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).

The regulation gives a treating source's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ weighs it using specified factors and must explain the weight assigned.

Remick v. SSA · filed 2011-10-21(d)(2)

A treatment provider’s opinions must be given controlling weight if the “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the applicant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ determines the amount of weight based on factors that include the nature and extent of the physician’s relationship with the applicant, whether the physician provided evidence in support of the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the physician is a specialist in the field. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1-6). In addition, the ALJ must give reasons for the weight given to treating physician’s opinions. Id.; ... Dr. Strobel’s opinion is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record and therefore the ALJ was justified in according his opinion less weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(4); ...

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record to receive controlling weight and directs the ALJ to weigh an opinion otherwise using specified factors and explain the reasons.

Pettigrew v. SSA · filed 2011-11-01(d)(1)-(6)

A treatment provider’s opinions must be given controlling weight if the “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the applicant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ determines the amount of weight based on factors that include the nature and extent of the physician’s relationship with the applicant, whether the physician provided evidence in support of the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the physician is a specialist in the field. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1-6).

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

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

Priel v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-23(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” when it is “well[]supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial [record] evidence.” ... Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ properly declined to accord controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Young because it was inconsistent in material respects with other substantial evidence. ... In these circumstances, we conclude that Dr. Young’s opinion that Priel was disabled are “inconsistent with the other substantial [record] evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Therefore, the ALJ properly declined to accord it controlling weight.

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

A treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Murphy v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-06(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s injuries receives controlling weight only when it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and is ‘consistent with substantial evidence in the record.’ ... On this particular issue, because Dr. Woodard’s opinion was inconsistent with objective medical evidence and Murphy’s part-time work as a CNA, it was not erroneous for the ALJ to discount Dr. Woodard’s opinion and to rely on that of the state agency physicians.

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

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

Roma v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-19(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” when it is “well[]supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial [record] evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dampeer v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-31(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is (1) well-supported by medical findings and (2) consistent with substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

The regulation generally gives a treating physician's opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Siverio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-02-23(d)(2)

Nevertheless, a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment is generally given controlling weight if it is well supported and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only if consistent with the record, that supporting medical evidence warrants more weight, and a statement that a claimant is disabled is not a medical opinion.

Bostic v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-10(d), (d)(2), (d)(3), (e)

The Commissioner generally gives controlling weight to medical opinions of a treating physician, but only if that opinion is consistent with the other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The opinions of Dr. Girmay and Dr. Thomason do not reflect the same degree of limitation on Bostic’s functionality and are therefore not consistent. Further, Dr. Girmay’s conclusory determination of disability was not supported by evidence in the record, nor was it explained by references to any medical condition or by citation to any medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (an opinion that a claimant is disabled is not a “medical opinion”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion.”). We thus conclude that the ALJ did not err in choosing not to give Dr. Girmay’s opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s medical opinion receives controlling weight only when it is medically well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

MacNeil v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-08(d)(2)

A treating physician’s medical opinion is only entitled to controlling weight when it is 1) medically well-supported and 2) not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s record, and requires good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Maloney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-05-15(d)(2)

An ALJ gives “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), (d)(2). The ALJ must provide “good reasons” should he decide the treating physician’s opinion deserves less than controlling weight. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with substantial evidence and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Wurst v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is (1) well-supported by medical findings and (2) consistent with substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The Social Security Regulations require that an ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Micheli v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-25(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” when it is “well[]supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial [record] evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Nevertheless, “[a] treating physician’s statement that the claimant is disabled cannot itself be determinative.” Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). It is the Commissioner who is “responsible for making the determination or decision about whether [the claimant] meet[s] the statutory definition of disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). Moreover, the deference accorded to a treating physician’s opinion may be reduced upon consideration of other factors, including the length and nature of the treating doctor’s relationship with the patient, the extent to which the medical evidence supports the doctor’s opinion, whether the doctor is a specialist, the consistency of the opinion with the rest of the medical record, and any other factors “which tend to . . . contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(6); see also Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Although the treating physician rule generally requires deference to the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician, the opinion of the treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where, as here, the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.”) (citation omitted). ... Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ properly declined to accord controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Tracy. ... Moreover, Dr. Tracy’s opinions were internally inconsistent and inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for giving it less weight.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-12-26(c)(2)

A treating physician's opinion must be given "controlling weight" when it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Where, as here, an ALJ gives a treating physician opinion something less than "controlling weight," he must provide good reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, but permits the opinion to be discounted when it is inconsistent with that evidence.

Matta v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-25(d)(2)

“[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2)). But the opinion of a treating physician need not be given controlling weight when it is “not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the record.

Vang v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-20(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding an applicant’s impairment will be granted controlling weight, provided the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight unless it lacks support in the physician’s records or conflicts with other reports.

Hamilton v. Colvin · filed 2013-05-03(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight unless it is not supported by the physician’s records or is inconsistent with the reports of other sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. An ALJ who concludes that such an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight must give good reasons for that conclusion. Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir.2011); Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir.2011); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir.2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Roberts v. Colvin · filed 2013-05-24(d)(2)

Under the Social Security regulations, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment should receive “controlling weight” when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... The ALJ conducted the very analysis under section 404.1527(d)(2) that Roberts contends now was not performed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to apply the listed factors in deciding what weight the opinion deserves.

Porter v. Astrue · filed 2013-06-28(c)(2)

Where an ALJ finds that controlling weight should not be afforded to the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians, he is directed by regulation to apply a series of factors to determine what weight should be granted to those opinions in accordance with the “treating physician rule.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). These factors are: (1) examination relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) length and nature of treatment; (4) supportability of treating physician’s opinion by medical sources; (5) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (6) whether the opinion was rendered by a specialist; and (7) other evidence brought to the attention of the ALJ. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, factors such as treatment relationship, examination frequency, and specialization guide the weight assigned.

