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(f)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source using the factors listed in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Paquet v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-04-04(f)(1)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1), the ALJ was obligated to evaluate Mr. Castro’s opinion by applying the factors listed in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). He did so, and gave that opinion little weight because it was not well supported by “medical signs and laboratory findings,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Gallo v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-03(c)

ALJs are supposed to consider the factors in Section 404.1527(c) “in deciding the weight [to] give any medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires consistency with the record as a whole to be considered when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Laskey v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-14(c)(4)

Laskey offers no challenge to the ALJ’s view of the record in this regard, and consistency “with the record as a whole” is a factor properly considered in determining what weight to give medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(3) permits an administrative law judge to discount a medical opinion formed after a short relationship when the opinion lacks support or conflicts with the medical record.

Duckworth v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-06-19(c)(2), (c)(3)

The administrative law judge was entitled to discount an opinion that the doctor formed after one examination, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (c)(3) (weighing the length of the medical relationship and support for the medical opinion), and that conflicted with his medical notes and with other evidence in the record, see id. § 416.927(c)(6) (considering “other information in your case record”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally favors opinions from examining sources but does not require that they receive greater weight, and it requires consideration of factors such as consistency with the record.

Livingston v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-06-19(c)

First, nothing required the ALJ to assign less weight to Douglass’s opinion than the examining sources. While § 404.1527(c) reads that the agency “[g]enerally” gives more weight to examining sources, it fails to mandate such prioritizing and lists several other factors that the ALJ must consider, including consistency with the whole record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *3 (“In appropriate circumstances, opinions from State agency medical and psychological consultants . . . may be entitled to greater weight than the opinions of . . . examining sources.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an administrative law judge to give little weight to a medical opinion based on a single examination, subjective complaints, or inconsistency with the doctor's medical notes.

Wells v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-06-21(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

The administrative law judge was entitled to give little weight to an opinion formed after one examination, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), based largely on Wells’s subjective complaints, see id. § 404.1527(c)(3), which conflicted with Dr. Bentley’s medical notes, see id. § 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the examining and treatment relationships, support, and consistency when weighing medical opinions.

Cain v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-18(c)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinion evidence, including the examining and treatment relationships between a claimant and physician, whether a physician’s opinion is well-supported, and whether it is consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when its source provides a better explanation for it.

Zuniga v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-02(d)(3)

Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”). So it is with Dr. Hunter’s statement regarding Zuniga’s potential missed work. Dr. Hunter does not explain this opinion, give any reason for reaching the opinion, or provide background evidence to support the opinion. It is, instead, nothing more than a line on a brief questionnaire and does not go into any depth regarding Zuniga’s treatment. ... Given the lack of support provided, the Court concludes that the ALJ was correct in not relying on Dr. Hunter’s opinion regarding the “anticipated” number of days Zuniga would miss from work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the agency to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, but that requirement does not apply to opinions from nonexamining sources.

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

First, the Court notes that “good reasons” need only be given in explaining weight assigned to an opinion from a treating source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.”); Engebrecht v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 572 F. App’x 392, 397 (6th Cir. 2014) (“However, the ‘good reasons’ requirement ‘only applies to treating sources.’”) (quoting Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, so an opinion inconsistent with the examination notes and record may receive little weight.

Hodges v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-17(d)(3)

Where a medical opinion is inconsistent with examination notes and other medical evidence of record, it is entitled to little weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight or explain the reasons for lesser weight, while considering specified factors for consultative opinions and reserving the ultimate disability determination to the ALJ.

Brandt v. SSA · filed 2019-07-23(d)(2), (d), (c)

An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.”1 Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). But if he or she does not give controlling authority to the opinion of a controlling source, the ALJ must give good reasons for the amount of weight given. Id. ... And the ultimate question of whether a claimant is able to work is reserved for the ALJ. Accordingly, Mogilevski’s opinion that Brandt could not perform any work is not entitled to any deference. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... Instead, such opinions should be weighed considering the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to physician opinions and the extent to which the claimant's testimony is credited.

