20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source medical opinion and to consider the opinion's consistency with the record.

Piper v SSA · filed 2018-03-20(c)(2), (c)(4)

The ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight he affords a “treating source's medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). To satisfy this requirement, the ALJ’s order “must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion, supported by evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and reasons for that weight.” ... Here, the ALJ explained that he discounted Dr. Nicholson’s opinion because it was internally inconsistent. ... The ALJ’s explanations satisfy the requirement that he give “good reasons” for discounting that opinion. 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.”); Hudon v. Colvin, 2016 DNH 19, 6-7 (opinion’s inconsistency with record evidence satisfies the “good reasons” requirement); Couture, 2015 DNH 128, 6-7 (internal inconsistencies satisfy “good reasons” requirement).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion after applying the regulation's treating-opinion standards.

Welch v. Saul · filed 2019-09-11(c)(2)

The ALJ is required to “give good reasons” for the weight given to a treating sources’ medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). As detailed above, the ALJ provided reasons for affording certain weight to the opinions of the providers or experts, including stating certain opinions were inconsistent with the medical records and appeared to be based on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints rather than concrete medical evidence. By considering each provider and explaining “good reasons” for affording certain opinions limited or little weight, the ALJ correctly evaluated the opinions of treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight to state good reasons in the decision for the weight assigned.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-29(c)(2)

The Code of Federal Regulations dictates what the ALJ must do when the treating source is not given controlling weight: “[w]hen we do not give the treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight. . . [w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and, otherwise, evaluation under specified factors with evidence-supported, sufficiently specific reasons for discounting it.

Farmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-27(c)(2)-(6)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2); Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *2-3 (Soc. Sec. Admin. July 2, 1996). If the opinion of the treating doctor does not meet these “controlling weight” criteria, this does not mean that the opinion must be rejected; rather, it “may still be entitled to deference and be adopted by the adjudicator.” Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *1. If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on factors such as the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the treating source’s area of specialty, and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. §404.1527(c)(2). These reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require an ALJ to analyze each treating-source factor step by step; the ALJ must give good reasons for denying controlling weight and for the ultimate weight assigned, including addressing the factor most important in the case.

Rottmann v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2020-06-19(c)(2)

Second, we reject Rottmann’s argument that the ALJ failed to adequately consider the six factors provided by § 404.1527(c)(2). “The ALJ need not perform an exhaustive, step-by-step analysis of each factor; [he] need only provide ‘good reasons’ for both [his] decision not to afford the physician’s opinion controlling weight and for [his] ultimate weighing of the opinion.” Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 785 (6th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted). While the ALJ did not reference each factor, he did discuss the factor most important to this case, i.e., the consistency (or lack thereof) of the doctors’ opinions with the record as a whole. As noted, Rottmann’s self-reported activities (and other parts of the record) were markedly inconsistent with the doctors’ opinions. Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ sufficiently explained why he was affording little weight to Rottmann’s doctors’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Eutsey v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)

If the ALJ chooses to disregard the opinion of a treating physician, he or she must “clearly articulate” the reasons for doing so. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“good reasons” must always be given in the decision for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Evans v. Saul · filed 2021-01-07(c)(2)

Indeed, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) provides that the Commissioner “will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion, although the ALJ need not discuss every listed factor expressly.

Huston v. SSA · filed 2021-06-28(c)(2)

First, Huston is incorrect that an ALJ must give good reasons “for each factor.” An ALJ need not expressly address every factor: “Although the regulations instruct an ALJ to consider these factors, they expressly require only that the ALJ’s decision include ‘good reasons . . . for the weight . . . give[n] [to the] treating source’s opinion’ — not an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” Francis v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also Kepke v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 636 F. App’x 624, 630 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he ALJ gave good reasons for discounting [the treating physician’s] opinion, and satisfied the mandates of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 by considering some of the listed factors . . .”) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pence v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-06(c)(2)

“Separate from the treating physician rule, but closely related, is the requirement that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight ascribed to a treating-source opinion.” Hargett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 964 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); other citation omitted)); see Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good, specific reasons supported by substantial evidence when declining to give a treating-source medical opinion controlling or deferential weight; generalized assertions are insufficient.

Roberts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(c)(2)

The undersigned concludes that the ALJ erred in his analysis of Dr. Vishnupad’s opinions because he failed to satisfy the good reasons requirement. This rule requires the ALJ to cite substantial evidence that supports a decision to decline giving controlling or deferential weight to a treating-source opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Hargett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 964 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 2020). Id. Here, the ALJ did not support his stated reasons with substantial evidence. ... Although the supportability of a treating physician’s opinions is an appropriate factor to consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the good reasons requirement cannot be satisfied with general and non-specific assertions of inconsistency with other evidence in the record. ... Accordingly, the undersigned concludes that the ALJ did not provide good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Vishnupad’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion, and inconsistency is not a good reason when the ALJ fails to address medical evidence supporting the opinion.

Spiegel v. Saul · filed 2023-06-07(c)(2)

Whatever weight the ALJ affords to a treating source, he must give “good reasons” explaining his decision and must not substitute his own judgment for the physician's opinion without relying on other medical evidence or authority in the record. See Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004); Cieszynski, No. 22-2024, 2023 WL 2523499, at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s decision to reject Dr. Mok’s opinion due to inconsistency with his own notes and the medical record was not a “good reason” to reject Dr. Mok’s opinion because the ALJ failed to grapple with any of the medical evidence supporting Dr. Mok’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing a treating-source opinion but does not require a factor-by-factor analysis if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bowen v. Social Security Commissioner · filed 2023-10-05(c)(2)

While the regulations do require an ALJ to consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) in determining the weight to give a treating source opinion, they do not require a factor-by-factor analysis, only that the decision include good reasons for the weight assigned.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by Section 404.1527, an ALJ may discount or reject a treating source’s medical opinion if the ALJ gives good reasons grounded in the regulatory factors.

MACISAAC v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2023-10-20(c)(2)

An ALJ may give a treating source’s opinion little weight or reject it, provided that he or she supplies “good reasons” for doing so. See, e.g., id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[The Commissioner] will always give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] give[s] a [claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.”). ... The ALJ addressed all of the relevant factors, noting that Dr. Prosser (1) had seen the Plaintiff only twice before June 30, 2015; (2) did not explain the basis for her statement that the Plaintiff’s limitations had first appeared ten to twelve years before her date last insured; and (3) did not explain “what objective evidence reasonably show[ed] these 2017 diagnoses were medically present at all during the period at issue, let alone any support for their level of severity prior to the date last insured.” Record at 479. She then provided examples of internal inconsistencies in the Prosser opinion and inconsistencies between the Prosser opinion and other providers’ findings on examination. See id. This was a sufficient basis for the ALJ’s decision to give the 2017 Prosser opinion no weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, and failure to articulate those reasons requires reversal.