Espinosa v. Astrue · filed 2013-07-02(c)(2)

Pursuant to this Circuit's “treating physician rule,” “a treating physician’s report is binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that when “a treating [physician]’s opinion . . . is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [plaintiff’s] case record, [SSA] will give it controlling weight”); Smith v. Astrue, 534 F. Supp. 2d 121, 131 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Poulin, 817 F.2d at 873. Generally, SSA will also give more weight to a physician if the physician has had a longer treatment relationship with the plaintiff, a higher frequency of examination of the plaintiff, or a specialty in a relevant medical area. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Noble v. Colvin · filed 2013-04-29(c)(2)

However, a treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Horst v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2014-01-08(d)(2)

Controlling weight is given when a treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and § 404.1527(c)(4) supports giving more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Szilvasi v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-02-07(c)(2), (c)(4)

The opinion of a treating physician must be given “substantial or considerable weight” unless there is “good cause” not to do so. ... see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (providing that the medical opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record). ... Generally, the more consistent a physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight an ALJ can place on that opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). ... Against this legal backdrop, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to give diminished weight to Dr. Lafferty’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when supported by the physician’s records and consistent with other source reports, requires good reasons for discounting it, and does not permit discounting it merely because disability is reserved to the Commissioner.

Larson v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-19(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight unless it is not supported by the physician’s records or is inconsistent with the reports of other sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... An ALJ who concludes that such an opinion is not entitled to controlling weight must give good reasons for that conclusion. ... First, while the ultimate question of whether a claimant is disabled to a degree to qualify for benefits is, indeed, a matter reserved to the Commissioner— and the Commissioner’s delegate, the ALJ, 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d) — that’s not a valid reason to accord a treating physician’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for declining that weight.

Hill v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2014-03-27(c)(2) and (c)

That rule requires an ALJ to give a treating-physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must give “good reasons” supported by evidence in the record if she declines to give controlling weight to that opinion. ... An ALJ must weigh all medical opinions presented. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here, the ALJ said that “great and controlling weight” was given to Wagner’s assessment, which is technically wrong because “controlling weight” is a level of deference reserved for treating sources, and Wagner did not treat Hill. Id.; Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-08-21(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Ditsworth v. Colvin · filed 2013-11-12(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given “controlling weight” as long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fairchild v. Colvin · filed 2014-02-18(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by proper medical testing and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Tyson v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-27(c)(2)

When the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, but not when the opinion is unsupported by clinical evidence or inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Dyrda v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-19(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ generally must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion because the physician has had the opportunity to see the claimant over a long period of time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2014). However, a treating physician’s opinion is not due controlling weight when it is either “not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” ... Substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision not to credit Dr. Levy’s medical opinions with controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion, but not when the source offers materially inconsistent opinions without explanation.

Estabrook v. SSA · filed 2014-10-21(c)(2)

Generally, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Given the inconsistency, the ALJ need not give controlling weight to the opinions and should give more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rosier v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-09(c)(2)

A treating physician's opinion is afforded "controlling weight" when it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial [record] evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to address relevant medical opinions and their consistency when weighing medical opinion evidence.

Alexander v. Colvin · filed 2014-11-26(c)(2)

This opinion was consistent with that of Dr. Lewis, however the ALJ addressed neither Dr. Land’s opinion nor the consistency between Dr. Land’s and Dr. Lewis’s opinions as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) favors examining-source opinions, and § 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight, with specified factors and good reasons required when it is discounted.

Sullivan v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2014-12-12(c)(1), (c)(2)

An ALJ should “give more weight to the opinion of a [medical] source who has examined [the claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has not examined” the claimant. ... Under the so-called “treating physician rule,” the ALJ “‘will’ give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight if it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... If the opinion of a treating source is not given controlling weight by the ALJ, the ALJ “‘must apply’ specified factors in determining what weight to give the opinion.” ... These factors include “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” ... And, if the ALJ gives the treating source’s opinion other-than-controlling weight, the ALJ must give “‘good reasons’” for having done so. ... Here, the ALJ declined to give Dr. Emanuele’s opinion controlling weight because his opinion was not supported by the other evidence in the record. We agree. ... The ALJ also properly considered the frequency of Sullivan’s treating relationship with Dr. Emanuele, one of the appropriate factors to consider in denying a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. ... For these reasons, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in assigning less-than-controlling weight to Dr. Emanuele’s opinion in making her RFC determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion only when it is supported by sufficient clinical findings and consistent with the evidence, and permits an ALJ to discount an unsupported opinion for a reasoned basis.

Frank Seeley, Jr. v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-01-23(c)(2)

“If the treating physician’s opinion is not supported by objective medical evidence, the ALJ is entitled to discredit the opinion as long as she sets forth a reasoned basis for her rejection.” ... Here, as the ALJ below articulated, neither the opinion of Dr. Larsen nor that of Dr. Pickering was supported by objective evidence in the record. ... Thus, the physician opinions alone were insufficient to warrant controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Edwards v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-24(c)(2)

Controlling weight is given to a treating physician’s opinion when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations omitted) (alteration in original); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Nichols v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-13(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) supports giving a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by clinical evidence and not contradicted by substantial evidence.

Lopez v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-28(c)(2)

The ALJ properly gave Dr. Lundin’s opinion controlling weight. Dr. Lundin’s opinions were based on the surgery he performed on Lopez, x-rays following the surgery and Lopez’s follow-up visits. The opinions were not contradicted by substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1038 n.10 (9th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Lesterhuis v. Colvin · filed 2015-11-06(c)(2)

First, Dr. Holder is a treating physician, so SSA regulations give his opinions “controlling weight” so long as they are “well-supported by medically acceptable ... techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the record].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Winward v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2015-11-10(c)(2)

Where a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the record],” it will be given “controlling weight.” ... The ALJ did not give controlling weight to Dr. Zorach’s opinion, as expressed in the questionnaire, because it was “not well supported by medical signs and laboratory findings and [was] inconsistent with his detailed treatment records.” ... Therefore, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in concluding that Dr. Zorach’s questionnaire is not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must explain the weight assigned using the regulatory factors.