Miller v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-12(f)(2)(ii)

As part of these determinations, “[a]n ALJ must explain the weight given to physician opinions and the degree to which a claimant's testimony is credited.” Id. at 362 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii)); Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 557 (3d Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cruz v. Colvin · filed 2019-08-13(c)(4)

Moreover, when a medical opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole, the ALJ may afford less weight to the opinion in fashioning a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) requires the Commissioner to state with particularity the weight given to each doctor’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19(a)(2)

Although such an error could be construed as harmless, on remand, the Commissioner should reassess the record, state with particularity the weight given to each doctor’s medical opinion, and the reasons therefor. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) provides that the weight given to a nonexamining source’s opinion depends on the supporting explanations the source provides when it has no examining or treating relationship with the claimant.

Hetelekidis v. Saul · filed 2019-08-22(c)(3)

The regulations advise that “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). In the February 7, 2017 report, Dr. Kang explicitly indicates that he was “not involved in direct patient evaluation, treatment or diagnosis.” T. 1106. Thus, as the ALJ correctly noted, because of the lack of a treating relationship, Dr. Kang had “little insight into [plaintiff’s] actual functional abilities.” Id. at 17. Thus, as the Commissioner notes, the ALJ appropriately did not consider Dr. Kang’s opinion as that of a treating physician, and granted him the proper weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and better explanations.

MALLOY v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-08-23(c)(3)

The ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Ms. Oldham-Sibley’s opinion on absenteeism was also appropriate because she offered that opinion by checking boxes on a standardized form without providing any explanation of her selections. R. 791; 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. 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 generally gives greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions than to examining physicians’ opinions and greater weight to examining physicians’ opinions than to non-examining physicians’ opinions, while opinions from nonmedical other sources do not receive the same deference as acceptable medical-source opinions.

Mekic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-27(c)(1)-(2), (f)

Title II’s implementing regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant but who review the claimant’s file (non-examining physicians). ... 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 non-examining physician’s. ... “Other sources” for opinions—such as nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, therapists, teachers, social workers, chiropractors, and other nonmedical sources—are not entitled to the same deference as acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, while otherwise requiring the opinion to be weighed under the listed factors.

Leonard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s application was filed before March 27, 2017. The applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), provides, in part: ... If the ALJ decides not to give the opinion controlling weight, he is to weigh it applying the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). Supportability and consistency are two important factors to be considered in weighing medical opinions. In a nutshell, “[t]he regulations state that an ALJ must give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by ‘medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [,]’ and (2) it is ‘not inconsistent’ with substantial evidence in the record.” Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion after considering relevant factors, including its support, consistency with the record, and the source’s familiarity with the claimant’s case record.

Watson v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(c)

An ALJ must assign a medical opinion appropriate weight after considering relevant factors, including whether the opinion was supported by relevant evidence, whether the opinion was consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the medical source was familiar with other information in the claimant’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives controlling weight to a treating-source opinion when it is medically supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, permits departure for good reason, and allows the ALJ to consider consistency with the record when assigning weight.

Scabbyrobeparnett v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(c)(2) and (c)(4)

Further, the opinion of a treating medical source should be considered controlling 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). The ALJ may deviate from this rule, however, if he supplies good reason for doing so. Id. The ALJ may also consider the consistency of the source’s opinion with the record as a whole when assigning weight to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using listed factors, and subsection (c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports discounting it.

Guinta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(c), (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(f)(2) calls for an ALJ to explain the weight given to an other-source opinion, or otherwise make the reasoning clear, when the opinion may affect the outcome.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-30(f)(2)

The ALJ’s vague explanation of the weight assigned to Mrs. Camacho’s opinion is especially problematic because her opinion “may have [had] an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). Her opinion that G.S.R.R. had “problems” in acquiring and using information and “multiple limitations” in attending and completing tasks might well evidence marked limitations in those domains. But despite assigning Mrs. Camacho’s opinion “some weight,” the ALJ’s decision ignored it in evaluating the domains of acquiring and using information and attending and completing tasks. Id. at 36-38.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ary v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-03(c)(1)

Even if this was not error, the ALJ failed to realize that Dr. Bonds’ one-time examination should have been generally given more weight than the opinions of the record-reviewing consultants Drs. Rudy and Rivera. Because they never saw or examined Plaintiff, their opinions generally fell below Dr. Bonds’ opinion on the hierarchy of medical-source opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(1) (“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.”). By discounting Dr. Bonds’ opinion because she was an examiner while elsewhere assigning great weight to the opinions of non-examiners, ALJ Hockensmith inverts the regulatory-opinion-weighing hierarchy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ will give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source’s medical opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to an examining source's medical opinion than to a nonexamining source's opinion.