Baum v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-02(d)(2)

Further, “When an ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ should give ‘good reasons’ for doing so.” Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2002)). Failure to articulate these reasons for disregarding a medical opinion requires a reversal. Singh v. Apfel, 222 F3.d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2000); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... As the statute expressly requires the ALJ to list good reasons for their findings, the Court agrees remand is proper. Davidson, 501 F. 3d at 990.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to articulate good reasons, and that requirement is satisfied by detailing how the opinion lacks support and conflicts with other evidence.

Kincer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-18(c)(2)

Pursuant to regulations that apply to this case,2 a treating physician opinion 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] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ determines that a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ is required to articulate “good reasons” for that decision. Id. Here, ALJ Lesperance explained that Dr. Vargo’s opinions were not well-supported and were inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ’s analysis of Dr. Vargo’s3 RFC opinions easily satisfies the regulatory standard by detailing the multiple ways in which Dr. Vargo’s opinions were not well-supported and were inconsistent with other evidence, and why they ultimately were entitled to “little weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion and, absent controlling weight, to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability.

Lauster · filed 2026-03-26(d)(2)

Additionally, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2009), an ALJ must offer “good reasons” in his decision for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion. Thus, when an ALJ discounts a treating source’s medical opinion, the “ALJ must offer ‘good reasons’ for discounting the opinion of [that] treating physician.” Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. Moreover, “[i]f 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). ... In summary, none of the explanations offered by the ALJ for affording little to no weight to Dr. Pass’s opinion has any merit. Therefore, because the ALJ “failed to articulate any good reason for significantly discounting [Dr. Pass’s] medical opinion, his decision is not supported by substantial evidence.” Collins, 324 Fed. Appx. at 521. Accordingly, reversal is warranted due to this error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source opinion after denying it controlling weight.

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

In addition to balancing the factors to determine what weight to give a treating source opinion denied controlling weight, the agency specifically requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight actually assigned. This decision failed to assign a weight and failed to provide any reasons for disregarding Dr. Vishnupad’s RFC assessment after having found her diagnosis deserving of controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires hearing officers to give good reasons when they decline to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight.

Small v. Astrue · filed 2012-01-09(d)(2)

At the very least, when declining to grant weight to treating sources, the hearing officer was required to provide good reason, which he failed to do.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

B. v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-30(c)(2)

When weighing any medical opinion, an ALJ should consider: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the medical source who provided the opinion; and (6) other factors. Finally, when explaining the amount of weight that he gives to the opinion of a treating source, an ALJ must “give good reasons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) lists factors for evaluating medical opinions, but an ALJ need not expressly apply each factor when explaining the weight assigned.

Razo v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-21(c)

Mr. Razo argues that, in making these assignments, the ALJ failed to apply all of the criteria for evaluating medical opinions set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). But the ALJ was not required “to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires an administrative law judge to explain, at a minimum, the weight assigned to each medical source opinion.

Padilla v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-27(e)(2)(ii)

Although it is not required that an ALJ discuss every piece of evidence, he is required to discuss, at a minimum, the weight assigned to each medical source opinion. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii), 416.927(e)(2)(ii)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and generally give more weight to opinions from examining sources, while allowing greater weight for nonexamining sources when adequately explained.

MORRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-05-28(c)

An ALJ is required to state what weight he ascribes to a medical opinion, but not to other forms of medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (“How we weigh medical opinions. Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive. Unless we give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”). Here, the ALJ articulated what weight he gave to several medical opinions, but some of those opinions derived from state medical consultants who did not personally examine Plaintiff but rather reviewed her medical records. “Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (Evaluating opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017). But an ALJ may afford greater weight to non-examining medical sources so long as he sufficiently explains why.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating provider’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, it directs the adjudicator to weigh the opinion using factors including the treatment relationship and consistency with the record.

Turner v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-17(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 v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). ... Furthermore, the ALJ is ORDERED to give controlling weight to the common denominator of the limitations opined by Drs. Holden and DeBattista, as well as the opinions of Drs. Estevez and Yun, while fully and fairly developing the record such as to harmonize and reconcile any inconsistency between the two sets of opined limitations, because these opinions are supported by the overwhelming majority of the relevant evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires the weight assigned to a nonexamining source’s opinion to depend on the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations.

Furstenau v. Saul · filed 2020-06-18(c)(3)

In addition, the reasoning provided by Dr. Akeson was less than thorough. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“[B]ecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Barone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-09(c)(4)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to opinions that are more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion, while § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to a non-treating consultative opinion.

Elsner v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(c)(2), (e)(2)(ii)

Elsner’s criticism carries more force in the context of a treating provider. The regulations state that the agency will “always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (emphasis added). But, in the context of a non-treating, consultative provider, like Crosnoe, the ALJ need only “explain in the decision the weight given to the opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) (2012); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e)(2)(ii)(2012); see also Bankhead v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 183970 at *6 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 14, 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to explain, at a minimum, the weight assigned to each medical source opinion.

Thomas v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-16(e)(2)(ii)

Although it is not required that an ALJ discuss every piece of evidence, he is required to discuss, at a minimum, the weight assigned to each medical source opinion. Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1161 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii), 416.927(e)(2)(ii)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors such as examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight under subsection (c)(2).

Valentini v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-29(c), (c)(2)

All medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... A treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) recognizes program physicians as highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation, supporting consideration of their reviewing opinions.

Foust v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-31(e)(2)(i)

As a reviewing physician, Dr. Cruz was familiar with the Social Security Administration’s disability programs and is an expert in the field of disability evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i) (“Program physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the medical record.

Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(c)(4)

In addition, an opinion’s inconsistency with the medical record may serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting it. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (An ALJ may give less weight to medical opinions that conflict with treatment notes).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-05(c)(4)

The ALJ is required to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... This inconsistency was a specific and legitimate reason to afford lesser weight to the opinion. 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.”); Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a source’s familiarity with the claimant’s case record as a relevant factor in weighing a medical opinion, but an examining physician’s or psychologist’s opinion should not be discounted solely because the source lacks that familiarity.

Mendoza v. Saul · filed 2020-09-11(c)(1), (c)(6)

First, the Court notes that while the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant's] case record” is a relevant factor in weighing a medical opinion, the opinions of examining physicians and psychologists should not be dismissed on that basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a consultative examiner’s opinion is not automatically entitled to controlling weight and receives weight only to the extent it is supported by the record.

PEREZ v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-11(c)

Further, a consultative examiner’s opinion is not automatically entitled to controlling weight, but is properly accorded weight only to the extent the record supports it. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, while subsection (c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-15(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; 3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; 4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) direct that medical opinions receive more weight when supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the record as a whole.

Szefler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-17(c)(3), (c)(4)

Good reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion include its inconsistency with the record as a whole and the absence of supporting clinical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion . . . the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”); id. § 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.”); ... Thus, the ALJ could reasonably reject Dr. Kang’s opinions if they were inconsistent with the record or unsupported by his own findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to an examining medical source's opinion than to a non-examining source's opinion.