Jensen v. Colvin · filed 2016-02-23(c)(2)

Absent medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques that provide substantial support -to a treating physician’s opinion as to the intensity, persistence, and functionally limiting effects of a . claimant’s impairments; a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. But the ALJ cannot simply disregard the opinion without first analyzing it using the checklist of factors set forth-in the regulation: (1) the length of the treatment relationship; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings and explanations; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the evidence as a whole; (5) the specialization* of the source of the opinion; and (6) other factors such as the source’s understanding of the disability program and the claimant’s entire file. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, while an opinion not receiving controlling weight must be weighed under specified factors.

Stickler v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-24(d)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight under 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2), it must be weighed considering the factors in 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). ... The ALJ’s decision to reject the opinions of Dr. Lord is not supported by good reason and is not based on substantial evidence. ... Dr. Lord’s opinions are entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

KKC v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-17(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh it under the listed regulatory factors.

Paulsen v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-01(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

A treating-source opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment is entitled to controlling weight provided it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... It is not enough, however, for the ALJ just to decline to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight; he must go on to determine what weight to give the opinion using the factors in § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3) through (c)(6), and in § 416.927(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3) through (c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating doctor's well-supported, consistent opinion, requires the listed factors to be considered when it is not controlling, and gives greater weight to relevant specialist opinions.

Kanika Revels v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-26(c)(2), (c)(5)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating doctor is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record. ... Greater weight is also given to the “opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give no significant weight to a medical opinion on disability, an issue reserved to the Commissioner, and to consider whether the opinion reflects understanding of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements.

Calhoun v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-17(d)(3), (c)(6)

The ALJ also did not err by discounting treating orthopedic specialist Dr. Bakshian’s opinion that Calhoun was “temporarily totally disabled.” Dr. Bakshian’s opinion was not entitled to significant weight, even though Dr. Bakshian was a treating physician, because the agency “will not give any significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (2014), including whether a claimant is disabled. ... The ALJ also permissibly relied upon the fact that Dr. Bakshian’s opinion “was not given in a context that demonstrates understanding of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements,” in accordance with the agency’s regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1527(c)(6); id. at § 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight, while § 404.1527(c)(3) favors opinions supported by objective evidence.

Romo v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-05(c)(2), (c)(3)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ simply determined that Dr. Cutter’s sitting, standing, and walking limitations were not supported by objective evidence, which is a legitimate basis for the ALJ to afford the opinion less weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (explaining that opinion supported by objective findings are generally entitled to more weight).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ may weigh it using relevant factors and must give good reasons, while the ultimate disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Boardway v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-10(c)(2), (c)(4), (d)(1)

The ultimate decision of whether a claimant is disabled is not a medical opinion but, rather, administrative in nature, and, therefore, is reserved to the Commissioner. ... A treatment provider's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion is 'well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.' ... Because Plaintiff's activities contradicted Dr. Armstrong's assessment, the ALJ was warranted in not affording Dr. Armstrong's opinion controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, give a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, and consider specified factors when assigning other weight.

Tolefree v. Colvin · filed 2018-09-21(b), (c)(2), (c), (d)(2)

In evaluating a claim of disability, an ALJ “must consider all medical opinions in the record.” Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013); See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The opinion of a treating physician is afforded controlling weight if it is both “well-supported” by clinical and diagnostic evidence and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); See Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). If the ALJ does not grant a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, then he must consider the following factors, including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, length and frequency of treatment, nature and extent of treatment, supportability, consistency, and specialization, among others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Vinyard v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-07(c)(2)

In considering a claimant’s disability, each medical opinion is evaluated, but an opinion from a treating source is generally controlling so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; subsection (c)(4) gives more weight to opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Perkins v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-07(c)(2), (c)(4)

When a claimant submits opinions from her “treating” physician, the SSA gives those opinions “controlling weight” if it finds that they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques” and are “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Because of these deficiencies, the Court finds that the ALJ’s decision violates the Circuit’s treating physician rule. ... These findings seem to directly contradict the Broadnax opinion. And they suggest that the opinion may not fit the record as whole, perhaps justifying a decision by the SSA to accord it little weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, while the regulation requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned and consider the listed evaluation factors when controlling weight is not given.

Bratnichenko v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-19(c)(2), (d)(2)-(d)(6)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s) is entitled to controlling weight if it: (1) ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’ ... When, as in this case, an ALJ does not accord controlling weight to a treating source opinion, the ALJ must “explain the weight given to a treating source opinion and the reasons supporting that decision.” ... In evaluating a treating source opinion, the ALJ considers the following factors: 1) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; 2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) how well supported the conclusion is by relevant evidence; 4) how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; 5) how specialized the knowledge is of the treating physician; and 6) other factors that may be relevant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) and (d)(2) give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and require the ALJ to give good reasons for declining that weight.

BELANGER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-07-24(c)(2), (d)(2)

The ALJ did not have to adopt Dr. Schuler’s physical RFC assessment “so long as she supplied ‘good reasons’ for doing so.” ... In her decision, the ALJ considered, but discounted, Dr. Schuler’s physical RFC because (i) the assessment was inconsistent with Dr. Schuler’s own treatment notes prior to Plaintiff’s date last insured; and (ii) the assessment did not distinguish between Plaintiff’s level of functioning before and after her date last insured. ... The ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record, (see R. 16-17; see also R. 259, 267-68, 274-75, 499-500), and constitute good reasons for declining to give controlling weight to the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires specific, good reasons for giving it less weight.

Aceves v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-03(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to controlling weight if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Romo v. Commissioner, 748 Fed. Appx. 182, (10th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2));5 Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007). ... It is clear from the Decision that the ALJ did not engage in the two-step process necessary to determine whether Dr. Brown’s 2015 opinion was entitled to controlling weight. This was legal error. However, it is harmless if the reasons given for rejecting her opinion satisfy either of the grounds for giving her opinion less than controlling weight. When an ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion, he/she must identify specific, good reasons for weight given to the opinion. See Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). This requires identification of specific evidence in the record that the ALJ found to be inconsistent with Dr. Brown’s opinion, as well as demonstration that consistent evidence was considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the adjudicator must explain the weight given with good reasons and consider relevant factors, including supporting evidence and consistency.

