medical sources provide evidence and opinions about impairment severity and residual functional capacity.

Politte v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(d)(2)

The Court notes that an RFC determination is within the exclusive province of the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats a medical source statement that a claimant is unable to work as an administrative finding about disability, not a medical opinion.

Gaona v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-20(d)(1)

But a medical source statement that a claimant is “unable to work” is not a medical opinion; rather, it is an “administrative finding[] that . . . would direct the determination or decision of disability.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats whether a claimant is totally disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a physician’s opinion on that issue is not entitled to controlling weight.

Waid v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-08-20(d)(1)

The ALJ correctly gave no weight to Dr. Twilley’s statement that claimant was totally disabled, because such a decision is reserved to the Commissioner.5 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats whether a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a medical source’s statement that the claimant is disabled is not controlling.

Todd v. Saul · filed 2020-08-27(d)(1)

The opinions that the ALJ discounted relied on Todd’s symptom reports and were not supported by medical evidence, see Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (stating that an opinion may be discounted “if it is based to a large extent on a claimant’s self-reports” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and improperly concluded that Todd was disabled (an issue reserved for the Commissioner), 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) excludes opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner from the category of medical opinions, and § 404.1527(d)(3) says they receive no special significance.

David Lamar Mills v. Saul · filed 2020-08-28(d), (d)(3)

Opinions on issues constituting administrative findings that are dispositive of a case and would direct the determination of disability are not medical opinions because those issues are reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Thus, these opinions are not entitled to any special significance. Id. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves the ultimate disability and residual functional capacity determinations to the ALJ rather than treating or examining physicians or state agency consultants.

JONES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-28(e)

It is the ALJ who is charged with determining a claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c), 416.927(e), 416.946(c); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361 (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements that a claimant is disabled, unable to work, or can work less than full-time as administrative findings on issues reserved to the Commissioner, rather than medical opinions entitled to special significance.

WINSTEAD v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-01(a)(1), (d)

Moreovet, medical soutce statements that a claimant is “disabled,” “unable to work,” ot, as in this case, can work less than full-time, do not constitute “medical opinions” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), but ate statements “on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they ate administrative findings dispositive of a case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Accordingly, the Commissioner “will not give any special significance” to such statements. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a medical source’s statement on that issue does not determine disability.

Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-02(d)(1)

Dr. Gronbeck’s opinions that Plaintiff is “totally disabled” and “never going to be able to hold down gainful employment” cannot be given controlling weight under the Regulations because they are opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or “unable to work” does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves the final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity and ability to work to the ALJ after the relevant evidence is considered.

Carroll v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-10(d)(2)

As long as the ALJ considers this evidence, the final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s RFC and his ability to work rests with the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) provides that an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled, an issue reserved to the Commissioner, is not entitled to special weight.

Keaton v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(e)(1)

Dr. Kumar’s limited opinion was properly afforded little weight as the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) provides that a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not itself determine whether the claimant is disabled.

Markley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-17(d)(1)

This opinion is not reasonably construed as intruding on the Commissioner’s ultimate determination of a claimant’s inability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats statements by a medical source that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as not medical opinions and prohibits giving them special significance because disability is reserved to the Commissioner.

(SS) McKaughan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(e)

Statements “by a medical source that [a claimant] is ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’” “are not medical opinions” under the Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). Rather, an ALJ “is precluded from giving any special significance to the source” when it is on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, such as the ultimate issue of disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner, so a treating physician's disability conclusion does not control the ALJ.

Kelley v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-22(d)(1)

However, the ALJ diverged from Dr. Lobatz’s conclusion as to the ultimate issue of whether Plaintiff was disabled, id, which was appropriate given the law reserves such a determination for the ALJ, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions, while requiring treating-source opinions to be evaluated for controlling weight and then weighed under the listed factors.

Beckum v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(d)(1), (c)

Under the relevant regulations applicable in this case, medical source opinions on some issues “are not medical opinions . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct a determination or decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). Those regulations further provide that “[a] statement by a medical source that [the claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Commissioner] will determine that [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). ... After reviewing the relevant portions of Dr. Gant’s opinions, the court concludes that the ALJ did not err in reaching that conclusion. ... An ALJ must adhere to certain requirements when considering treating source medical opinions. ... Among those requirements is that the ALJ first must follow a process to determine if a treating source medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight. ... If the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight under that process, the opinion is still entitled to deference and must be weighed using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and § 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner, so an opinion that a claimant is disabled or able to work receives no special significance.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(d)(1)

The first reason (the Commissioner determines disability) is a correct statement of the law, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), and applied here without error. ... Whether Green qualifies for benefits concerns a dispositive issue and is entitled to no special significance. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not as a medical opinion entitled to special significance.

Atchley v. Saul · filed 2020-09-30(d)

The ALJ afforded this opinion “little weight” as the opinion whether an individual can work is a determination left to the commissioner and “the physician did not list any specific functional abilities or limitations” (Tr. 16). ... Indeed, the opinion on a claimant’s ultimate disability is reserved to the Commissioner. Fentress v. Berryhill, 854 F.3d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Bradley v. Astrue, 528 F.3d 1113, 1116 (8th Cir. 2008)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (opinion on ultimate disability is not medical opinion, and is not entitled to any “special significance”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats whether an impairment meets or equals a listing, the claimant’s residual functional capacity, the application of vocational factors, and disability status as administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical issues.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-01(e)

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e) and 416.927(e), some issues are not “medical issues,” but are “administrative findings.” ... These issues include whether the plaintiff’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment; the plaintiff’s RFC; how the vocational factors apply; and whether the plaintiff is “disabled” under the Act. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) provides that an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled is not a medical opinion and is not entitled to special significance because disability determinations are reserved to the Commissioner.

London v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-15(d)

A treating physician’s conclusion that a claimant cannot work is entitled to no deference “because a finding of disability is one reserved for the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not a medical opinion, and is not entitled to any “special significance”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) makes the agency, rather than a medical source, responsible for deciding whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability, so a medical source’s statement that the claimant is disabled or unable to work is not determinative.