Vaught v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-09(c)(1)

In general, an ALJ must accord more weight to the medical opinion of an examining source than to that of a nonexamining source. Testamark v. Berryhill, 736 Fed. Appx. 395, 387 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1) and Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 268 (4th Cir. 2017)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs that a medical opinion generally receives more weight when it is consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS)Fentroy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-13(c)(4)

Based on the foregoing, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Lacy’s finding of severe impairment in getting along with others was inconsistent with the medical record and plaintiff’s own testimony. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs that the weight given to a doctor's opinion depends in part on whether the doctor examined the claimant, explained the opinion, and relied on the claimant's subjective statements.

Parrott v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-23(c)

And the social security regulations provide that the weight given to a doctor’s opinion depends in part on whether the doctor examined the claimant, whether the doctor provided supporting explanations for his opinion, and whether the doctor based his opinions on the claimant’s subjective statements. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c). Here, the limited nature of Dr. Williams’s opinion supports the partial weight given to his opinion. Dr. Williams reviewed evidence only as of September 2, 2016 and never examined the claimant. (R. 189, 198). He did not explain which or how “psychiatric signs and [symptoms]” would require the claimant to miss one or two days of work per month. (R. 194-96). And he based his opinion that the claimant would require absences mostly on the claimant’s subjective statements rather than the opinions of examining sources. (R. 190). So, according to the regulations, the ALJ properly assigned partial weight to Dr. Williams’s opinion and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to an examining source’s medical opinion than to the medical opinion of a source who did not examine the claimant.

Driehorst v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-23(c)(1)

Absent adequate explanation, such treatment is not permissible under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits a therapist’s opinion to receive greater weight than an acceptable medical source’s opinion based on familiarity with the patient only when it is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.

Maldonado v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-26(f)(1)

In addition, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) permits a therapist’s opinion to be given greater weight than an AMS, on the basis of familiarity with a patient, but only if “the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). Here, the ALJ properly relied on medical evidence from Ms. Madrid, including her treatment notes, see [Tr. 25–27 (citing Exhibits 52F and 59F)], but did not rely on the LCHC-BH Report because it was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s current medical records, see [Tr. 28]; see also [ECF No. 32 at 2]. In so doing, the ALJ complied with SSR 06-03p. Accordingly, following de novo review, the Court concludes that there was no error and overrules this objection.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require substantial weight for a psychotherapist’s opinion because a psychotherapist is not an acceptable medical source, although the opinion must still be considered and may receive partial weight.

Metes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-07(c)(2)

And, she asserts generally the ALJ failed to follow 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) in that he should have assigned more weight to Colonello’s opinions. ... Unfortunately, however, Colonello is a psychotherapist and psychotherapists are excluded from the list of “acceptable medical sources” in the regulations. Hence, her opinions are not considered “medical opinions,” and are not entitled to substantial weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a); Stultz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 628 Fed. Appx. 665, 668 (11th Cir. 2015). ... Against this backdrop, I find the ALJ here properly considered Colonello’s opinions, including her opinion that Plaintiff would have moderate limitations in the ability to tolerate customary works pressures and mild to moderate limitations in concentration and persistence, and explained his decision to assign them partial weight (R. 20).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider any factors known to the SSA that support or contradict a medical opinion when deciding how much weight to give it.

Kidd v. SSA · filed 2019-10-29(c)(6)

When determining how much weight to give medical source statements, ALJs are permitted to consider “any factors . . . of which [the SSA] is aware, which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (c)(6); 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits consideration of the factors used for acceptable-source opinions when weighing opinions from non-acceptable medical or nonmedical sources, but the applicable factors depend on the particular facts of the case.