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c)(2), (c)(3)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s condition is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95. “At both steps, the ALJ must give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.” Jd. at 96 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... As a surgeon who specializes in hernia repairs, his opinions regarding Plaintiffs condition are “about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty” and were supported by objective tests such as CT scans and physical examinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with the record, requires other treating-source opinions to be weighed using specified factors, and reserves ultimate disability and inability-to-work findings to the Commissioner.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(c)(2), (d)(2), (d)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). If the ALJ gives the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must provide good reasons for doing so. Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998). ... If not afforded controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion is given weight according to a non-exhaustive list of enumerated factors, including (i) the frequency of examinations and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the physician’s opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the physician has a relevant specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) (2), 416.927(c)(2); see Clark, 143 F.3d at 118; Marquez v. Colvin, No. 12 CIV. 6819 PKC, 2013 WL 5568718, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2013). In rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ need not expressly enumerate each factor considered if the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the treating physician rule is clear. See, e.g., Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013). ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (opinions that a claimant is disabled or unable to work are 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 requires a well-supported treating physician's opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, but opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or able to work are administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner and the weight given to a treating physician's opinion must be explained.

Singleton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(c)(2), (d)

Under the treating-physician rule, the ALJ must give the medical opinion of a claimant's treating physician “controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... But this rule does not apply to administrative findings, which are “reserved to the Commissioner.” ... An opinion that an individual is completely disabled or is unable to work is not a “medical opinion,” but rather, is an administrative finding on an issue that is reserved to the Commissioner. ... A claimant is entitled to an explanation of the weight afforded his or her treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must consider the listed factors in determining its weight.

Forman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-22(c)(2), (d)(2)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and § 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Gibbs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08(c)(4), (d)(1)

A treating physician’s opinion deserves controlling weight it is “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), see also Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1999) (Docket No. 19, Pl. Reply Memo. at 1). ... The ALJ also could properly disregard medical opinions that reached the ultimate determination of disability since that determination rests with the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of impairments and functional restrictions, while § 404.1527(d)(1) reserves disability determinations to the SSA and gives no controlling effect to a source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work.

Rodriguez-Craig v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-16(a), (d)(1)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a), “medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairments(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions” (emphasis added). However, § 414.1527(d)(1) makes clear that it is the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), not the treating physician, who may opine on whether a claimant “meet[s] the statutory definition of disability.” Indeed, a “statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the SSA] will determine that [a claimant] is disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it under the listed factors, giving good reasons for the assigned weight.

Bernal v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)-(6)

In the first step, the ALJ must consider whether the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” ... If the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ will proceed to the second step of the inquiry. ... The factors that must be applied in determining what weight to give an opinion are: ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... “[A]n ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reason for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors and determine the appropriate weight.

Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-30(d)(2)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-physician opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh the listed factors and give specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fox v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-09-18(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)–(ii), (c)(3)–(6)

In evaluating medical opinion evidence, an ALJ will give the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician controlling weight as long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record (the “treating physician rule”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). ... If the ALJ decides not to give the treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight, she must determine what weight to give it by looking at “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(ii), (3)–(6). The ALJ is required to “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight” of the “treating source’s medical opinion” (the “good reasons requirement”). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 (July 2, 1996) (“If the [residual functional capacity] assessment conflicts with an opinion from a medical source, the adjudicator must explain why the opinion was not adopted.”). These reasons must be specific in order to “make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (July 2, 1996). ... The ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Strenge’s 2017 Medical Source Statement only some weight, instead of controlling weight, is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and the ALJ must consider the listed regulatory factors when deciding what weight to give the opinion.

Roth v. Saul · filed 2021-02-09(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(5)

Because Plaintiff filed her benefits applications before March 27, 2017, the “treating physician rule” applies, whereby ALJs will give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding what weight to give the opinion: the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the supportability and consistency of the medical opinion with the record, and the physician’s specialization. Id. § at 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pachick v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-02(c)

Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim for benefits, the ALJ must assign controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician unless he supplies good cause for assigning the opinion less weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing it under specified factors.

Aranda v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-11(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels, 874 F.3d at 654. In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fair v. Saul · filed 2021-04-30(c)(2)–(5)

Fair filed her claim before 2017, so her treating physician’s opinion gets controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Overall, the ALJ adequately articulated his reasons for discounting Dr. Barr’s opinion. ... But, he explained, Dr. Barr’s opinion was entitled to only “some weight” because it was contradicted by other evidence and unsupported by objective tests. The record supports these conclusions, so the ALJ provided “‘an accurate and logical bridge’ between the evidence and [his] decision” to discount Dr. Barr’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency, and specialization.

LONG v. SAUL · filed 2021-05-20(c)(2)–(6)

The ALJ must give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight if it is "well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence." ... If "controlling weight" is not given to a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ must assign it a proper weight based on factors like the length and nature of the physician-patient relationship, the opinion's consistency with the record, and the physician's area of specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and, if it does not receive controlling weight, explicitly consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Parnell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-20(c)(2)–(6)

Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and[ ] (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... “An ALJ’s failure to ‘explicitly’ apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight” to a treating source opinion “is a procedural error.” ... Here, the ALJ assigned “little weight” to the opinion of Shanti’s treating physician, Briani Jackson, M.D. ... did not address any of the Burgess factors, let alone “‘explicitly’ apply” all of them. ... But the ALJ nevertheless erred by concluding that Dr. Jackson’s medical source statements did not constitute medical opinions. ... And the ALJ’s failure even to address those medical opinions was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, give controlling weight to a treating-source opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise consider the listed factors when assigning weight.