Ontiveros v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-19(d)(1)

The ALJ also properly cited Dr. Nune’s opinion that plaintiff is disabled as concerning an issue reserved for the Commissioner. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“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. A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”); ... Here, Dr. Nune provided no explanation for his opinion that plaintiff is disabled, cited no objective medical evidence, and provided no basis from which to judge whether Dr. Nune’s opinion that plaintiff is disabled falls within the definition of disability in the Social Security context. Without more, it was within reason for the ALJ to reject Dr. Nune’s conclusory opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability as an administrative finding rather than a medical opinion entitled to special significance.

Smardz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-21(d)

The ALJ also explained that Ms. Bixby and Ms. Manser’s statements that Plaintiff was “permanently” unable to lift more than 20 pounds and had postural and mental limitations (Tr. 1072, 1074) are not medical opinions but, rather, are administrative findings on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. Tr. 25. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not a medical opinion, and is not entitled to any “special significance”); ... However, the ALJ also noted the opinions were given partial weight because they were generally supported by other evidence showing limiting, but not disabling, physical and mental impairments. Tr. 25.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) provides that an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled concerns an issue reserved to the Commissioner and is not entitled to special significance based on its source.

TUCKER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2020-10-23(d)

However, “[t]he ultimate legal determination of disability is reserved for the Commissioner.” ... Finally, and for the reasons previously discussed, Dr. Picone’s statement that Plaintiff “should be considered appropriate for Social Security Disability due to her worsening of her condition,” R. 27, is not entitled to any special weight and, in any event, Plaintiff has not shown how this assertion requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work as administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner, so the treating-source rule in subsection (c) does not apply to those opinions.

Alzaidi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-27(c), (d)

To be sure, as stated by Defendant, opinions on some issues, such as whether a plaintiff is disabled or unable to work “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Therefore, the ALJ was not obligated to assess the statements under the treating physician rule outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner, so an unsupported conclusory treating-source statement that a claimant is disabled may receive little weight.

v. Rocky Mountain Hospital and Medical Service, Inc. · filed 2020-11-03(d)(1)

As the ALJ noted, the ultimate decision of whether an applicant is disabled under the SSA’s rules is reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). Thus, when treating physicians complete a Med-9 form by checking a box indicating that the patient is disabled but give no “meaningful analysis” to accompany it, the ALJ “appropriately g[i]ve[s] little weight to” such conclusory opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so a treating physician's conclusory checkbox statement of disability may receive little weight.

Romero v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-03(d)(1)

As the ALJ noted, the ultimate decision of whether an applicant is disabled under the SSA’s rules is reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). Thus, when treating physicians complete a Med-9 form by checking a box indicating that the patient is disabled but give no “meaningful analysis” to accompany it, the ALJ “appropriately g[i]ve[s] little weight to” such conclusory opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that opinions about whether a claimant is disabled concern an issue reserved to the Commissioner and receive no special significance based on their source.

Cur v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-04(d)(1), (d)(3)

The ALJ appropriately concluded that the evidence was inconsistent with work-precluding limitations for all work. (Tr. 24-25). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1) (“We are responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3) (“We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves to the Commissioner the determination of whether an applicant meets or equals a listed impairment.

Davis v. Saul · filed 2020-11-10(d)(2)

Determining whether an applicant met or equaled a Listing is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) provides that an ALJ will not give special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as the RFC.

Tedesco v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-11-18(d)(3)

Thus, an ALJ “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner,” such as RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats a physician’s statement that a claimant is disabled or able to work as an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, while permitting consideration of opinions about specific functional limitations.

Foust v. Saul · filed 2020-11-23(d)

While a summary statement from a physician that a claimant is or is not “disabled” or “able to work” is not considered a medical opinion and is an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d), the medical provider’s opinion on specific functional limitations (or here the absence of such limitations) may be considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed factors and clearly state the legal rules and weight assigned.

Bridge v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). The ALJ must clearly state the legal rules that he applies and the weight that he accords the evidence considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity as an issue reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical professional.

Reiber v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-11(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) classifies statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Hill v. Colvin · filed 2020-12-18(d)

The only evidence in the record to support Plaintiff's alleged inability to work is a note by P.T. Storm that Plaintiff was capable of performing work at a medium level of exertion but should not return to work at that level for five-years following Plaintiff's bone marrow transplant in 2008 (R. 500-02), such evidence the ALJ properly afforded less weight, as such issues are reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (statements that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” are opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to apply the listed regulatory factors when evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Kraft v. Saul · filed 2020-12-21(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats the determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity as an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Stamm v. Commissioner of SSA · filed 2020-12-21(d)

As a preliminary matter, the determination of a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d) reserves the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so a treating physician's statement that the claimant is disabled is not itself determinative.

Buccitelli v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-04(d)

Indeed, the ultimate finding of whether a plaintiff is disabled and cannot work is “reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). “That means that the Social Security Administration considers the data that physicians provide but draws its own conclusions as to whether those data indicate disability. A treating physician's statement that the claimant is disabled cannot itself be determinative.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so a medical-source statement that the claimant is disabled or unable to work is not determinative and must be evaluated with the other evidence.

Griffin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-01-06(d)(1)

The Commissioner, not a claimant’s physician, is responsible for determining whether the claimant is statutorily disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). Specifically, “[a] statement by a medical source that [a claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Commissioner] will determine that [the claimant is] disabled.” Id. Although a claimant may provide a statement containing a physician’s opinion of her remaining capabilities, the ALJ will evaluate such a statement in light of the other evidence presented and the ultimate determination of disability is reserved for the ALJ. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1513, 404.1527, 404.1545.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) provides that an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner receives no special significance.

Wilson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-01-06(d)

As an initial matter, whether Wilson can maintain employment is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and an ALJ gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) gives no special significance to a medical-source opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, such as whether a claimant is disabled, although the adjudicator must explain how the opinion was considered.

Ranallo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-06(d)(3)

The ALJ gives no special significance to the source of an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). Thus, the ALJ’s decision to give no weight to Dr. Saul’s opinion that Plaintiff was disabled is not erroneous, so long as he explains the consideration of that treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, while requiring consideration of medical-source opinions on that issue.