Deubell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-06(f)(1)

“Opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and from nonmedical sources may reflect the source’s judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources. Although we will consider these opinions using the same factors as listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6) in this section, not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case because the evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source depends on the particular facts in each case.” ... Under these circumstances, the ALJ had discretion as a factual matter to assign little weight to the form that Utech completed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives examining-source opinions more weight than non-examining opinions, treating-source opinions more weight than non-treating opinions, and specialist opinions more weight than non-specialist opinions.

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-12(c)

Specifically, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) provides that the weight given to a non-examining source’s opinion depends on the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations for it.

Rason v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-04(c)(3)

The weight afforded the opinions of non-examining sources “depend[s] on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to each medical opinion when assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Tolbert-Taylor v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-23(e)(2)(ii)

It is undisputed that when assessing an RFC, the ALJ must explain what weight he assigns to each opinion and why. 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(c)(2) gives credit to a medical opinion only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

BUCCELLATO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-11-14(c)(2)

Instead, medical opinions are credited only if they are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... However, the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and, under the deferential standard of review afforded to his determination, he did not err in assigning little weight to Dr. Parangi’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ to generally give more weight to opinions from examining sources than nonexamining sources and to weigh nonexamining opinions based on their supporting explanations.

Knight v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-02-19(c)(1), (c)(3)

Generally, the ALJ gives “more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1); see also id. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(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 directs adjudicators weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, and consistency, and generally to give more weight to treating-source opinions.

Williams v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-20(c)(1)–(4)

When determining what weight to give a medical opinion, the factors considered include: (1) the “[e]xamining relationship”; (2) the “[t]reatment relationship”—including the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (3) the “[s]upportability” of the medical opinion; and (4) the “[c]onsistency” of the medical opinion as compared to other evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(4). ... Dr. Lobel only examined Williams once for a consultative evaluation, so he is not a “treating source” entitled to deference. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(2) (distinguishing treating sources from providers of consultative examinations).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by § 404.1527, an ALJ evaluating a non-treating or non-examining medical opinion should consider relevant factors such as supportability, consistency, and specialization, but need not expressly discuss every factor.

Rosshirt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(d)(2)

when the opinion comes from a non-treating or non-examining source, it is usually not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Rather, the ALJ should consider relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Plaintiff disagrees. He maintains that the ALJ failed to discuss the relevant regulatory factors and erred accordingly. (See Doc. 14 at 20–21 (discussing factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). But “nothing within [the regulations] mandates that every factor be explicitly addressed.” ... “There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ ‘expressly’ consider each of the factors within the written decision.”). This argument fails as a result.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) says an ALJ should explain the weight given to medical opinions or otherwise make the reasoning in the decision clear enough for a claimant or later reviewer to follow.

Block v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(f)(2)

When presenting an RFC assessment, an ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions . . . or 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2); ... Thus, while Dr. Lips stated that Block has some mental limitations, I find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to omit them from the RFC and that he adequately articulated his reasons for doing so. The ALJ appropriately found that Dr. Lips’ opinion was largely consistent with the record, giving it great weight, and provided adequate reasons for excluding limitations from the opinion that were otherwise inconsistent with the opinions of other physicians and the record as a whole. Therefore, Block’s objection is overruled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Duer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-30(c)(4)

Generally, the more consistent a doctor’s opinion is with the evidence as a whole, the greater weight the opinion should be accorded. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927 (c)(4); see also Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (explaining that incongruence between a doctor’s opinion and a claimant’s medical records is a specific and legitimate reason to reject the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an adjudicator to weigh a medical opinion based on the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and other relevant factors.

Zawistowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)(1)-(6)

The relevant factors considered in determining what weight to afford an opinion include the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence which supports the opinion, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) generally gives greater weight to opinions from examining and treating physicians than to opinions from nonexamining or nontreating physicians.

Marshall v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-14(c)(1)-(2)

Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinion of those who do not actually treat the claimant. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)-(2). More weight is also given to an examining physician than to a nonexamining physician. ... To the extent Plaintiff challenges the weight given to the opinions of state agency physicians, Plaintiff appears to argue that, contrary to the ALJ’s findings, these opinions are not consistent with the medical record as a whole. ... Moreover, the ALJ did not rely on these state agency physicians’ opinions to discount other medical opinions in the record or afford them more weight than any relevant treating physician’s opinion. Plaintiff offers no ... citation to suggest that an ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons to accept a physician’s opinion, even if that physician is a non-examining physician. The ALJ did not, therefore, err in his treatment of the medical opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to an examining source’s opinion and to opinions consistent with the record, so an examining source’s single examination alone is not enough to discount the opinion.