Abrams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-06(c)(2)-(6)

The regulations require Administrative Law Judges to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416,927(c). The process of assigning weight to medical opinions in the record begins with a determination whether to assign controlling weight to the medical opinion of the treating source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). If controlling weight is not assigned to the treating source’s opinion, the Administrative Law Judge must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) of this section in deciding how much weight to accord each of the medical opinions in the record, including the medical opinion from the treating source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion using the regulation’s listed factors.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-15(c)(2)-(5)

The operative regulation assigns controlling weight if the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), and the checklist indicates that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(4). Neither require that an opinion be “entirely consistent” with the record to receive weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) requires consideration of the length and frequency of a treating relationship when weighing a treating physician's opinion.

Mendez v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-21(c)(2)(i)

Because the ALJ was obliged to consider both the length and frequency of the treatment relationship, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(c)(2)(i), this was an appropriate basis for discounting the doctor’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Petrie v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-08(d)(2)

When an ALJ refuses to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician, he/she must consider various “factors” in deciding how much weight to give the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32. These factors include: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32; Schaal, 134 F.3d at 503. The Commissioner must also give “good reasons” for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32; Schaal, 134 F.3d at 503-04.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires consideration of factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and the doctor's specialization.

Kennedy v. Astrue · filed 2012-02-21(d)(2)-(5)

If the ALJ fails to give controlling weight to the opinion of the treating physician, then the ALJ must consider several factors to determine how much weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) frequency of examinations, (3) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) supportability by medical signs and laboratory findings, (5) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (6) specialization of the doctor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion based in part on the evidence supporting it and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Carrion v. SSA · filed 2014-08-20(c)(3)-(4)

It also comports with the regulations that require the ALJ to evaluate any medical opinion according to, among other factors, the evidence that the source provides to support the opinion and its consistency with the balance of the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), 416.927(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors when determining the weight to assign the opinion.

Cabibi v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-28(c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. Among those factors are: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s unsupported opinion to be denied controlling weight but still considered with all of the regulation’s weighing factors.

Bainbridge v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-07(d)(2)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” but such an opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion as controlling, § 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Poczciwinski v. Colvin · filed 2016-01-22(d)(2)

When an ALJ declines to accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ “must consider various ’factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion];,]” id, (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2)), such as “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Securi...ty Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ assessing a treating physician's opinion to give specific reasons for the weight assigned and to apply the regulation's treating-source factors.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-06-15(d)(2)

When assessing Dr. Warren’s opinion on remand, the ALJ shall thoroughly and clearly explain the specific reasons for the weight he assigns to Dr. Warren’s opinion, in accordance with the factors listed at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require an ALJ to discuss every listed factor in writing when assigning a treating physician's opinion some but less than controlling weight.

Carson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-26(c)(2)

The court has no reason to doubt the ALJ, and, as discussed above, he is not required to discuss in his decision all of the factors outlined in the regulations when giving a treating physician's opinion some weight but less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified treatment-relationship and opinion factors.

Ramirez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-20(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified factors in deciding the opinion's weight.

Jedovnicky v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-08(c)

Finally, the ALJ failed to discuss the factors required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Where an ALJ does not give a treating physician controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors when determining what weight to give the treating physician. Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. Those factors include: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, along with the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion; (5) the specialization of the physician; and (6) any other important factors relevant to the decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ does not consider the length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, or the specialization of the treating psychiatrist. The Court agrees.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and the opinion must then be weighed under the regulatory factors.

Angel v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-26(d)(2)

As the Regulations state, the ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s evaluation when that evaluation is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 CFR § 416.927(d)(2); 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2). Instead, when there is contradictory evidence, the treating physician’s opinion is weighed against the contradictory evidence under the criteria listed above. Id. When the opinions are inconsistent with each other, the final decision regarding the weight to be given to the differing opinions lies with the Commissioner. 20 CFR § 416.927(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight to consider the listed regulatory factors before assigning weight.

Kovach v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)-(6)

Because the ALJ decided not to afford Dr. Simon’s opinion controlling weight, the Court finds that the ALJ was required to analyze his opinion under the factors of section 404.1527(c)().

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to explain the weight assigned when it is not controlling.

Delana v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-15(c)(2)

An ALJ is required to explain in his decision the weight given to any opinions from treating sources, non-treating sources, and non-examining sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). The Regulations require that more weight be given to the opinions of treating physicians than other sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Id.; see also Forehand v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 984, 986 (8th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider the treatment relationship and other prescribed factors, including the physician's specialization, when determining the opinion's weight.

Ramos v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-27(c)(2)

The ALJ, in the one paragraph discussing Dr. Ayaso’s opinion, failed to evaluate his opinion consistent with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ’s decision fails to consider the length, nature, and extent of treatment relationship between Dr. Ayaso and the patient. It also fails to discuss Dr. Ayaso’s specialization. The ALJ, therefore, “did not explicitly consider whether the [treating] physician is a specialist [i]n order to override” his opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the regulatory factors in assessing the opinion’s weight.

Ronk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ applies the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) to determine the weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors when determining how much weight to give it.

Scott v. Saul · filed 2021-03-05(c)

Plaintiff relies on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which provides that if an ALJ does not give the opinion of a treating physician controlling weight, he must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give it. ... I agree with plaintiff that the ALJ gave short shrift to Dr. Andrianova’s opinions and that the ALJ’s presentation of his analytical process did not comply with § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor if the ALJ minimally articulates the reasoning.

FOSTER v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-19(c)

However, "[i]n weighing a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ... need only 'minimally articulate' his reasoning; the ALJ need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider specified factors in deciding how much weight to give it.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3)–(6)

Nevertheless, even when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3)–(6). ... In sum, the Court is satisfied that the ALJ considered Dr. Brown’s opinion as the regulations require and substantial evidence supports his assessment that it should be afforded limited weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ deciding the weight of a treating physician's opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, physician specialty, consistency, and supportability.