Herman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(d)(2)

The ALJ is ultimately tasked with reaching an RFC assessment based on the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) provides that a medical source’s opinion on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not entitled to special significance because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Pitts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(d)(3)

Whether a person is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, i.e., unable to engage in substantial gainful activity, is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and a medical source’s opinion that her patient is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not “giv[en] any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats whether a claimant is unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a medical source’s statement that the claimant is unable to work does not determine disability.

Huerta v. Saul · filed 2021-02-01(d)(1)

However, the ALJ correctly notes that whether Huerta is unable to work is an issue reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats opinions on whether a claimant can work as issues reserved to the Commissioner, not medical opinions subject to the regulation’s medical-opinion weighing factors.

Mettle v. Saul · filed 2021-02-12(d)

Because regulations specifically state that opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner “are not medical opinions,” the ALJ was not required to evaluate Dr. Burger’s statement using the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), “How we weigh medical opinions.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(d) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work as a determination reserved for the ALJ, so an ALJ need not defer to a treating physician's conclusion on that issue.

Jones v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-17(d)(1)

An ALJ does not have to defer to a treating physician’s conclusion that a patient is “disabled” or “unable to work” because these are judgments reserved for the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... Finally, the ALJ was under no obligation to defer to Dr. Miller’s conclusion in August 2018 that Jones could not be gainfully employed because that is a determination reserved for the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled as issues reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions entitled to controlling weight.

FAMULARO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-17(e)

With respect to Dr. Lomazow’s opinion that Famularo is totally disabled, the ALJ properly gave it little weight because the ultimate disability determination is an administrative rather than medical finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (noting that some opinions are not medical opinions, and that the Commissioner is “responsible for making the determination or decision about whether [a claimant] meets the statutory definition of disability.”); Chandler v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the determination of whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability to the Commissioner, and subsection (d)(3) says the source of an opinion on that reserved issue receives no special significance.

Cianci v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-17(d)(1), (d)(3)

First, the ALJ correctly noted that whether a person is “disabled” under the Act is an issue reserved for the Commissioner. Tr. at 21; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“We are responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability.”). While an ALJ will consider medical source opinions that a claimant is “disabled,” such determinations are not binding on the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner described in paragraphs d(1) and d(2) of this section.”); see also Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (“A treating physician’s statement that the claimant is disabled cannot itself be determinative.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than as a medical opinion.

Harp v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-18(d)

Such statements are not considered medical source opinions but are instead “opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) gives no special significance to the source of an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Wierzbicki v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(d)

“We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner....”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves the determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so a physician’s statement that the claimant is disabled is not a medical opinion.

Collazo-Algarin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-23(d)

Dr. Ortiz’s statement that Plaintiff is “totally disabled” does not constitute a medical opinion as the issue of disability is a finding reserved solely to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats a medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion entitled to controlling weight.

(SS) Kendall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-25(e)

A physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not entitled to controlling weight because statements “by a medical source that [a claimant] is ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ ” “are not medical opinions” under the Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). An ALJ “is precluded from giving any special significance to the source; e.g., giving a treating source’s opinion controlling weight” when it is on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, such as the ultimate issue of disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner rather than a medical professional.

Myers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-03(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner, and § 404.1527(d)(3) says an ALJ gives no special significance to the source of an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Borawski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-03(d)(2)-(3)

A claimant’s RFC is not a medical opinion, but an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) provides that an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled or can work is not a medical opinion entitled to special significance because the ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Schul v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04(d)

It is well-settled that a treating physician’s conclusion that a claimant cannot work is entitled to no deference “because a finding of disability is one reserved for the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not a medical opinion, and is not entitled to any “special significance”); Trepanier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 752 F. App'x 75, 77 (2d Cir. 2018) (citing Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled as administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions subject to the treating-physician rule.

Poole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-18(d)(1)

Therefore, the ALJ was not obligated to assess the doctors’ statements under the treating physician rule and the ALJ properly concluded he was not bound by a finding of disability from another agency. (T. 18, 20); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (the ultimate finding of whether a plaintiff is disabled and cannot work is “reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

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

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats an opinion about whether a claimant can work as addressing an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than as a medical opinion establishing functional limitations.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27(d)

These opinions are vocational in nature ... as they address whether Plaintiff can work, which is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves the determination of disability to the Commissioner.

Santiago-Borrero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(d)

Although Dr. Quiñones checked a box on his report indicating Plaintiff was “disabled,” the issue of disability is a finding reserved solely to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) excludes from consideration opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, including conclusory statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work.

Johnson v. Social Security · filed 2020-11-25(d)

The court agrees with the ALJ and the Commissioner that the opinions of Drs. Nemarugommula and Sitner were conclusory opinions that Johnson was disabled and did not include any functional limitations. The ALJ did not err in giving little weight to opinions that plaintiff was disabled or unable to work. Indeed, the regulations specifically exclude from consideration opinions on certain issues, such as conclusory statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves determinations about whether a claimant can work to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not give significant weight to a medical source’s opinion on that ultimate issue.

ANDERSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-09(d)

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to these opinions. See Louis v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 808 F. App’x 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Whether or not Louis can perform occupational duties is a legal determination reserved for the Commissioner.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner, so they are not medical opinions entitled to special significance.

Estep v. SSA · filed 2021-03-22(d)

The ALJ properly explained why she gave no weight to Dr. Royalty and Ms. DeLair’s opinions because opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as whether a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work,” are not considered medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Instead, such opinions are afforded no “special significance,” as they are “issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case . . . .” Id. A medical source may give an opinion on the severity of a claimant’s impairments, but they may not attempt to “direct the determination or decision of disability” by stating a claimant is “‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work.’” See id. Such a determination rests with the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (e)(2) reserves the ultimate determination of whether a claimant meets or equals a Listing to the Commissioner, even when a medical expert opines on the issue.

Brinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(e)(2)

Further, even if Dr. Sabow’s testimony supported a determination that Plaintiff’s impairments, in combination, equaled a Listing, the step three determination is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes the Commissioner, rather than a medical source, ultimately responsible for deciding issues such as a claimant’s residual functional capacity, while requiring consideration of medical-source opinions.