Anders v. Saul · filed 2020-09-21(c)(1)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (providing that an ALJ should generally give more weight to the opinion of an examining medical source than to the opinion of a non-examining source). The court cannot trace the ALJ *s reasoning in giving partial weight to Dr. Farhad’s opinion and significant weight to the non-examining consultants’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to weigh it using the listed treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

Bommicino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion, (4) consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to the medical opinion of a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not examine the claimant.

Chrisman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-25(c)(1)

Regarding the opinion evidence about plaintiff’s mental health, the Court notes that the ALJ rejected the opinion of both doctors who examined plaintiff (giving improper reasons in doing so) in favor of the opinions of doctors who only reviewed plaintiff’s records. This was contrary to defendant’s own directions for pre-2017 applications. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs adjudicators to give greater weight to medical opinions supported by more relevant evidence and better explanations.

Murray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-13(c)(3)

However, the opinions of Ms. Miller were not well-explained, and this is a germane reason for discounting or rejecting them. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to medical opinions or otherwise make the reasoning followable when the opinions may affect the outcome.

Swearingin v. Saul · filed 2020-10-05(f)(2)

In doing so, the ALJ must “explain the weight given to opinions” or must “otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1)-(2) directs an ALJ to give generally greater weight to examining than non-examining opinions and greater weight to treating than examining non-treating opinions.

(SS) Hoesing-Schulz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-28(d)(1)-(2)

“Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are afforded more weight than those of non-examining physicians, and the opinions of examining non-treating physicians are afforded less weight than those of treating physicians. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When supported by other record evidence, the opinions of state agency medical consultants receive great weight, and more supporting relevant evidence—especially medical signs and laboratory findings—warrants more weight.

Velez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-15(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)

As is widely known, state agency consultants are highly qualified medical personnel who are experts in the evaluation of the medical issues involved in disability claims and whose conclusions are to be afforded great weight if they are supported by other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i); see also Coggon v. Barnhart, 354 F. Supp. 2d 40, 54 (D. Mass. 2005); 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(e)(2) (“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”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports otherwise, while section 404.1527(c)(4) permits greater weight for opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Vaughn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-03(c)(2), (c)(4)

The Eleventh Circuit requires an ALJ to give the medical opinions of a treating physician “substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the contrary.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... An ALJ is not required to give a treating physician’s testimony substantial or considerable weight if: (1) it is not supported by other evidence in the record; (2) the evidentiary record supports a contrary finding; or (3) the treating physician’s opinion is either conclusory or inconsistent with their own treatment records. ... Generally, the more consistent a physician’s opinion is within the record as a whole, the more weight an ALJ may place on that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Here, Dr. Lewis and Dr. Rogers each examined Plaintiff only once. ... Accordingly, the opinions of Dr. Rogers and Dr. Lewis are not entitled to any special deference or consideration.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) makes a medical source’s familiarity with other information in the claimant’s case record relevant to the weight given to the source’s opinion.

Moon v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-02-23(c)

The extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) directs an ALJ to generally give more weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s field, while treating specialization as one factor in weighing the opinion.

Gillespie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-03(c)(5)

However, a doctor’s specialization is only one of several factors that an ALJ must consider when determining the weight that an expert’s medical opinion merits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)'s general preference for opinions from examining medical sources applies to medical opinions, not to opinions from an “other source” such as an NP.

Mather v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-08(c)(1)

As Defendant properly points out, this regulation applies to medical opinions, which NP Walters did not provide because she is considered an “other source.” (Def. Br. at 16.) Plaintiff’s argument therefore fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Ridgeway v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-29(c)

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally favors giving more weight to an examining physician’s opinion than to a nonexamining physician’s opinion, but the preference is not absolute.

Montano v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(c)(1)

“While the Commissioner’s regulations provide that the opinions of examining physicians like Dr. [Madsen] are generally entitled to more weight than the opinions of consultative physicians like [Dr. Frommelt], see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(3), that rule is not absolute . . . .” ... Here, the ALJ provided adequate reasons for declining to credit Dr. Madsen’s opinion, demonstrating sufficiently that Dr. Madsen’s opinion was contrary to his clinical examination findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to a treating physician's opinion than to an examining physician's opinion, and greater weight to an examining physician's opinion than to a non-examining physician's opinion.

Robinson v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(c)(1)-(2)

In evaluating medical opinions, the regulations distinguish among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians; (2) examining physicians; and (3) non-examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (e); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). “Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not give a mental health counselor’s opinion the controlling or significant weight reserved to an acceptable medical source, although an ALJ may still consider it and need not give it the same deference as a treating physician or other acceptable source.

Waugaman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)

In this case, the ALJ noted that M.H.C. Tooles, as a mental health counselor, does not qualify under the relevant regulations as an acceptable medical source whose opinion is entitled to controlling or significant weight, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), nor does the Plaintiff point to the use by M.H.C. Tooles of clinically acceptable diagnostic techniques. ... Although “the ALJ is certainly free to consider the opinion of [other medical sources] in making his overall assessment of a claimant’s impairments and residual abilities, those opinions do not demand the same deference as those of a treating physician,” or other acceptable source. Genier v. Astrue, 298 Fed.Appx. 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source medical opinions the greatest weight, including controlling weight when they are well-supported and consistent with the record, while ranking examining opinions above nonexamining opinions.

Lassen v. Saul · filed 2021-04-04(c)(1)-(2)

In Social Security cases, the amount of weight given to medical opinions generally varies depending on the type of medical professional who provided the opinions, namely “treating physicians,” “examining physicians,” and “nonexamining physicians.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) & (e), 404.1502, 404.1513(a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c)(1)-(2) & (e), 416.902, 416.913(a); Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (citation and quotation marks omitted). A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight, and may be “controlling” if it is “well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to medical opinions with better explanations and makes the weight of a nonexamining source’s opinion depend on its supporting explanation.

NOVA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-04-30(c)(3)

The ALJ accorded partial weight to Dr. Perdomo’s opinion not because Dr. Perdomo failed to use a function-by-function form or failed to satisfy a post-facto requirement, but because Dr. Perdomo’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s mental capacity for work-related activities lacked sufficient explanation. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3) & 416.927(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. Furthermore, because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.”). The Court thus finds no error in the ALJ’s reasoning for discounting portions of Dr. Perdomo’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to treating-source and specialist opinions and requires ALJs to consider state-agency consultants’ findings as opinion evidence except for the ultimate disability determination.

Reeves v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-28(d)(2), (d)(5), and (f)(2)(i)

According to the SSA’s regulations, it generally “give[s] 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Indeed, the ALJ “must specify what weight is given to a treating physician’s opinion and any reason for giving it no weight, and failure to do so is reversible error.” MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir.1986). With regard to specialists, the SSA “generally give[s] more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5). Additionally, an ALJ “must consider findings of [non-examining] State agency medical and psychological consultants . . . as opinion evidence, except for the ultimate determination about whether you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) directs adjudicators to give greater weight to a specialist's opinion on medical issues within the specialist's field than to a nonspecialist's opinion.

Wisner v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-09(d)(5)

Because Dr. Meadows is a specialist in the field of psychiatry, his opinion is entitled to more weight in this area. ... "We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a medical specialist." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) generally gives an examining physician’s opinion more weight than a non-examining physician’s opinion.