Osborn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(c)(1), (c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, the fact that Dr. Moslin only examined Plaintiff once is not, in and of itself, a specific, legitimate reason for discounting her opinion. ... As for the ALJ’s remaining reasons for discounting Dr. Moslin’s opinion, inconsistencies with the medical evidence may serve as specific, legitimate reasons for discounting limitations assessed by a physician. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the Social Security Administration] will give to that medical opinion.”); 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). ... An examining physician’s opinion is generally “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31(9th Cir. 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.926(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) says the weight given to a physician’s opinion depends in part on its explanation, the treatment relationship, and consistency with the record.

Dhesi v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-05(c)

The weight accorded to a physician’s opinion depends on whether it is accompanied by adequate explanation, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and consistency with the record as a whole, among other things. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats opinions that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not give them special significance; a doctor’s specialization is a relevant factor in weighing other opinion statements.

Nance-Goble v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-06-11(d)(1)–(3), (c)(5)

But an ALJ needn’t have good cause to discount an opinion that a claimant is disabled and unable to work because the Commissioner gets to decide those issues. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)–(3), 416.927(d)(1)–(3). ... So the ALJ did not have to afford any special significance to these statements. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)–(3), 416.927(d)(1)–(3). ... First, as the ALJ noted, Dr. Sims is a general practitioner, not a specialist. And whether a doctor is a specialist in the area in which he is giving an opinion is a relevant factor for an ALJ to consider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) treats the examining relationship as one factor in weighing a medical opinion and does not require an examining source’s opinion to receive greater weight automatically.

Depner v. Saul · filed 2021-08-04(c)(1)

While Depner is correct that generally more weight is given to the medical opinion of an examining source over the medical opinion of a non-examining source, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), the examining relationship is merely one factor among many an ALJ must consider in weighing the medical evidence. The ALJ was not required to give Dr. Leonard’s opinion more weight simply because he examined Depner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise weigh it using the listed factors and explain the reasons.

Rainey v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-08-11(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source’s opinion is due controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” ... If the ALJ discounts the weight normally given to a treating source opinion, the ALJ must explain his or her decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2). ... The relevant factors are: “the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability of the physician’s opinion and the opinion’s consistency with the rest of the record; and the physician’s specialization.” ... Based on the above, the undersigned finds that the ALJ adhered to the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c) in evaluating Dr. Yancey’s opinion and provided good reasons for affording it little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source is not entitled to the same deference as an acceptable medical-source opinion, and that a statement that a claimant is disabled is not a medical opinion entitled to special significance.

O'Rorke v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-13(d), (d)(3), (f)(1)

Mr. Cummings is not an “[a]cceptable medical source,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 404.1527(f)(1), and therefore his opinion is “not entitled to the same deference.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). Mr. Cummings’s assertion that O’Rorke’s pain is “disabling” is also “not [a] medical opinion[]” and therefore not entitled to “any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), (d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that an RFC determination is reserved to the Commissioner and that an ALJ need not give special significance to a doctor’s opinion concerning RFC.

SALGADO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-08-16(d)(2), (d)(3)

The RFC determination is not a medical opinion and is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Therefore, an ALJ need not afford any special significance to a doctor’s opinion concerning RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Potter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-20(c)(1)

Non-examining doctors’ opinions do not constitute substantial evidence on which to base an administrative decision and are entitled to little weight when they contradict the opinions and findings of treating or examining physicians. Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 1988); Kahle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“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.”). Here, Dr Lewis did not examine Plaintiff and had no treating relationship with him, and therefore her opinion is not entitled to deference. (Tr. 83-85).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to the opinion of a source who examined the claimant than to that of a source who did not.