Southwick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-28(d)(2)

Moreover, the regulations provide that it is the ALJ, and not a claimant’s medical providers, who are tasked with making an RFC determination based on the review of the entire record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as whether your impairment(s) meets or equals the requirements of any impairment(s) in the Listing of Impairments . . . , your [RFC] . . . , or the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or able to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner, rather than medical opinions.

Gillman v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(e)

Furthermore, although Plaintiff contends that Dr. Lee’s opinion establishes that Plaintiff is unable to work, the Government correctly asserts that Dr. Lee’s opinion related to Plaintiff’s ability to work is an “issue reserved to the Commissioner” [Dkt. 27 at 10]. ... (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)). Thus, Dr. Lee’s opinion that Plaintiff is “unable to work” [TR 310] is not determinative and properly disregarded by the ALJ; whether or not Plaintiff is able to work is reserved wholly to the province of the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) and (d)(3) treats whether a claimant can work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so an opinion on that issue is not a medical opinion and receives no special significance.

Faughn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-31(d)(1), (d)(3)

An opinion as to whether a claimant is able to work is not a medical opinion, even if offered by a treating source, but rather a dispositive finding for the ALJ to make. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1); Kelly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 401 F. App’x 403, 407 (11th Cir. 2010). It is entitled to no special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) and (3); Kelly, 401 F. App’x at 407.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work as administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions.

Wright v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-31(d)

Additionally, opinions on some issues are not medical opinions but are instead “opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). These non-medical opinions include opinions about a claimant’s status as disabled or being unable to work. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats whether a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a medical source’s opinion on that ultimate issue is not entitled to controlling weight.

Glessing v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-13(e)(1)

Although the ALJ incorrectly stated that the letters were from an “unnamed physician,” the ALJ correctly noted that the disability determination is reserved for the Commissioner and thus gave the opinions “little weight.” See, e.g., Taylor v. Barnhart, 83 F. App’x 347, 349 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1)) (holding that a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant was “temporarily totally disabled” was not entitled to controlling weight “since the ultimate issue of disability is reserved for the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, rather than a medical professional.

Winfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-23(d)(2)

see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1)-(3) reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner and provides that medical-source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner receive no special significance.

Palhan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-23(d)(1)-(3)

Dr. Wolin summarily found plaintiff had a decreased ability to work and was disabled, and ALJ Brown correctly concluded this was not a medical opinion but an administrative finding on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. (Tr. 152, 1054). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(3) (treating source opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner are never entitled to any special significance).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical opinion for the adjudicator to adopt.

Heinig v. Saul · filed 2021-04-27(d)(1)

The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Mersch’s opinion that Heinig was disabled because the ultimate determination of medical disability is reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) provides that the source of an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner receives no special significance.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-03(d)(3)

Significantly, as the ALJ found, the “ultimate finding of whether a claimant is ‘disabled’ is ‘reserved to the [C]ommissioner. . . .” Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner . . . .”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) allows consideration of medical-source opinions on residual functional capacity but reserves final responsibility for deciding that issue to the Commissioner.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-06(d)(2)

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, function-by-function opinion evidence is not required for an ALJ to make an RFC determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats whether a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a provider's opinion on that issue is not given significant weight.

Burgan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-14(d)(1)

Moreover, the determinations that Plaintiff was disabled were reserved to the commissioner and thus, such determinations are not given any significant weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats whether a claimant can work or is eligible for benefits as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so the ALJ need not accept the opinion but should consider it as context for the physician's other opinions.

James v. Saul · filed 2021-05-17(d)

The ALJ is correct that whether the claimant is able to work is a question reserved for the Commissioner, and the ALJ therefore was not bound to accept Dr. Duffy’s opinions about whether Plaintiff could sustain employment or was eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). That does not mean, however, that these statements should be simply ignored, because they provide important context for Dr. Duffy’s other opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) places responsibility for determining a claimant's residual functional capacity on the ALJ and does not require a separate expert medical opinion.

Mays v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-10-27(e)

Primarily, the ALJ is responsible for making a residual functional capacity determination based on the medical evidence, and he is not required to seek a separate expert medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) provides that an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled, an issue reserved to the Commissioner, is not entitled to controlling weight.

Taylor v. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-21(e)(1)

Moreover, Dr. Desai’s opinion that Taylor was “temporarily totally disabled” is not entitled to any weight, since the ultimate issue of disability is reserved for the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats an opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a treating physician's opinion on that issue is not entitled to controlling weight.

Page v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-09-02(e)(1)

However, as the ALJ noted, it is the Social Security Commissioner, not the treating physician, who determines whether a claimant can engage in any work activity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). Dr. Wade’s opinion is therefore not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An opinion from a treating physician is not entitled to particular weight when it is a conclusory statement on an issue reserved for the Commissioner.

Essary v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-10-28(e)

Here, the ALJ correctly noted that Dr. Twilla’s medical opinion was not entitled to particular weight to the extent Dr. Twilla’s opinion took the form of a conclusory statement about an issue for resolution by the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) provides that a physician’s opinion that a claimant is disabled addresses an issue reserved to the Commissioner and is not entitled to controlling weight.

Walker v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-09(e)(1)

Dr. DeFrance’s ultimate conclusion that Walker is disabled is an opinion on an issue reserved for the Commissioner and, as such, is not entitled to “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1)-(3) provides that a medical source’s opinion on whether a claimant is disabled, an issue reserved to the Commissioner, is not entitled to special significance.

Cain v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-09(e)(1)-(3)

Dr. Maran’s opinion that Cain is disabled, a decision reserved to the ALJ, is not entitled to any special significance under the regulations. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1)-(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work addresses a legal issue reserved to the Commissioner and is never entitled to controlling weight under § 404.1527.

George v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-31

... Moreover, an opinion that a claimant is “unable to work” or is “disabled” is an opinion on a legal issue that is reserved for the Commissioner and, as such, is never entitled to “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats residual functional capacity as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not as a medical opinion.

(SS) Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(d)(2)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner rather than a medical professional.

D'Amico v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-21(d)(2)

see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats state-agency consultants as experts whose opinions the ALJ must consider and weigh, but excludes dispositive disability determinations from medical opinions and gives those determinations no special significance.