Casken v. Saul · filed 2021-10-07(c)

The ALJ failed to apply the proper legal standard in assigning little weight to Dr. Lev-Weissberg’s opinions, however. Even if the ALJ was not obligated to assign Dr. Lev-Weissberg’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ was required to consider the factors identified in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) in determining the weight to accord Dr. Lev-Weissberg’s opinions. Gerstner, 879 F.3d at 263. The ALJ failed to do so. Although the ALJ noted that she “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527,” [R. 88], her discussion of Dr. Lev-Weissberg’s opinions belies that rote conclusion. Specifically, the ALJ never identified, let alone discussed, “the length, nature, and extent of” Plaintiff’s treatment relationship with Dr. Lev-Weissberg; the “frequency” with which Dr. Lev-Weissberg treated Plaintiff; or Dr. Lev-Weissberg’s specialty (internal medicine). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (requiring consideration of these factors).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors, but the ALJ need not evaluate each factor individually.

Barnard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(d)(2)

An ALJ who refuses to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion must consider various "factors" to determine how much weight to give that opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). These factors include the following: "'(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician's opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration's attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.'" Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (other citations omitted). The Second Circuit has held, however, that ALJs are not required to evaluate each of these factors individually in their decisions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) makes the Commissioner, not a treating physician, responsible for the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled.

Workman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-07-29(e)(1)

A treating physician’s conclusory statement that a claimant is disabled is not controlling because the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled rests with the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Paragraph (e) reserves the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner.

Vilardi v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-10(e)

Ultimately, the determination of whether a claimant is disabled is “reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the disability determination to the Commissioner and says that a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not control that determination.

Pintal v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2015-03-11(d)(1)

To the extent he suggests that the ALJ was obligated to obtain a medical opinion that decides the ultimate question, Pintal is wrong. The ultimate legal determination of disability is 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 ... . 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.”); see also Knepp, 204 F.3d at 85 (“Knepp ... argues that only a physician designated by the Commissioner can decide the question of medical equivalency. This argument misapprehends 20 C.F.R. § 404.1526. The ultimate decision concerning the disability of a claimant is reserved for the Commissioner.” (citations omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the ultimate determination of disability to the Commissioner, so a physician's statement that a claimant is disabled is not treated as a medical opinion controlling that determination.

Eblen v. Saul · filed 2020-05-06(d)(1)

The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Finch’s opinion that Eblen was “medically 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(f)(2)(I) requires an administrative law judge to consider an agency physician's findings and explain the weight given to them, even though the judge is not bound by those findings.

Ramirez v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-29(f)(2)(I)

Although an ALJ is not bound by the findings of an agency physician, he “must consider” such findings and must explain the weight he gives to them. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(I); SSR 96-6p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a state disability determination.

Appling v. Barnhart · filed 2005-06-21(f)(2)(i)

The ALJ was required to consider the State Disability Determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i). The ALJ permissibly gave considerable weight to the State’s assessment of Plaintiffs residual functional capacity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits reliance on state-agency reviewers’ assessments when they reasonably reflect the relevant medical evidence.

Bitsacos v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-21(f)

The reviewers’ assessments were consistent with the medical evidence and, thus, could be relied upon when, as here, they represented a reasonable reading of the relevant medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) treats state agency medical consultants as experts whose opinions may receive greater weight when supported by the evidence.

Hoskins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-08-06(f)(2)(i)

State agency medical consultants are considered experts and their opinions may be entitled to greater weight if their opinions are supported by the evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Administrative law judges must treat state-agency physicians' findings as expert opinion evidence and explain the weight given to those opinions, even though they are not bound by them.

McAnally v. Barnhart · filed 2007-07-23(f)

Although “[a]dministrative law judges . . . are not bound by findings made by State agency or other program physicians,” any such findings “must be treated as expert opinion evidence of nonexamining sources,” and plaintiff is correct that ALJs “may not ignore these opinions and must explain the weight given to these opinions in their decisions.” SSR 96-6p, 1996 W L 374180 at *1, *2; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f) and 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to explain in the decision the weight given to the opinions of a State agency medical consultant.

Willcockson v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-28(f)(2)(ii)

The parties agree that the ALJ, in determining Ms. Willcockson's RFC, implicitly relied on a September, 2004, RFC assessment by a nonexamining state medical consultant, Dr. Kinsey Van. In the circumstances here, the regulations required the ALJ to "explain in the decision the weight given to the opinions of a State agency medical ... consultant," 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii), but the ALJ did not do so. We think that such an explanation would be particularly helpful here because of a seventeen-month gap between Dr. Van's assessment and Ms. Willcockson's hearing, during which she received additional medical treatment that Dr. Van, of course, could not have known about. The SSA's regulations specifically say that the agency will "evaluate the degree to which [the opinions of "nonexamining sources"] consider all of the pertinent evidence in [a] claim, including opinions of treating and other examining sources," as well as the "degree to which [nonexamining sources] provide supporting explanations for their opinions." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (emphasis added). Of course, the opinions of nonexamining sources are generally, but not always, given less weight than those of examining sources, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). By explaining the weight given to Dr. Van's assessment, the ALJ would have both complied with the regulation and assisted us in reviewing the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to rely on state agency physician opinions as on opinions from other sources and to give them greater weight when their findings and rationale are supported by the record.

Reeves v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2015-07-13

Generally, an ALJ is permitted to rely on state agency physician’s opinions to the same extent as she may rely on opinions from other sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Thus, an ALJ may provide greater weight to a state agency physician’s opinion when the physician’s finding and rationale are supported by evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) recognizes state agency medical consultants as highly qualified physicians and experts in Social Security disability evaluation, and it does not bar an ALJ from giving their findings great weight solely because they are reviewing physicians.

Jones v. Colvin · filed 2018-05-22(f)(2)(i)

But nothing in the regulations states that an ALJ is not allowed to accord “great” weight to the findings of the state agency consultants based solely on their status as reviewing physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i) (stating that state agency medical consultants are “highly qualified physicians . . . who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation”). Thus, this argument fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) provides that an ALJ is not bound by findings made by state agency medical or psychological consultants or other program physicians or psychologists.