Hopkins v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-30(c)(1)

An ALJ generally should 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(c)(1) (for claims filed before March 27, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an adjudicator to explain the weight given to opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Motuzas v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-25(f)(2)

Pursuant to S.S.R. No. 06-03p and Section 404.1527(f)(2), it would have been error for the ALJ to ignore Nurse Shipley and Social Worker Mahoney’s opinions. See Alcantara, 257 Fed. Appx. at 334-35. However, the ALJ did not ignore Nurse Shipley’s or Social Worker Mahoney’s opinions, but rather discussed them at length, described the weight he afforded to each, and explained why. Admin. Rec. at 43-44. Neither Social Security Ruling 06-03p nor Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires more.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives greater weight to a medical opinion from an examining source than to one from a source who has not examined the claimant.

Hancock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-07(c)(1)

Non-examining doctors’ opinions do not constitute substantial evidence on which to base an administrative decision and are entitled to little weight when they contradict the opinions and findings of treating or examining physicians. Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 703 (11th Cir. 1988); Kahle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1272 (M.D. Fla. 2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tenney v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)-(4)

Mr. Tenney argues that the ALJ’s reasons for giving diminished weight to the opinion of Dr. Heilpern are not supported by substantial evidence, Doc. 12 at 12 and Doc. 17 at 2-3, but the record reflects otherwise. The ALJ stated with particularity that she was assigning “some weight” to the opinion of Dr. Heilpern and provided two specific reasons for the diminished weight: first, that the opinion was “not totally supported by [Dr. Heilpern’s] analysis”; and second, that the opinion was not “consistent with the other evidence in the record,” namely treatment notes, x-rays, and cervical spine imaging. R. 1418; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (noting that more weight will be given to a medical opinion in which the medical source presents relevant evidence to support that opinion); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh a non-examining medical opinion based on its clinical findings and consistency with other evidence, and permits great weight when the opinion is supported by the record.

Smith v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-28(c)

The ALJ’s assignment of significant weight to these opinions was not erroneous. The opinion of a state agency examiner may be entitled to great weight if supported by the evidence, as in this case. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); SSR 96-6P (S.S.A. July 2, 1996) (“Findings of fact made by State agency medical and psychological consultants . . . regarding the nature and severity of an individual’s impairment(s) must be treated as expert opinion evidence of nonexamining sources at the [ALJ] and Appeals Council levels of administrative review.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the ALJ to consider the medical source’s treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty when weighing a medical opinion.

Harvey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-29(d)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions based on the source's relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Woods v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-30(c)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) permits an adjudicator to use an “other source” opinion to show the severity of an impairment and its effect on the claimant’s ability to work, but does not permit rejecting the opinion solely because the source is not an acceptable medical source.

Johnson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-19(d)(1)

The ALJ may discount “other sources” for germane reasons, but opinions from other sources may still be used to show the severity of a person’s impairment and how that affects that person’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). Put differently, the ALJ is permitted to reject LCSW Johnson’s opinion, but the fact that LCSW Johnson is an “other source” by itself is an insufficient reason to reject LCSW Johnson’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner and gives more weight to medical opinions that are better explained.

McDaneld v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-03(d), (c)(3)

The Court acknowledges that the final responsibility for deciding the issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner and the ALJ will not give “special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). ... The Regulations state that “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hill v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-10(c)(1)

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); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), (2). ... Thus, because Dr. Ogisu is an examining physician, the ALJ was required to provide specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Ogisu’s opinion. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. ... The ALJ erred by refusing to consider Dr. Ogisu’s report merely because it was issued after Plaintiff’s date last insured.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s medical opinion substantial or considerable weight absent good cause, but that deference does not extend to one-time consultative examiners.

McDaniel v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-01-04(d)(1)-(2)

Absent “good cause,” an ALJ must give the medical opinions of a claimant’s treating physician “substantial or considerable weight.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (citing Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997)); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), 416.927(d)(1)-(2). The same treatment is not true for “the opinion of a one-time examining physician.” Thomas v. Berryhill, 2019 WL 1338899, *3 (M.D. Ala. 2019). The opinions of one-time consultative examiners are not entitled to the deference accorded the opinions of treating providers who have a longitudinal relationship with a patient. McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987); Williams v. SSA, 661 Fed. Appx. 977, 979 (11th Cir. 2016).