Kerwin v. Barnhart · filed 2007-08-08(d)

M oreover, an examining physician’s opinion is normally entitled to more weight than a non-examining physician’s opinion. See Robinson, 366 F.3d at 1084 (“The opinion of an examining physician is generally entitled to less weight than that of a treating physician, and the opinion of an agency physician who has never seen the claimant is entitled to the least weight of all.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) and SSR 96-6p, 1996 W L 374180, at *2). Under these standards, the A LJ’s determination is legally flawed. The ALJ essentially adopted most of the non-examining consultants’ opinions without discussing the contrary opinions of Dr. Edgar, the examining consultant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For opinions from nonexamining sources, the weight given depends on how much supporting explanation they provide.

Coleman v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-16(d)(3)

The SSA regulations recognize “because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [the claimant], the weight [the SSA] will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). Dr. Bahn failed to provide any supporting explanation for such a minimal restriction in light of Coleman’s latex allergy. Given the above, we agree with Coleman the ALJ improperly relied on Dr.. Bahn’s opinion to the extent it failed to address Coleman’s latex allergy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the adjudicator to consider factors including the treatment relationship and evidentiary support when deciding the weight to give a medical opinion.

Flaherty v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-03(d)

The ALJ gave no weight to Dr. Van de Graaff’s opinion that Ms. Flaherty’s migraines were disabling because he did not have a treating relationship with her, he based his opinion on a single, subjective report given to him by Ms. Flaherty, and his opinion was not supported by the evidence of record. We conclude that the ALJ’s reasons for not crediting Dr. Van de Graff’s opinion are in accordance with the governing regulation and case law. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (listing factors to be considered when “deciding the weight [to be given] to any medical opinion”); White v. Barnhart, 287 F.3d 903, 908 (10th Cir. 2001) (stating sufficient reasons to disregard physician’s opinion included lack of support for findings, opinion was inconsistent with other medical opinions, and treatment relationship with claimant was relatively brief).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to evaluate the relative weight of medical opinions rather than discard one solely because the claimant obtained it at counsel’s request.

Powell v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-12(d)

We agree with Powell that the ALJ should not have discarded this opinion solely because she went to the mental health center “at her counsel’s request.” See generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (explaining the relative weight an ALJ must accord medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The more relevant evidence a medical source provides to support an opinion, the more weight the opinion receives.

Kager v. Astrue · filed 2007-11-26(d)(3)

Accordingly, Dr. Blaski’s disability opinion was well supported by objective evidence and was required to be given substantial weight by the ALJ. ... “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion ... the more weight we will give that opinion.”

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions greater weight than one-time consultative examinations because treating sources provide a more complete longitudinal perspective.

Goldthrite v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-12(d)(2)

“The reports of individual examinations are generally given less weight because they lack the, unique perspective to the medical evidence’ that a treating physician’s opinion would provide.”

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion and to explain the weight assigned to state-agency medical consultants.

Jones v. Barnhart · filed 2008-03-27(d)(2), (f)(2)(ii)

Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ is required to explain the weight given to the opinions of claimant’s treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that “we will always give good reason in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”) Generally, the opinion of a treating physician who is familiar with the claimant’s impairments, treatments, and responses should be given great weight in disability determinations. ... If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she is required to explain the weight given to the opinions of State agency medical consultants or other program physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation generally gives examining or treating physicians more weight than non-examining or non-treating physicians, but permits discounting a medical opinion for good cause, including when it conflicts with the record.

Smith v. Social Security Administration · filed 2008-04-03(d)(1), (2), (5)

The opinions of examining or treating physicians generally are given more weight than non-examining or non-treating physicians unless “good cause” is shown. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (2), (5); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Good cause exists to discredit a physician’s testimony when a physician’s opinion is contrary to the evidence contained in the record. Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. Additionally, the Commissioner may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). ... Given all the evidence tending to show that Smith was not in disabling pain, substantial evidence justified the ALJ’s decision not to accord much weight to Dr. Oblena’s December 2002 report, which stated that Smith would have difficulty working due to her constant pain. ... The ALJ was entitled to weigh the evidence, and his decision to disregard Dr. Oblena’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) generally gives greater weight to medical opinions from physicians with a more significant clinical relationship to the claimant.

Carmickle v. Ssa · filed 2008-07-23(d)

Those physicians with the most significant clinical relationship with the claimant are generally entitled to more weight than those physicians with lesser relationships. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). As such, the ALJ may only reject a treating or examining physician’s uncontradicted medical opinion based on “clear and convincing reasons.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. Where such an opinion is contradicted, however, it may be rejected for “specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) generally gives greater weight to opinions from physicians with a more significant clinical relationship with the claimant and requires specific standards for rejecting treating or examining physicians' opinions.

Carmickle v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2008-07-24(d)

Those physicians with the most significant clinical relationship with the claimant are generally entitled to more weight than those physicians with lesser relationships. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). As such, the ALJ may only reject a treating or examining physician's uncontradicted medical opinion based on "clear and convincing reasons." Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31. Where such an opinion is contradicted, however, it may be rejected for "specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors in deciding the weight given to a medical opinion, even when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Carpenter v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-25(d)

But the ALJ “was still required to consider his opinion” in light of the other record evidence and the factors set out in the regulations, which the ALJ did not do. Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 764 (10th Cir. 2003); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (“Unless we give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) gives greater weight to a medical opinion when the source supports it with relevant evidence, such as medical signs.

Haught v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-23(d)(3)

The ALJ expressed valid reasons for giving the medical-source statement little weight, including that it was not supported by Dr. Jirovec’s own treatment records: the records contained few abnormal mental-assessment findings, and these were noted principally when Haught reportedly stopped taking her medication; the records also noted that Haught’s symptoms were controlled by medication when she took it; and Dr. Jirovec did not document any psychologically based limitations. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (more weight will be given to opinion when medical source presents relevant evidence, such as medical signs, in support of opinion).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits a medical opinion to receive significant weight only when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Navan v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-16(d)(2)

A medical opinion may be given significant weight only if it is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d) generally does not entitle a psychologist’s opinion to great weight when the psychologist has never examined the claimant.

Wedge v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-06(d)

The opinion of a psychologist who has never examined the claimant is not usually entitled to great weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) does not make a reviewing, non-examining specialist’s opinion displace a treating or examining physician’s findings.

Mercer v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-17(d)

In addition, although Mercer is correct that a specialist is often accorded greater weight than a non-specialist, Social Security regulations do not suggest that a reviewing, non-examining specialist’s opinion displaces a treating or examining physician’s findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits a medical opinion to receive significant weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

POUPORE v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-16(d)(2)

A medical opinion may be given significant weight only if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, while every medical opinion must still be evaluated.