Terry v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-02(e)(2)(i)

ALJs must weigh medical opinions, and they “are not bound by any findings made by State agency medical or psychological consultants, or other program physicians or psychologists.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i). Instead, the ALJ evaluates these experts’ findings and decides which expert “wins.” Justice v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 515 F. App’x 583, 588 (6th Cir. 2013). Here, the ALJ properly fulfilled his role by resolving the conflict between disputing experts.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) recognizes state-agency medical and psychological consultants as highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

May v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03(f)(2)(i)

However, State agency physicians are considered “highly qualified physicians who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2)(i), 416.927(f) (2)(i); see also SSR 96–6p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) treats state-agency medical and psychological consultants as experts whose opinions merit significant consideration.

MULLER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-03(f)

Additionally, opinions proffered by state agency medical and psychological consultants merit significant consideration as well because they are considered experts in the Social Security disability programs. Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361, citing, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). ... Finally, the ALJ gave “significant weight” to the opinion proffered by Dr. Fox, the state agency medical consultant. ... After careful consideration, I find no error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When explaining the weight given to a state agency medical consultant's opinion, the ALJ considers factors including the opinion's supportability and consistency with the total record.

Scott v. Saul · filed 2020-06-29(c), (e)(2)(ii)

Regulations make clear that, in “explaining … the weight given to the opinions of a state agency medical [] consultant,” the ALJ will consider factors such as the “supportability” and “consistency” of a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (e)(2)(ii). The ALJ found Debroy’s opinions both supported by and consistent with the total record and gave “considerably weight” to those opinions as such. No error was committed in that respect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires ALJs to consider findings of state agency medical and psychological consultants but does not bind them to those findings.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-29(f)(2)(i)

“Under the regulations, ALJs ‘must consider findings of [s]tate agency medical and psychological consultants,’ but ALJs ‘are not bound by any findings made by [s]tate agency medical or psychological consultants.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider state-agency consultants’ findings as opinion evidence and permits assigning them great weight when they are supported by the medical evidence as a whole, even if the consultants lacked the full record.

Delesline-Meggett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-11(e)(2)(i)

State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists are highly qualified ... [and] are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation. Therefore, administrative law judges must consider [their] findings and other opinions . . . as opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i).7 If supported by the medical evidence as a whole, an ALJ may assign great weight to state agency consultants who have not had the benefit of the full record. See Tanner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 602 F. App’x 95, 101 (4th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (stating that while the state agency consultants did not have benefit of the whole record, “the ALJ did, and he made clear that their findings were consistent with the evidence of record, including evidence submitted since the date of reconsideration”). Upon review, the court finds that the ALJ properly considered the state agency consultants’ assessments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) treats state-agency medical consultants as highly qualified experts, so their supported nonexamining opinions may receive greater weight than a treating source’s opinion.

Tope v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-23(e)(2)(i)

The Court finds this decision to be supported by substantial evidence because “[s]tate agency consultants . . . are highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 14-CV-0786, 2015 WL 5512408, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527[e][2][i], 416.927[e][2][i]) (Suddaby, J.). “Even non[-]examining State agency consultative-source opinion may ‘override treating sources’ opinions, provided they are supported by evidence in the record.’” Dowling, 2015 WL 5512408, at *5 (quoting Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 568 [2d Cir. 1993]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to seek additional information when the support for a treating source’s medical opinion is not readily apparent.

Barnett, Joanne v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2004-08-25(c)(3)

An ALJ has a duty to solicit additional information to flesh out an opinion for which the medical support is not readily discernable. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); ... Thus, the ALJ should have contacted Dr. Plascak for clarification of her medical opinions, asking for more detail regarding the frequency of Barnett’s seizures or for updated medical records that supported Dr. Plascak’s opinion that Barnett was disabled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i)-(ii) requires the ALJ to consider non-examining, reviewing State psychologists’ opinions and, when the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source, explain the weight given to the State psychologist’s opinions.

McCloud v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-25(f)(2)(i)-(ii)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i)-(ii), the ALJ must consider non-examining, reviewing State psychologists’ opinions and, when the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source, must explain the weight given to the State psychologist’s opinions. Here, the ALJ relied on Glover’s report to refute medical evidence, including McCloud’s GAF score, from McCloud’s treating physicians. Consequently, the ALJ ran afoul of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i)-(ii) when he did not explain the weight he gave to Glover’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a doctor’s statement that a claimant is unable to work as a dispositive disability finding reserved to the Commissioner, and permits the ALJ to consider the length and frequency of the treatment relationship when weighing a medical opinion.

Heppell-Libsansky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-03-14(d)(2)(i)-(ii), (e)(1)

Dr. Herrero’s statement that he doubted Heppell-Libsansky would “ever be able to return to gainful employment” is not a medical opinion under the Social Security regulations, but rather, is a dispositive finding left to the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). Moreover, though Dr. Herrero was a treating physician, he saw Heppell-Libsansky only twice after the alleged onset date. So, during the relevant coverage period, Dr. Herrero and Heppell-Libsansky did not have a longstanding relationship nor did he provide lengthy or frequent treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to perform a detailed analysis of a treating physician's views under its criteria before rejecting the opinion when no reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverts it.

Beasley v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-25(d)(2)

“[A]bsent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting [Dr. Graves’ opinion], an ALJ may reject the opinion of the treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)”.

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

The Commissioner, rather than a medical expert, is responsible for determining whether an individual meets the statutory definition of disability.

Naegele v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-31(e)(1)

It is well-settled that the Commissioner is solely responsible for making the determination about whether an individual meets the statutory definition of disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) permits an ALJ to request and consider medical-expert opinions about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, but does not require the ALJ to do so.

Jakubowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-01-10(f)(2)(iii)

In her brief, Jakubowski contends that the ALJ erred when he failed to secure a medical expert to assist him in assessing the severity of her impairments. However, as the District Court points out, an ALJ is not required under the Social Security regulations to seek out medical expert testimony. Instead, the regulations set out a permissive standard: An ALJ “may also ask for and consider opinions from medical experts on the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) (emphasis added). Although the standard for demonstrating severity under step two is a forgiving one, the burden still remains on Jakubowski to establish the severity of her impairments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) and (4) support rejecting a medical opinion that is unexplained and unsupported by the medical record.