Stowe v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-12(d), (d)(3), (f)(2)

State agency medical or psychological consultants are considered “experts in Social Security disability evaluation,” and the ALJ must consider and assign weight to their opinions in the same manner as any other medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2). ... Opinions on issues that constitute administrative findings that are dispositive of a case and would direct the determination of disability are not medical opinions, and instead are issues reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). ... Those comments (about how Mr. Stowe’s 12 percent impairment rating would limit him to sedentary work) would direct the determination of disability and therefore do not constitute a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Accordingly, the comments are not entitled to any special significance. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, while permitting the ALJ to weigh the medical evidence and resolve conflicts among it.

Tuzzolino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-26(d)(2)

Contrary to Carol’s apparent assertion, considering all of the evidence and determining which sources of medical evidence should be afforded the most weight, as well as assessing the credibility of witness testimony and other evidence, is the ALJ’s duty and does not constitute improper reliance on lay opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“Although [the Commissioner] consider[s] opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . [the claimant’s] residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”); Flynn v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 729 F. App’x 119, 121 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve.” (alteration and citation omitted)); Mauro King v. Berryhill, 251 F. Supp. 3d 438, 446 (N.D.N.Y. 2017) (“[T]he Commissioner, not this Court, is the factfinder who resolves [g]enuine conflicts in the medical evidence.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Nutt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-28(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An RFC is an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner, and an ALJ gives no special significance to a medical source's opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Christian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-04(d)(2), (d)(3)

The RFC determination sets out an individual’s work-related abilities despite his or her limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(1). A claimant’s RFC is not a medical opinion, but an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves the ultimate disability and residual-functional-capacity determinations to the Commissioner, so a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not control those determinations.

Loftus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(d)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). ... Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional. ... Furthermore, the ALJ properly afforded little weight to Mr. Pfalzer’s statement that Plaintiff could not work because it is an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (“[a] statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves determinations about issues such as a claimant’s RFC to the Commissioner rather than treating them as medical opinions from a state agency.

DOENGES v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2021-08-17(d)(2)

Regardless, classification of an exertional level in an RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner and not to a state agency. Melican v. Saul, No. 18-cv-682-SM, 2019 WL 4254253, at *2 (D. N.H. Sept. 9, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527); see also Gilson v. Colvin, No. 1:12-cv-376-GZS, 2013 WL 5674359, at *2 (D. Me., Oct. 17, 2013) (the question of a claimant’s RFC is “among the issues reserved to the commissioner.”) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) provides that a medical source’s opinion on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work, an issue reserved to the Commissioner, is not given special significance.

Riechman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(d)(3)

Whether a person is disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, i.e., unable to engage in substantial gainful activity, is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and a medical source’s opinion that his patient is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not “giv[en] any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). ... Therefore, Mr. Smith’s opinion that plaintiff would be unable to sustain employment is not entitled to any weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)–(3) treats residual functional capacity and related limitations as issues reserved to the Commissioner, so medical opinions on them are not entitled to special significance.

CHRISTOPHER v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-09-01(d)(2), (d)(3)

The determination of RFC is not a medical opinion, but an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner and is not afforded any special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The opinions of Dr. Glanville and Dr. Meyer that Plaintiff was moderately limited in his interactions with supervisors is an opinion on a matter reserved to the Commissioner. The ALJ properly considered their opinions, but the ALJ was not required to afford their opinions any special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so a medical source’s statement that the claimant is disabled or unable to work does not determine disability.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-02(d)(1)

In addition, Dr. Schueler’s opinion that Plaintiff was disabled was on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than a medical opinion entitled to special significance.

Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-10(d)

Opinions that a plaintiff was disabled under worker’s compensation rules are entitled to no deference because a finding of disability is one reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not a medical opinion and is not entitled to any “special significance”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) does not require special deference to a treating physician’s opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner, including whether a claimant can perform past relevant work.

Innes v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-28(d)

Under the rules applicable to Plaintiff’s application for benefits, no special deference is due to the opinion of a treating physician on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, such as whether an individual can perform his or her past relevant work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats residual functional capacity as an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner and directs that an opinion's source receives no special significance on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Young-Roach v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-05(d)(2)-(3)

A claimant’s RFC is not a medical opinion, but an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, rather than opinions that control the disability determination.

LOGLISCI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-08(d)

Notably, Plaintiff does not explain how the ALJ erred when discounting these physicians’ opinions that Plaintiff “was incapacitated from working” during certain periods of time, which the ALJ properly found was an issue reserved to the Commissioner. ... Louis v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 808 F. App’x 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Whether or not Louis can perform occupational duties is a legal determination reserved for the Commissioner.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)); Zonak v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 290 F. App’x 493, 497 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[T]he ALJ was not obligated to give significant weight to Dr. Kumar’s opinion as to Zonak’s ability to work because the opinion related to the ultimate issue of disability—an issue reserved exclusively to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (d)(1) treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions.

Marek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-13(d)(1)

Plaintiff has not shown that the ALJ erred in characterizing these treatment notes as infringing upon an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and therefore not a medical opinion to the extent that the notes describe disability or inability to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves the ultimate decision about whether a claimant is disabled for the Commissioner, rather than the medical source.

Bosick v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-15(d)

The ALJ correctly explained that decisions regarding a claimant’s disability are reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d);° see Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 85 (3d Cir. 2000) (“The ultimate decision concerning the disability of a claimant is reserved for the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves the final responsibility for deciding whether an impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, a claimant’s residual functional capacity, or vocational factors to the Commissioner, despite consideration of medical-source opinions.

Brizuela v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-25(d)(2)

It is ultimately the province of the Commissioner to decide whether a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as whether your impairment(s) meets or equals the requirements of any impairment(s) in the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 to this subpart, your residual functional capacity [], or the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner, and § 404.1527(e)(3) provides that opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner receive no special significance.

Roberts v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-29(d), (e)(3)

The regulations are clear that the Commissioner is “responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you met the statutory definition of disability .... A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d); see also §§ 404.1527(e)(3), 416.927(e) (3) (“[w]e will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats opinions that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner, not medical opinions entitled to special significance.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-13(d)(1)

Opinions on whether a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case, and therefore are opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(1). Such opinions are not medical opinions, and the ALJ “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats the ultimate question of disability as reserved to the Commissioner, so an opinion on that question is not entitled to weight or special significance.