Eaton v. SSA · filed 2009-07-07(d)(2)

When making disability decisions, ALJs are reguired to give a treating physician's opinion "controlling weight" if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic technigues and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In short, regardless of its source, a court "will evaluate every medical opinion" it receives. § 404.1527(d). ... Nurse Thompson's opinion is the outlier in a record replete with evidence unsupportive of her view; therefore, the ALJ was not acting improperly when he disregarded her opinion that Justine was severely limited in her ability to care for herself.

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

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on factors including supportability and consistency, generally giving examining or treating opinions more weight absent good cause and assessing non-examining opinions by their consistency with the record.

Poellnitz v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-21(d)

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ is directed to consider many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is amply supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and a doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Generally, the opinions of examining or treating physicians are given more weight than non-examining or non-treating physicians unless “good cause” is shown. See id. § 404.1527(d)(1), (2), (5); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Good cause exists to discredit a physician’s testimony when it is contrary to or unsupported by the evidence of record, or it is inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240-41. Accordingly, the ALJ may reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion. Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985). Where an ALJ articulates specific reasons for failing to accord the opinion of a treating or examining physician controlling weight and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence, there is no reversible error. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1212. ... The weight to be given a non-examining physician’s opinion depends, among other things, on the extent to which it is supported by clinical findings and is consistent with other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)-(4); see also Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the ALJ did not err in relying on a consulting physician’s opinion where it was consistent with the medical evidence and findings of the examining physician). Generally, the more consistent a physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight and ALJ will place on that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4). Thus, the opinion of a non-examining physician is entitled to little weight when it contradicts the opinion of an examining physician. Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 1988). Where, however, a non-examining physician’s assessment does not contradict the examining physician’s report, the ALJ does not err in relying on the non-examining physician’s report. See Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584-85 (11th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, the opinion of a non-examining physician, standing alone, does not constitute substantial evidence. Lamb, 847 F.2d at 703.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(5) directs the Commissioner to give generally greater weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s area than to a non-specialist’s opinion.

Blair-Bain v. Astrue · filed 2009-12-07(d)(5)

Furthermore, the Commissioner “generally give[s] more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5). “Specialized knowledge may be particularly important with respect to a disease such as fibromyalgia that is poorly understood within much of the medical community.” Benecke, 379 F.3d at 594 n.4. “Rheumatology is the relevant specialty for fibromyalgia.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing an opinion from a nonexamining source, the ALJ should consider the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations for the opinion.

Hickman Ex Rel. M.A.H. v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-27

“[Bjecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions”. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions and requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence.

Walker v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-10(d)(2), (b)

Although more weight is generally given “to opinions from treating sources,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2006), an ALJ must “always consider ... medical opinions ... together with the rest of the relevant evidence” submitted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... Based on her review of all relevant evidence, the ALJ determined that the state reviewer’s opinion with respect to Walker’s ability to walk and stand was “generally consistent with the record.” (R. at 16.) Walker’s claim that the ALJ “uncritically adopted” the state reviewer’s opinion is clearly contradicted by the fact that the ALJ modified the state reviewer’s opinion to reflect Walker’s physical limitations with respect to reaching, handling and fingering. I am satisfied that the ALJ’s conclusions regarding the state reviewer’s opinion were supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) directs an ALJ to give more weight to an examining source’s opinion than to a non-examining source’s opinion.

Cruz v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-27(d)(1)

The Code directs ALJs to “give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined [claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has not.” ... The ALJ gave more weight to this non-examining professional than to an examining physician, without explaining the reasons behind this determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using regulatory factors, generally giving more weight to treating-source opinions because of their longitudinal perspective.

Cirelli v. Astrue · filed 2010-11-18(d)

Section 404.1527(d), SSR 96-2, and SSR 96-5 stand “for the general proposition that more weight will be given to a treating physician’s opinion partially because of its longitudinal view.” ... Given the ALJ’s consideration of the factors in Section 404.1527(d) when deciding how much weight to afford the non-treating source medical opinions, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s decisions were not supported by “substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s supported, consistent opinion, while opinions on whether an impairment meets a listing are not entitled to special significance because that determination is reserved to the ALJ.

Molnar v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-26(d)(2), (e)(2), (e)(3)

Whether an impairment meets a listing is a question reserved to the ALJ, and, thus, Dr. Mills’s opinion would not be entitled to special significance even if that opinion was as described by Ms. Molnar. ... But Dr. Hinck was her treating physician, and his assessment of her work-related limitations was entitled to controlling weight if supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to examining and treating physicians than to non-examining and non-treating physicians absent good cause, and treats state-agency consultants' findings and opinions as non-examining-source opinion evidence.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-04-11(d)(1), (d)(2), (f)(2)(i)

Generally, the opinions of examining or treating physicians are given more weight than non-examining or non-treating physicians unless “good cause” is shown. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (2); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Good cause exists to discredit a physician’s testimony when a physician’s opinion is conclusory, contrary to or unsupported by the evidence of record, or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records. Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. “[F]indings and other opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants . . . [are considered] as opinion evidence . . .” of non-examining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) requires the weight given to a non-examining source's opinion to depend on its supporting explanations and consideration of all pertinent evidence, including opinions from treating and other examining sources.

Dunkle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-05-19(d)(3)

“... because non-examining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for the opinions. We will evaluate the degree to which these opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including opinions of treating and other examining sources.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) gives greater weight to treating-source medical opinions than to examining-source opinions, and greater weight to both than to non-treating, non-examining opinions.

Gunther v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2011-03-29(d)

Social Security regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: 1) those who treat the claimant; 2) those who examine, but do not treat; and 3) those who neither examine nor treat. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); ... A treating physician’s opinions carry more weight than those of an examining physician, and both treating and examining physicians’ opinions carry more weight than those of a non-treating, non-examining physician, such as the practitioners retained by the Commissioner to review Ms. Gunther’s records.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Serrano v. SSA · filed 2011-07-15(d)(2)

Where an ALJ’s RFC assessment is at odds with a medical source opinion, he must explain his reasons for disregarding that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at * 7 ; Marshall v . Astrue, N o . 08-cv-147-JD, 2008 WL 5396295, at *4 (D.N.H. Dec. 2 2 , 2008) (reversing ALJ decision because treating source opinion was “simply overlooked”).

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).

Under § 404.1527(d)(2), a treating physician’s opinion is controlling 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.

Drake v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-02(d)(2)

First, Drake claims that the ALJ gave undue weight to the opinion of Dr. Nader Wassef, who performed a consultative physical exam of Drake, and insufficient weight to the opinions of her treating physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (providing that a “treating” physician’s opinion is “controlling” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record). However, as the District Court recognized, in this case “the opinions of the treating physicians do not contradict Dr. Wassef’s assessment.” As a result, the ALJ did not err in assigning great weight to Dr. Wassef’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).

An opinion from a medical source that is supported by objective medical signs and laboratory findings is entitled to greater weight, and consistency with the objective evidence warrants more weight.