Bailey v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-13(d)(3), (4)

Simply put, Dr. Loms’s sole statement about drowsiness has no support in the medical record and is unexplained, allowing the ALJ to reject this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the degree to which a treating-source opinion is supported by objective medical evidence when determining the weight to give it.

Hughes, Amanda v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

In fact, the degree to which a treating source opinion about the severity of a claimant’s impairment is supported by the objective medical evidence is one of the primary factors the ALJ must consider in determining the weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Thus, the ALJ committed no error in looking to see whether the opinions by Hughes’s treating physicians were supported by the objective evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion when the source provides more relevant supporting evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings.

Kirby v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-30(c)(3)

This was a proper basis for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). The ALJ did not err in his evaluation of Ms. Sharp’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a treating provider’s checklist opinion when it lacks explanation and support in the provider’s treatment notes.

Gould v. SSA · filed 2012-10-31(c)(3)

Notably, a treating provider’s opinion may be entitled to less weight when it is in a “worksheet” or checklist format, unaccompanied by explanation. ... Here, in according “little weight” to Dr. Warren’s January 2011, checklist opinion, the ALJ explained that Dr. Warren’s treatment notes from sessions with claimant “do not provide a basis for these restrictions.” ... In light of the foregoing, the court cannot conclude that the ALJ erred in his assessment of Dr. Warren’s opinion, nor in his overall assessment of limitations resulting from claimant’s mental impairment.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Agency to give good reasons when discounting evidence from a claimant’s treating physicians.

Morris v. Barnhart · filed 2007-05-08(d)(2)

The Agency’s regulations require the Agency to “give good reasons” for discounting evidence of disability submitted by the claimant’s treating physicians because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Morris argues that the ALJ did not provide good reasons for discounting his physicians’ conclusions. We do not agree. Our review reveals that the ALJ provided a lengthy and thorough discussion of these doctors’ reports and findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the agency to state good reasons in its determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion.

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-03-27(d)(2)

Social Security regulations require the agency to provide good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician's opinion, such as Dr. McCord's four questionnaire responses. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) states that "[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source's opinion."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating-source opinion is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, § 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight; otherwise, the adjudicator must apply specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hensley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-07-21(d)(2)

The governing regulation states that if the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [is] ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The administrative judge did not find that Dr. Cross’ opinion did not meet those substantive requirements. The regulation also requires that if such opinion is not given controlling weight, the administrative judge “must apply” specified factors in determining what weight to give the opinion, and give “good reasons . . . for the weight we give [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” Id. The administrative judge did not give any other reasons for rejecting Dr. Cross’ opinion that Hensley could not repetitively perform hand pushing or pulling. Nothing in the regulations indicates, or even suggests, that the administrative judge may decline to give the treating physician’s medical opinion less than controlling weight simply because another physician has reached a contrary conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to balance the regulatory factors and give good reasons explaining the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion when it is not given controlling weight.

Cole v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-15(d)(2)

After accepting Dr. Vishnupad’s diagnosis, the ALJ then rejected the conclusions contained in her RFC assessment about the severity of Cole’s impairments as they relate to work. Before doing so, the ALJ failed to conduct the balancing of factors to determine what weight should be accorded these treating source opinions, and the Commissioner conceded at oral argument that the ALJ did not assign a specific weight to Dr. Vishnupad’s RFC assessment. This alone constitutes error, as “[a] finding that a treating source medical opinion . . . is not entitled to controlling weight [does] not [mean] that the opinion should be rejected.”

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

The regulation requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons.

Cole v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-22(d)(2)

Under one such standard, commonly called the treating physician rule, the Commissioner has mandated that the ALJ “will” give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must then balance the following factors to determine what weight to give it: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the treating source.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(2)). ... Importantly, the Commissioner imposes on its decision makers a clear duty to “always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [a] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires greater weight for treating-source opinions and controlling weight when the opinion is well supported and consistent with the record, while requiring good reasons for denying controlling weight.

Monateri v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-08-11(d)(2)

Treatment relationship. Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. If the Commissioner determines that it will not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, it must provide “good reasons” for its decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”).

Law changed since 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).

When reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverts a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ need not analyze every factor in § 404.1527(d)(2), but must give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Rollins v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner · filed 2012-03-15(d)(2)

The plain implication of that statement is that where there is reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician that controverts the claimant’s physician, the detailed inquiry of each factor in § 404.1527(d)(2) is unnecessary. The medical tests done by Rentz that found no restrictions on Rollins’s manipulative abilities are reliable medical evidence contradicting Centanni’s opinion. Thus, with reliable medical evidence contradicting that opinion, the ALJ’s recognition that Centanni’s opinion was inconsistent with objective medical findings, other doctors’ opinions, and the record as a whole satisfies the Social Security Administration’s requirement “always [to] give good reasons . . . for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the record, and requires the adjudicator to explain the good reasons for the weight assigned.

Rife v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2012-06-13(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion if that opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ declines to give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the following factors in determining what weight to give the opinion: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.” ... The agency’s regulation mandates: “We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who denies controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion to analyze the specified factors and explain the weight assigned.

Goins v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-13(c)(2)

Relatedly, the record reflects that the ALJ failed to weigh Dr. Choi’s findings under the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and § 416.927. Where an ALJ finds that a treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, the ALJ must perform a specific analysis to determine how much weight to afford the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider relevant listed factors when evaluating a treating-source opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Kepke v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2016-01-12(d)(2)

Therefore, the ALJ gave good reasons for discounting Dr. Chapman’s opinion, and satisfied the mandates of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 by considering some of the listed factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the supportability of Dr. Chapman’s opinion, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hudson-Kane v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-28(c)(2)

Nevertheless, the Court concludes that the ALJ violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) by failing to provide good reasons for rejecting Dr. Chothmounethinh’s opinion, which necessitates reversal of the Commissioner’s decision.