WEAVER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-12-15(d)(1)

To be clear, the ultimate decision of disability as it relates to social security claims is reserved solely for the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, 416.927. Thus, the ALJ was not required to give these opinions any weight or special significance.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves ultimate decisions about whether a claimant is disabled to the ALJ rather than treating them as medical opinions that establish disability.

MOORE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-12-23(d)

Such ultimate decisions of disability as it relates to social security claims are reserved solely for the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats whether an individual is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a doctor’s disability opinion is not a medical opinion the ALJ must consider.

Allen-Buckles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-28(d)(1)

Whether an individual is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner; therefore, Dr. Anderson’s “disability” opinion was not the type of medical opinion that the ALJ was required to consider. See generally, Turner v. Com'r of Soc. Sec., 381 Fed. Appx. 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) and (3) treats a medical source's opinion that a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not as a medical opinion entitled to special significance.

CHERRY-MATALA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-12-29(e)(1) & (3)

But the ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Tracy’s opinion on Plaintiff’s disability status because “opinions on disability are not medical opinions and are not given any special significance.” Dixon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 183 F. App'x 248, 251 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1) & (3)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats an opinion that a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so the ALJ need not give a greater explanation for rejecting it.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-03(d)

The opinion of disability is reserved to the Commissioner, and the ALJ was not required to offer any greater explanation of why he was not accepting the opinion that Plaintiff was disabled. (Tr. 23-24); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats a doctor's assessment of a claimant's functional limitations as an opinion about functioning, not a legal conclusion reserved to the Commissioner.

Holub v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-07(d)(1)

Next, the ALJ concluded that the examining doctors’ assessed limitation—that plaintiff would be limited in completing a normal workday and workweek—is a legal conclusion reserved to the Commissioner. AR 2060 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527([d])(1), 416.927([d])(1)). Here, the ALJ reasoned that such a limitation is not a “precise vocational restriction[],” but rather “a finding that [plaintiff] cannot work on a consistent basis.” AR 2060. But the ALJ’s characterization of this limitation ignores that the examining doctors qualified their opinions: each stated that plaintiff would be severely or markedly limited in completing a normal workday/work week “without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms.” AR 2705, 2732, 3039, 4399. With this qualification, Drs. Uhl, Gordin, and Walker’s opinions are not simply a conclusion that plaintiff cannot work but an opinion about plaintiff’s ability to work without interruption. These are conclusions regarding plaintiff’s functioning—not legal conclusions reserved for the Commissioner. Indeed, if the ALJ’s reasoning is accepted, a severe or marked rating in any functional area would be rejected as a conclusion reserved to the Commissioner. Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding that such a limitation is a legal conclusion reserved to the Commissioner is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the determination of whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability to the Commissioner.

Dunkel v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-10(d)(1)

Moreover, the ultimate issue of disability is reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“We are responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability.”). It was therefore reasonable for the ALJ to note that these inconsistences weakened the credibility of Dr. Morris’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats the residual functional capacity determination as an administrative decision reserved to the ALJ, so the ALJ need not adopt every part of a medical opinion.

Borgan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-12(e)

Indeed, “[a]n RFC determination is a legal decision rather than a medical one, and the development of a claimant's RFC is solely within the province of an ALJ.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 405.1546. Therefore, the ALJ was not required to incorporate any portion of these opinion into his RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats residual functional capacity as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a medical source’s residual-functional-capacity opinion is not binding on the administrative law judge.

Debord v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-21(e)

“Indeed, ‘an RFC determination is a legal decision rather than a medical one, and the development of a claimant’s RFC is solely within the province of an ALJ.’” Borgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 2:20-cv-6166, 2022 WL 109346, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 12, 2022) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 405.1546). Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the ALJ found Dr. Paulus’ opinion to be “persuasive as a whole,” the ALJ was not required to incorporate any specific portions of Dr. Paulus’ opinion into his RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, although the ALJ considers the relevant medical and other evidence.

Fead v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-24(d)

The regulations explicitly state that the issue of RFC is “reserved to the Commissioner” because it is an “administrative finding that [is] dispositive of the case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than a medical opinion entitled to controlling weight.

King v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-31(d)

An opinion as to whether an individual is “disabled” or “unable to work” is “an issue reserved for the Commissioner and therefore is not the type of ‘medical opinion’ to which the Commissioner gives controlling weight.” Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004) and citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1)); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1). Thus, if a treating provider solely states a claimant is disabled or cannot be gainfully employed, the treating provider’s opinion is not considered a medical opinion that should be credited or weighed. See Stormo, 377 F.3d at 806; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (recognizing that opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are not “medical opinions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats opinions that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions.

Hamilton v. Commissioner of Social Secirity · filed 2022-02-02(d)

The Court notes that opinions that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” are not medical opinions, but rather opinions “on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats an RFC as an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner, and § 404.1527(d)(3) directs that an ALJ give no special significance to the source of an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Klapp v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-02(d)(2), (d)(3)

A claimant’s RFC is not a medical opinion, but an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, rather than a medical professional.

Wohlfehrt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-04(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(d), an opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work concerns an issue reserved to the Commissioner and is not entitled to special significance based on its source.

Wilson v. Saul · filed 2022-03-07(d)

Dr. Roberts assessed that Plaintiff would not able to perform any job. This statement in his July 2018 letter is an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d). The ALJ correctly identified it as such, and it is not entitled to any special significance. Accordingly, I am not persuaded that this statement was improperly discounted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) provides that a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not determine disability because such opinions are reserved to the Commissioner.

Pettus v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-18(d)(1)

Furthermore, a “statement by a medical source that [the claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the SSA] will determine” that the claimant is “disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). That is because opinions about whether a claimant is disabled, the claimant’s “residual functional capacity” (RFC), and the application of vocational factors “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for deciding residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, so a physician's opinion on that issue is considered but is not dispositive.