Salazar v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-13(d)(3)

Further, where, as here, a medical source’s opinion is supported by objective medical signs and laboratory findings, the opinion is entitled to greater weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). NP Probst’s opinion, with which Dr. Melcher concurs, regarding Salazar’s limited ability to use her hands and fingers is consistent with the laboratory tests; treatment notes regarding Salazar’s red, swollen joints; and ongoing treatment with medications. The regulations require that more weight be given to the opinion of a medical source that is consistent with the objective evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is disabled as non-dispositive and does not require significant or controlling weight for a chiropractor’s view because a chiropractor is not a medical source.

Miles v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2012-03-15(a)(2), (e)(1)

But that evidence does not guarantee the success of her claim. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1) (clarifying that a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is “disabled” is not dispositive, as that ultimate conclusion is a regulatory determination left to the ALJ). ... However, an ALJ has no duty to give significant or controlling weight to a chiropractor’s views because, for SSA purposes, a chiropractor is not a “medical source” who can offer medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513, 416.913, 404.1527(a)(2); Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides the framework for weighing medical opinions and gives greater deference to acceptable treating sources than to opinions from physician assistants.

Molina v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-02(d)(2)

Physician’s assistants are defined as “other sources,” § 404.1513(d), and are not entitled to the same deference, see § 404.1527; SSR 06-03p. ... Some language in the ALJ’s opinion suggests the ALJ may have considered Wheelwright to be a medically acceptable source; specifically, the ALJ discussed the deference generally given to treating sources under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Even assuming the ALJ erred in this regard, the error was harmless because the ALJ gave specific, legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence in the record for discounting Wheelwright’s testimony.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ who declines to give a medical opinion controlling weight to consider the physician’s specialization, treatment relationship, examinations, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record.

Chaney-Everett v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-06(d)

When controlling weight is not accorded the opinion, the ALJ must consider the specialization of the physician, the length of the treatment relationship, the nature and frequency of the examinations, the evidence offered in support of the opinion, and the consistency of that opinion with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions that are consistent with the record, supported by relevant evidence, and well explained.

Haggerty v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-16(b), (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6)

In his written decision, the ALJ discounted the medical opinions based on specific, legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ was specific when he compiled a long list of Haggerty’s activities, which included driving, cooking, and volunteering at the fire department. The ALJ’s use of those activities to discount inconsistent medical opinions was a legitimate reason. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), (c)(4), (6); 416.927(b), (c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”), (6). The ALJ’s discounting of Dr. Michel’s conclusion because it was not well supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques was also a legitimate reason. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), (3), 416.927(c)(2), (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. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally favors the opinion of a specialist on medical issues within the specialist’s area over the opinion of a non-specialist.

Miller v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-18(c)(5)

Further, Ms. Miller’s assertion—without citation to any authority—that a psychologist is qualified to render an opinion regarding a claimant’s physical impairment, is without merit. See Buxton v. Halter, 246 F.3d 762, 775 (6th Cir. 2001) (observing that a psychologist “was not qualified to diagnose” “underlying physical conditions”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist”), id. § 416.927(d)(5) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider state-agency medical opinions and explain the weight given to them, while recognizing that a non-examining source generally carries less weight than a treating specialist.

McKinzey v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-03(d), (f)

But when the evidence comes in the form of a medical opinion from a state agency physician, the agency’s own regulations and rules require that the ALJ “not ignore these opinions and must explain the weight given to the opinions in their decisions.” S.S.R. 96-6p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). ... While Dr. Vincent’s opinion is entitled to consideration as a non-examining source, it does not carry significant weight in comparison to the opinion of a treating specialist like Dr. Pardubsky. 20 C.F.R. § 1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to an acceptable medical source's opinion than to observations from non-medical sources.

Lubin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2013-02-08

Finally, Dr. Shields’s medical opinion is given more weight than the brief observations documented by the non-treating, non-examining, non-medical disability investigators. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (the opinion of an acceptable medical source is given more weight than that of non-medical sources, as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d), 416.913(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that an opinion based on a limited or brief provider relationship may receive limited weight.

Powell v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-26(d)(2)(i)-(ii)

Contrary to the Plaintiffs argument, however, the social security regulations state that a medical source opinion that is based on a limited, brief provider relationship militates in favor of granting such opinion limited weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii). The ALJ here did not refuse to consider Baker’s GAF score, she merely gave it less weight due to the fact that it was provided during an initial visit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider an examining doctor’s opinion but does not require giving it controlling weight.

Henderson v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2013-03-26(c)

As discussed above, see supra III.B.1.(a)., the ALJ did not err in affording little weight to Dr. Mount, a non-treating physician whose opinions contradicted other medical evidence and testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The opinion of an examining doctor must be considered, but need not be given controlling weight. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires the ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions supported by better explanations, making supporting explanations especially important for nonexamining sources.

Morgan v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-21(c)(3)

An ALJ must evaluate a physician’s explanations for his opinion, and the weight given to an opinion depends on the strength of such explanations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”). This is particularly true for the opinions of nonexamining physicians, like Dr. Hoskins. See id. (“[B]ecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not give a one-time examining physician the deference reserved for a treating physician.

Minichino v. Colvin · filed 2013-06-28(c)

As a one-time examining physician he is not entitled to treating physician deference.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions, but an ALJ need not give substantial or considerable weight to a nontreating physician's opinion that is unsupported by the record.

Stone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-11-14(c)(2)

The ALJ did not err in making this determination because, as found by the ALJ, Dr. Watkins’s opinion was not supported by the record and, because she was not a treating physician, her opinion was not required to be given substantial or considerable weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ did not err in according Dr. Watkins’s opinion less weight than Dr. Saad’s.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally favors an examining source, but the weight assigned to a medical opinion depends on its consistency and objective support, the quality of its explanation, and the source's specialization.

Givens v. Colvin · filed 2013-12-17(c)

Although an ALJ generally affords “more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined” a claimant than to the opinion of a source who has not, the weight ultimately given to that opinion depends on its consistency with and objective medical support in the record; the quality of the explanation the source gave for the opinion; and the source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Roddy, 705 F.3d at 637.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight, while subsection (d) excludes opinions on whether a claimant is disabled from the category of medical opinions because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Gray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-12-30(c)(2), (d)

... see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (providing that medical opinion treating sources are entitled to controlling weight if well-supported by medically acceptable objective evidence and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record). ... Further, whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work is an issue reserved to the Commissioner as an administrative finding, and a medical source opinion on this issue is not a “medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to weigh all other evidence when a medical opinion is inconsistent with the record or internally inconsistent, allowing the opinion to be rejected when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.

Halloran v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-08(c)(2)

As he was required to do, the ALJ considered all of the evidence, including Dr. Welsh’s opinions, and weighed the evidence to resolve any conflicts. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“If any of the evidence in your case record, including any medical opinion(s), is inconsistent with other evidence or is internally inconsistent, we will weigh all the other evidence and see whether we can decide whether you are disabled based on the evidence we have.”); ... The opinions of a physician may be assigned little or no weight when good cause is shown. Good cause may permit an ALJ to discount the weight of a physician’s opinions relative to other experts where the physician’s evidence is conclusory, unsupported by medically acceptable clinical, laboratory, or diagnostic techniques, or otherwise unsupported by the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion 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.

Quimby v. SSA · filed 2013-11-08(c)(2)

If the ALJ concludes that a treating source'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,” that opinion must be given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion using all regulatory factors even when it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Cross v. Colvin · filed 2014-03-12(c)(2)-(6)

Yet even when a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference “and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 and 416.972.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the regulation’s factors when determining the proper weight to give them.

Kinzer v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-10

On remand, the district court should instruct the ALJ to (1) accord proper weight to Ross’s and Biscoe’s opinions using the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; (2) provide specific and legitimate reasons if the ALJ decides to reject those opinions; and (3) make a function-by-function assessment of Kinzer’s residual function capacity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(3) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based in part on the examining relationship and how well the opinion is explained and supported.

Harlow v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2014-06-04(c)(1)–(3)

First, the ALJ properly interpreted and relied on the opinion of Dr. Duane Kolilis, an examining physician, and gave minimal weight to the opinion of Dr. Peter LeBray, a non-examining physician, because Dr. LeBray failed to clearly explain or adequately support his finding that Harlow suffered from moderate limitations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(3); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631–32 (9th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain the weight assigned to opinions from the listed medical sources.

Domm v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-23(e)(2)(ii)

However, we remind the Commissioner that where a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the regulations direct the ALJ to explain in the decision the weight given to the opinions of nonexamining state agency consultants, treating sources, nontreating sources, and other nonexamining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404. 1527(e)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) permits an ALJ to give greater weight to opinions from licensed physicians and psychologists than to evidence from other sources.

Howard v. Colvin · filed 2014-10-22(d)(4)

SSA regulations state that licensed physicians and psychologists are among the “acceptable medical sources” who can provide evidence at an impairment, and that their opinions may be weighed more heavily than evidence from “other sources,” such as nurse practitioners.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors, including the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole, when determining how much weight to give the opinion.

Eyre v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-09-30(c)

In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s “opinion is with the record as a whole”; and (5) the physician’s specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider that an opinion is not from an acceptable medical source when assigning it little weight.

Bifarella v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-30(c)

The ALJ may consider the mere fact that an opinion is not from an “acceptable medical source” in giving it little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) places treating-source opinions at the top of the medical-opinion hierarchy, gives examining-source opinions more weight than non-examining opinions, and places non-examining opinions on the lowest rung.

Strole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-10-07(d)(1)-(2)

The Commissioner’s regulations establish a hierarchy of acceptable medical source opinions. The hierarchy begins at the top with treating physicians or psychologists, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), § 416.927(d)(2). Next in the hierarchy are examining physicians and psychologists, who often see and examine claimants only once. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), § 416.927(d). In general, more weight is given to examining medical source opinions than is given to the opinions of non-examining medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). Still, non-examining physicians’ opinions are on the lowest rung of the hierarchy of medical source opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when the source presents more relevant supporting evidence, especially medical and laboratory findings.

Andrew Dennis Collard, Claimant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant · filed 2015-01-07(c)(3)

None of those medical reports from around the time of Dr. Malonso’s Medical Source Statement contain any suggestion that claimant’s impairments affect him in the profound ways suggested by Dr. Malonso. And, as the ALJ noted, Dr. Malonso did not cite to any objective clinical or diagnostic findings to support his assessment. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3) and 416.927(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical findings and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to exercise discretion rather than treat a consulting physician’s opinion as binding, and requires consideration of findings and other opinions from state agency psychologists.

Barry v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-21(d)(2), (e)(2)(i)

Moreover, Dr. Hill’s opinion in this regard did not bind the ALJ, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), who was entitled to exercise discretion in reviewing the record evidence in its totality and in evaluating Barry’s statements about her symptoms and limitations, see id. § 404.1529(c)(4); Genier v. Astrue, 606 F.3d at 49; see also SSR 96–7p, 1996 WL 374186, at *5 (stating that ALJ must evaluate claimant’s statements and statements and reports of medical sources, along with any other relevant information in case record, and “draw appropriate inferences and conclusions about the credibility of the [claimant’s] statements”). ... As discussed above, substantial evidence—including Barry’s own statements; treatment notes from her physicians; and the opinion of Dr. Andrews, a state agency psychologist, who concluded that Barry had no significant limitations in performing activities within a schedule, maintaining regular attendance, or being punctual within customary tolerances—supported the ALJ’s challenged RFC assessment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i) (stating that ALJ must consider findings and other opinions of state agency psychologists).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) requires an ALJ to consider an unexamined medical expert’s testimony alongside other record evidence, while § 404.1527(c)(2) supplies factors for weighing medical opinions.

Beason v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-19(e), (c)(2)

Because the medical expert neither examined nor treated the claimant, the ALJ was required only to “consider” the expert’s testimony in conjunction with other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Here, the ALJ weighed the medical expert’s testimony against the reports of three other non-examining consultants and assigned less weight to the medical expert’s testimony because it was less consistent with Beason’s course of treatment and the record as a whole. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (providing factors for the ALJ to consider in assigning relative weight to medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally assigns the greatest weight to opinions from treating sources, less weight to opinions from examining sources, and the least weight to opinions from sources who neither treated nor examined the claimant.

McLaughlin v. SSA · filed 2015-06-08(c)

As he was obligated to do, the ALJ evaluated Dr. Ford’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). He gave that opinion limited weight, and gave two reasons for doing so. ... The hierarchy of medical source opinions described in the Social Security regulations provides that, generally speaking, the greatest weight should be placed on opinions from treating sources, with less weight placed on opinions from medical sources who merely examine a claimant, and the least weight of all on opinions from medical sources who have neither treated nor examined a claimant. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those regulations would have allowed the ALJ in this case to discount Dr. Ford’s opinion and give greater weight to an opinion from an examining source or a treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) makes controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion conditional on adequate clinical and laboratory support and consistency with other substantial evidence.

Robinson v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-05(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight under the regulations unless it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic findings and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an adjudicator to give greater weight to a medical opinion when the source supports it with relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Brown v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-30(c)

“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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) requires an adjudicator to give more weight to a medical opinion from a source who has examined the claimant than to one from a source who has not.

Payton v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-24(c)(1)

The two reviewing physicians did not review Payton’s entire medical record, and their opinions should be discounted to some degree because neither of them examined Payton. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the rest of the record and generally give a supported, consistent treating-physician opinion controlling weight, unless good cause justifies less weight.

Whitton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2016-02-12(b), (c)(2)

To determine whether a disability exists, the ALJ considers the medical opinions in the record, in addition to the other relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The ALJ must give the opinion of a treating physician “substantial or considerable weight” unless there is good cause not to do so. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that the opinion of a treating physician will be given controlling weight if it is supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record). ... We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s articulation of good cause for giving no weight to Dr. Grant’s opinion that Whitton was severely limited in all areas of functioning. ... We therefore reject Whitton’s contentions on appeal that the ALJ substituted his own opinion for that of Dr. Grant, as the record shows that the ALJ considered all of the medical evidence, clearly articulated reasons for rejecting Dr. Grant’s opinion, and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence. ... Based on the inconsistencies between Dr. Grant’s opinion and the record, including Dr. Grant’s own treatment notes, the ALJ had good cause for assigning no weight to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole and does not require express discussion of every listed factor when the rationale and good reasons for the weight assigned are discernible.