Thornton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-23(d)(2)

However, relevant authority clearly establishes that the responsibility for conducting an RFC analysis rests with the ALJ, not with any medical provider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (stating that RFC and disability determinations constitute “issues reserved to the Commissioner”); Beegle v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Com’r, 482 F. App’x 483, 486 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)) (“A claimant’s residual functional capacity is a matter reserved for the ALJ’s determination, and while a physician’s opinion on the matter will be considered, it is not dispositive.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) and (d)(3) says that an ALJ need not adopt a medical provider's opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work and must not give special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

KEMP v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-24(d)(1), (d)(3)

Under the controlling regulations discussed supra in Section V.A., an ALJ is not required to adopt a medical provider’s opinion about whether a claimant is disabled and cannot work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). An ALJ “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner,” including whether a claimant is able to work. Id. § 404.1527(d)(3). Thus, the ALJ did not err in failing to give special significance to Kemp’s treating rheumatologist’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements from acceptable medical sources about the nature and severity of impairments as medical opinions, but excludes statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work because those issues are reserved to the Commissioner.

(SS) Hensley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-25(a)(1), (d)(1)

However, this treatment note is not the sort of medical opinion an ALJ must even consider in the first place, since it gives an ultimate conclusion of disability rather than objectively describing the severity of the impairment. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1) (“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”) & (d)(1) (explaining that a “statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’” are opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner and do not constitute medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves findings that a claimant is disabled or unable to work to the Commissioner.

Smalls v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-28(d)(1)

As the ALJ noted, findings that a claimant is disabled or unable to work are reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1); see McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881, 884–85 (9th Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats an opinion on whether a claimant meets a listing as an issue reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion and gives the opinion’s source no special significance.

Barden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-28(d)(2), (d)(3)

An opinion on an issue that is dispositive of a case—such as whether a claimant meets the severity of any impairment in the regulatory listings, id. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1—is not a medical opinion because it is an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. Id. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). The SSA “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” Id. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3). ... In addition, the opinions that she meets certain listings are not medical opinions because they are on an issue reserved to the Acting Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1)-(2) provides that a physician's opinion that a claimant is disabled is not controlling because the ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Hunter v. Barnhart · filed 2006-11-17(e)(1)-(2)

Second, even if Dr. Kabins qualified as a treating physician, his opinion that M s. Hunter was totally disabled is not controlling. A physician may opine that a claimant is totally disabled, but that “opinion is not dispositive because final responsibility for determining the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the [Commissioner].” Castellano v. Sec’y of Health & H um an Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir. 1994); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1)-(2), 416.927(e)(1)-(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation reserves the determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so a physician's opinion that the claimant is disabled or unable to work is not determinative.

Seabolt v. Barnhart · filed 2007-03-26(e)(1)

The Commissioner alone is responsible for making the determination of whether a claimant is disabled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner and makes unsupported physician opinions on that issue non-probative.

Martinez v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-24(e)

The determination of disability is reserved exclusively to the Commissioner, and ultimate opinions on this point are not pertinent where they are not supported by relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) provides that a physician's opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not a medical opinion because the issue is reserved exclusively to the Commissioner.

Lanier v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2007-10-26(e)

The ALJ correctly noted that the opinion that Lanier was unable to work was reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (explaining that a physician’s opinion that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not a medical opinion and that this opinion is reserved exclusively to the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An opinion that a claimant is unable to work is not entitled to any particular weight because it addresses an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Luteyn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-11-01(e)(1)

Dr. Cox’s statement that plaintiff was unable to work was not entitled to any particular weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner, so a physician's statement that a claimant is disabled is not by itself controlling.

Gildon, Jacqueline v. Astrue, Michael · filed 2008-01-22(e)(1)

Whether Gildon was disabled during that time is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1), and she “is not entitled to disability benefits simply because her physician states that she is ‘disabled,’” see Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1177 (7th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats a medical source's conclusion that a claimant is unable to work as an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than a medical opinion that determines disability.

Van Vickle v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-21(e)(1)

The ALJ correctly noted, however, that the ultimate conclusion of whether Van Vickle could sustain gainful employment is a question for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1); see also Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir.2004) ("[T]reating physicians' opinions are not medical opinions that should be credited when they simply state that a claimant can not be gainfully employed, because they are merely opinions on the application of the statute, a task assigned solely to the discretion of the [Commissioner]." (internal quotations omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation reserves the ultimate determination of whether a claimant can sustain gainful employment to the Commissioner rather than treating physicians.

Vickle v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-21(e)(1)

The ALJ correctly noted, however, that the ultimate conclusion of whether Van Vickie could sustain gainful employment is a question for the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) reserves the assessment of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner, so a treating physician's conclusion that the claimant is disabled need not be accepted.

Edwards-Alexander v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-16(e)(1)

The ALJ did not err, however, by rejecting Dr. Amin’s conclusion that Edwards-Alexander was disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1) (reserving the assessment of disability to the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as administrative findings on issues reserved to the Commissioner, rather than medical opinions entitled to deference or special significance.

Tucker v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30(e), (e)(3)

The regulations defining “medical opinions” specifically state that conclusory statements such as those made br Dr. Tanious are “not medical opinions as described in paragraph (a)(2) of [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527], but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case,” and are not entitled to any special significance or treatment under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e), (e)(3). A determination by a treating physician that an applicant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not a medical opinion entitled to deference, but rather a legal conclusion “reserved to the Commissioner.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats statements that a claimant cannot work as opinions on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than medical opinions.

Helmke v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-17(e)(1)

Dr. Pletz’ and Dr. Luisi’s statements that Helmke could not work are not "medical opinions" because such a decision is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves dispositive findings about whether an individual is disabled to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not consider a medical source's opinion on that ultimate issue.

Gomez v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-30(e)

Moreover, the ALJ had no obligation to consider Henoch’s statements. While an ALJ may consider opinions from medical sources on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as the nature and severity of an impairment, findings relating to whether an individual is disabled (i.e., “administrative findings that are dispositive of a case”) are reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a medical-source statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than a medical opinion entitled to controlling weight.

Brown v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-26(e)(1)

"A medical source opinion that an applicant is 'disabled' or 'unable to work' . . . involves an issue reserved for the Commissioner and therefore is not the type of 'medical opinion' to which the Commissioner gives controlling weight."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves decisions about whether a claimant is disabled or meets a listed impairment to the Commissioner, not a medical source.