Nelson v. SSA · filed 2016-03-30(c)

However, an ALJ need not “explicitly take account of all the factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight to give a treating physician's opinion so long as the court is ‘able to discern the rationale the ALJ used to reach his determination and that determination is founded on ‘good reasons’ that are supported by substantial record evidence.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that treating and examining physicians' opinions typically deserve significant weight, but they do not bind the ALJ, who must make the residual functional capacity determination after considering support and consistency with the record.

Kanakis v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2016-05-23(d)(1)-(2), (c)(3)-(4)

While Kanakis is correct that the opinions of treating and examining physicians typically deserve significant weight, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), “the law is clear that [such] opinion[s] . . . do[] not bind the ALJ on the issue of functional capacity.” Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted). Rather, the ALJ, and “not treating or examining physicians . . . [,] must make the ultimate . . . [residual functional capacity] determinations,” id., taking into consideration multiple factors, including the extent to which a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and supported by relevant evidence, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and weigh medical opinions using the specified factors, give a supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and clearly explain any decision to discount it.

Marshall v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2016-09-13(b), (c), (c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “substantial or considerable weight” unless there is good cause not to do so. ... Good cause exists when a treating physician’s opinion is not supported by the evidence, the evidence supports a different conclusion, or the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with his own medical records. ... The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for disregarding a treating physician’s opinion. ... The ALJ must also state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the adjudicator to weigh a medical opinion based on its support in relevant evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and the source’s specialization in the relevant medical issue.

Davern v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2016-11-07(c)(3)–(4), (c)(5)

The weight due a medical opinion depends on a variety of factors, including the degree to which relevant evidence supports the opinion and whether it is consistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(4); ... The ALJ reasoned that Dr. Schenk, as the treating orthopedic surgeon, was the specialist on Davern’s lumbar spine problems, and she applied the general rule that “more weight is 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). ... We conclude that the ALJ was entitled to give greater weight to Dr. Schenk’s opinions than to Dr. DeWitt’s and that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s findings, including consistent medical assessments and Davern’s own reports of his activities.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) permits an ALJ to give more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues related to the specialist’s area than to the opinion of a non-specialist.

Beede v SSA · filed 2017-01-31(c)(5)

The ALJ discounted Dr. Graf’s opinion on this score on the permissible ground that Dr. Graf is an orthopedic surgeon, not a mental health practitioner. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not bar an ALJ from giving great weight to a medical opinion that considered only some of the claimant’s conditions.

Keys v. Berryhill · filed 2017-02-09

The agency regulations do not prevent the ALJ from according great weight to a doctor who has considered only some of the claimant’s conditions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, although the regulations do require the ALJ herself to consider all impairments in combination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source opinion that is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, gives greater weight to examining than non-examining sources, and permits consideration of specified factors when weighing medical opinions.

Staymate v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-03-07(c)(1), (c)(2)–(6)

This standard requires the ALJ to give a treating source opinion controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... “If an ALJ decides to give a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight, [he] must give ‘good reasons’ for doing so that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight given to the treating physician’s opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... First, as between an examining source and a non-examining source, the examining source will be given more weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). In addition to this examining relationship, the ALJ may consider “specialization, consistency, [] supportability, . . . [and] [o]ther factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the opinion.’” ... Here, also, we find that the ALJ adequately explained his decision to give little weight to a portion of Mr. Bousquet’s opinion. In reaching his decision, the ALJ properly relied on reports of Staymate’s daily living and on the notes from Dr. Andronic’s treatment sessions. This decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 recognizes state-agency medical and psychological consultants as highly qualified specialists and experts in Social Security disability evaluation, but that designation does not by itself establish an individual consultant’s particular knowledge of Social Security programs.

Garcia v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-23

Although the regulations do provide: “State agency medical and psychological consultants ... are highly qualified physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, there is no evidence in the record that Drs. Sever or Steinhardt had any particular knowledge of the Social Security programs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the adjudicator to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, and other regulatory factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-06(c)

Because the regulations mandate that a hearing officer consider examining relationship, treatment relationship, and supportability in considering any medical opinion, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), the hearing officer considered appropriate factors in determining the varying weights to accord to Dr. Fang’s assessments.

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 supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(d)(1) reserves the determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner.

Lupardus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-10-17(c)(2), (d)(1)

When evaluating the medical opinion evidence, the ALJ must give the opinion of a treating physician “substantial or considerable weight” unless there is good cause not to do so. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that the opinion of a treating physician will be given controlling weight if it is supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record). ... Further, Grissinger’s statement that Lupardus could not work is a finding reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (explaining that the finding of whether the claimant is disabled is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the specific weight given to medical opinions after analyzing the regulatory factors.

Mcafee v. Colvin · filed 2017-12-15(c)(1)-(6)

The key requirement is that the ALJ must explain what specific weight, if any, all these opinions should be given after explicitly analyzing what the Seventh Circuit refers to as “the checklist” of factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives greater weight to opinions from examining physicians and to opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Fegan v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-12(c)

The ALJ accorded “great” weight to each of these opinions, as he was entitled to do. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (opinions of examining physicians and consistent with record as whole generally given greater weight); cf. Evangelista v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 826 F.2d 136, 144 (1st Cir. 1987) (ALJ free “to piece together the relevant medical facts from the findings and opinions of multiple physicians.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greatest weight to treating-source opinions, requires consideration of specified factors when weighing medical opinions, and requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion.

Deborah May Coutu v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-03-13(c), (c)(1)-(2)

Turning to the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical-opinion evidence, the applicable regulations require ALJs to evaluate all of the medical opinions that are presented to them. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those regulations further establish that, as a general rule, opinions from treating sources should be given the greatest amount of weight, opinions from sources who have examined but not treated a claimant should be given lesser weight, and opinions from sources who have neither treated nor examined a claimant should be given the least amount of weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). ... When weighing any medical opinion, an ALJ should consider: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the medical source who provided the opinion; and (6) other factors. Finally, when explaining the amount of weight that he gives to the opinion of a treating source, an ALJ must “give good reasons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion less weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Bushey v. Berryhill · filed 2018-06-26(d)(2)

An ALJ may diminish the weight that she provides to a medical opinion if that opinion is “inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(2) generally gives more weight to examining sources than nonexamining sources and more weight to treating sources than examining sources.

Maynard v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-28(c)(1), (c)(2)

“Generally, more weight is given to examining sources than to sources who do not examine. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). Similarly, more weight is given to treating sources than to examining sources. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including the source’s relationship with the claimant, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Sprano v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-12-19(c)

Medical opinions are ... evaluated based upon the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the extent to which the source provides evidence to support the opinion, the extent the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record, the specialization of the medical source, and other factors including the understanding the source has of the social security system.