Mansfield v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-31(e)

Dr. Brown’s opinion that Mansfield was permanently disabled is a legal conclusion reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). ... His opinion that Mansfield’s impairment met listing 11.09(B) went to an issue that is reserved to the Commissioner, and it was also based primarily on medical records that had been considered by the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner, so they are not binding on the ALJ.

Gainous v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-09(e)(1)

The ALJ is not, however, required to give controlling weight to issues reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Issues such as whether a claimant is disabled, unable to work, or has an impairment that meets the Social Security listings fall into that category. Id. ... The ultimate issue, whether Gainous is disabled, is left to the determination of the Commissioner, and thus Dr. Kaylie’s opinion that Gainous could not work a typical work week is not binding on the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats the existence of an impairment and the ultimate determination of disability as issues reserved to the Commissioner, so a treating physician's opinion on those issues is not binding on the ALJ.

McLeod v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-16(e)(1)

Although a treating physician’s opinion is generally afforded the greatest weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats opinions about whether a claimant can work as vocational findings reserved to the Commissioner, not medical opinions.

Hutchinson v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-18(e)

Additionally, whether Hutchinson could hold a job is a vocational opinion, not a medical one. That question is reserved to the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats whether a claimant is disabled or able to work as an issue for the Commissioner, so a treating physician’s opinion on that ultimate issue does not bind the ALJ.

McLeod v. Astrue · filed 2011-02-04(e)(1)

As for the ALJ rejecting Dr. Rossetto’s opinion on whether McLeod could work at any job, he was correct that this determination is for the Social Security Administration to make, not a physician. “Although a treating physician’s opinion is generally afforded the greatest weight in disability cases, it is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats whether a claimant is disabled as an issue reserved to the Commissioner, so a medical opinion on that issue is not binding on the Commissioner.

Jones v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-21(e)(1)

This opinion goes to the issue of disabled status and is reserved to the Commissioner under the federal regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). Thus, it would not be binding on the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner and gives them no special significance, while the medical findings underlying them remain subject to consideration.

Way v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-27(e)

The Commissioner is correct that opinions that determinations regarding whether a claimant is disabled and related legal conclusions are administrative determinations for the Commissioner and not for medical personnel. ... Although the opinion that Plaintiff “was unlikely to be able to be gainfully employed full time” is one reserved for the Commissioner, the remainder of his opinion appropriately should be considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) provides that the agency decides whether a claimant is disabled, and a medical source's opinion that the claimant is disabled or unable to work receives no special significance.

Sternberg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-07-19(e)(1), (e)(3)

Also, in the case of a treating physician‘s opinion regarding a claimant‘s ability to work, as Dr. O‘Hara gave here, Social Security regulations state: 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. A statement by a medical source that you are ―disabled‖ or ―unable to work‖ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). Thus, an ALJ does not give any ―special significance‖ to a source who gives his opinion regarding a claimant‘s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(3). ... Here, the ALJ did not act improperly in affording Dr. O‘Hara‘s opinion ―little or no weight.‖ There was medical evidence in the record—the objective medical evidence cited above—that contradicted Dr. O‘Hara‘s opinion. Furthermore, his opinion that Sternberg was ―unemployable/disabled‖ was not entitled to any special significance, as it is a determination explicitly left to the ALJ. The ALJ‘s treatment of Dr. O‘Hara‘s opinion was consistent with the regulations and our prior decisions, and it was supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner, who need not defer to a treating physician’s opinion.

Putnam v. SSA · filed 2011-08-01(e)

The ultimate determination as to whether claimant was disabled prior to his date last insured is a matter reserved to the Commissioner, who need not defer to the opinions of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner, so a physician's disability rating does not bind the ALJ.

Freeman v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-14(e)

Further, the fact that two doctors, retained for workers’–compensation purposes, found Ms. Freeman to be totally temporarily disabled is not a conclusion binding on the ALJ. See Baca v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 5 F.3d 476, 480 (10th Cir. 1993). The determination of disability is solely the province of the commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner and explain the reasons for accepting or rejecting it, although the opinion receives no controlling weight or special significance.

Mayberry v. Astrue · filed 2012-02-07(e)

Under the controlling regulations, the final responsibility for deciding the ultimate issue of whether a social security claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1) and 416.927(e)(1) (internal quotation marks omitted). Consequently, an ALJ is not bound by a treating physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability, id., and such an opinion is never entitled to controlling weight or special significance, see Soc. Sec. Ruling (SSR) 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *1, *2, *5 (July 2, 1996). ... Given this framework, Dr. LaFromboise’s opinions that plaintiff is “unable to perform the duties required of a job” and is “permanent[ly] disabled” are “not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e) and 417.927(e). While a physician’s opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are not entitled to controlling weight or any special significance, the ALJ was still required to provide an evaluation of the opinions and explain his reasons for either rejecting or accepting them. ... We conclude that the ALJ sufficiently explained his decision to give “little weight” to Dr. LaFromboise’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (e) treats disability and residual-functional-capacity determinations as issues reserved to the Commissioner, so medical-source opinions on those issues receive no special significance.

Tyrpak v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-09(e)

The Court reminds Plaintiff that a claimant’s RFC and whether he is disabled are issues reserved to the ALJ. Statements by medical sources that a claimant is disabled or an opinion as to a claimant’s RFC are given no special significance. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e); 416.927(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) provides that an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled is an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Taylor v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-21(d)(1)

The disputed opinions concerned whether Mr. Taylor was disabled, which is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1) & 416.927(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) does not give special weight to a physician’s conclusory statement that a claimant is disabled because disability is a legal determination reserved to the Commissioner.

Harris v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-21(d)(1)

However, a conclusory statement that a claimant is “disabled” is never entitled to special weight. ... The determination of disability is a legal determination reserved for the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats an opinion that a claimant is unable to work as an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability, which is reserved to the Commissioner.

Borgsmiller v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-17(e)

Dr. Sanford’s opinion that Ms. Borgsmiller is unable to work during her flares of severe pain is not a medical opinion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e), but an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability, which is a matter reserved to the Commissioner.