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.

Via v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(c)(2)

Furthermore, the ALJ’s articulation of the weight accorded to each medical opinion must be accompanied by “a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests.” Cotter, 642 F.2d at 704. This principle applies with particular force to the opinion of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as judgments by acceptable medical sources about an impairment and generally gives more weight to opinions from sources who examined the claimant than to opinions from sources who did not.

Fife v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-01(a)(2), (c)(1)

An examining physician’s opinion is “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2) (“Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions”), (c)(1)(“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”). ... Here, the ALJ gave “significant weight” to the opinion of Dr. Gollogly, finding that it was consistent with the record, specifically with the mental status examinations in the record showing that plaintiff had “intact memory, concentration, and intellect”. See AR 489. However, the evidence the ALJ pointed to was not directly related to plaintiff’s cognitive functioning or ability to work without interruption. The evidence consisted of plaintiff’s physical examinations (AR 903, 908, 924), notes concerning plaintiff’s progress on his chemical dependency (AR 935), and treatment plans to help plaintiff cope with his mental health and anxiety (AR 420). The ALJ did cite some mental examinations, but even those examinations showed that plaintiff had anxious, irritable or dysphoric mood (AR 425, 452). ... The Court finds Dr. Gollogly’s opinion is not consistent with the evidence cited by the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally directs the Social Security Administration to give more weight to an opinion from a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not.

Carpenter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-15(c)(1)

An examining physician’s opinion is “entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a nonexamining physician.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)(“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you”). ... The Court finds that Dr. Vestal’s opinion was not consistent with the evidence, and because the ALJ gave no other legitimate, supported reason to discount Dr. Byus’s opinion, the ALJ could not solely rely on Dr. Vestal’s opinion to discount Dr. Byus’s without committing error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it receives.

Grubb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-12(c)(4)

Thus, ALJ Prince found that the record justified a finding of moderate limitations in Plaintiff’s ability to interact, but he otherwise found Dr. Buban’s assessment to consistent with the other evidence of record. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(2) generally gives more weight to examining opinions than nonexamining opinions and more weight to treating opinions than to opinions from sources who do not treat the claimant.

Campbell-Turner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-12(c)(1)-(2)

Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinion of those who do not actually treat the claimant. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). More weight is also given to an examining physician than to a nonexamining physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions with better supporting explanations and greater consistency with the record as a whole.

Perez v. Saul · filed 2022-09-06(c)(3)-(4)

“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” ... “Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” ... “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.” ... Based on Dr. Liss’s lack of explanation for his opinion, the absence of support in his own treatment records, and the opinion’s inconsistency with the record as a whole, this Court concludes the ALJ properly gave it little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mimo-Lannoy v. O'Malley · filed 2022-09-29(c)(1)

Under the regulations, an ALJ generally gives more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined a claimant than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined a claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1); Martin v. Saul, 950 F.3d 369, 375 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(3)(v)) (“an examining doctor may have more insights than a doctor reviewing evidence in a folder.”). To be sure, Dr. Bakston did not perform a mental status exam, but neither did the state agency consulting psychologists, whose opinions the ALJ found persuasive. Therefore, the Court finds the ALJ’s second reason in and of itself cannot logically suffice for the ALJ to favor the state agency psychologists’ opinions over that of Dr. Bakston’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Biberstine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-07(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. Givens v. Colvin, 551 F. App’x 855, 860 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and citing Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 2013)). Here, the ALJ discussed the evidence submitted by Plaintiff’s psychiatrist, Dr. Fawver.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) encourages ALJs to explain the weight given to a non-medical source’s opinion or otherwise document their reasoning so a subsequent reviewer can follow it when the opinion could affect the outcome.

MASSIE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-11-30(f)(2)

The Act’s implementing regulations encourage ALJs to “explain the weight given” to opinions of non-medical sources or “otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a . . . subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning” if the non-medical source’s opinion could affect “the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). That is, an ALJ’s consideration of a relevant non-medical source’s statement(s) should be documented in the decision with enough detail to facilitate a reviewing court’s “proper[] exercise” of its reviewing function.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when its source supports it with relevant evidence and provides a better explanation.

Dinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-17(c)(3)

Moreover, regulations applicable to this case favor an explained opinion over an unexplained opinion. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(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 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using listed factors and permits controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well supported and consistent with the record.

DERVIC v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-02-28(c), (c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s DIB application was filed before March 27, 2017, ALJ Benedict’s consideration of medical opinion evidence was subject to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Pursuant thereto, ALJ Benedict was required to “evaluate every medical opinion” in evidence and to consider an enumerated list of factors to decide the appropriate weight to afford the opinions in evidence. Id. § 404.1527(c). ALJ Benedict was permitted to afford “controlling weight” to treating sources’ opinions if such an opinion was “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and consistent with “other substantial evidence in [Plaintiff’s] case record.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Having reviewed ALJ Benedict’s decision, the Court is assured that he considered all the medical opinions in evidence and adequately explained the weight he afforded them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not extend the great-weight deference given to treating physicians' opinions to consultative physicians' opinions, leaving the ALJ significant discretion to weigh consultative opinions.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-23(c)(2)

The then-governing regulations,2 as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit, clearly instruct that the “great weight” deference afforded to the treating physician’s opinion, Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (5th Cir. 2000), does not similarly extend to the consultative physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)3; see also Harrison v. Saul, No. CV 4:19-2304, 2020 WL 3962135, at *6 (S.D. Tex. July 13, 2020) (“In evaluating the opinion of a non-treating physician, the ALJ is free to incorporate only those limitations that he finds consistent with the weight of the evidence as a whole.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, the Second ALJ had significant discretion in weighing the opinions of Drs. Beck and Futrell, who were both consultative psychologists.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to determine and articulate on the record the amount of weight given to a medical opinion.

Whiteman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-07(d)

The ALJ must “determine and articulate on the record the amount of weight given to the opinion.” Lantz v. Astrue, No. CIV.A. 2:08-CV-966, 2010 WL 545894, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Wilson v. Commissioner, 378 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2004)). ... Significantly, the ALJ fails to explain why he assigned substantial weight each of these opinions of the state agency psychologists. ... Indeed, such a conclusory analysis of these psychologists’ opinions amounts to reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give less weight to medical opinions that do not address what the claimant can still do, lack adequate support, or conflict with the record as a whole.

Pope v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-28(a)(1), (c)(3)-(4)

Under the governing regulations, the ALJ weighs medical opinions, which include “what [claimants] can do despite impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). Thus, it was within the ALJ’s authority to assign less weight to the opinions that failed to consider what Plaintiff could still do despite her limitations. Further, the ALJ may assign less weight to opinions that do not provide sufficient support for an opinion, or that are inconsistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), 416.927(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources or otherwise make the reasoning understandable to the claimant or a later reviewer.

Benetti v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-08(f)(2)

“Rather, an ALJ only needs to ‘explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must explain the weight given to a medical opinion and address material conflicts rather than ignore the opinion.

Walters v. Astrue · filed 2011-10-21(f)

The SSA’s own regulations provide that ALJs “may not ignore these opinions and must explain the weight given to these opinions in their decisions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an administrative law judge to give a medical opinion little weight when the judge gives good reasons for doing so.

Tassel v. Astrue · filed 2012-02-15(f)(2)(ii)

The administrative law judge gave good reasons for his decision to give Dr. Lauer’s opinion little weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2)(ii), 416.927(f)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ who gives great weight to conflicting state agency medical opinions to explain which findings the ALJ credits and why.

Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(f)(2)

Simply put, absent clarification from the ALJ as to which portions of Dr. Molis and Dr. Arkin’s respective reports the ALJ chose to credit and why, the Court is unable to “follow[, or even discern,] the [ALJ’s] reasoning.” Hand, 786 F. App’x at 224; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to specify the weight given to medical opinions and explain the reasons; failure to do so is reversible error.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(c)

As in Bailey, the ALJ’s failure to assign weight to the physicians’ medical opinions here is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives greater weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues within that specialist’s field.

Tucker v. Saul · filed 2023-02-24(c)(5)

The Commissioner’s own regulations acknowledge that experts bring more to the table with the malady at issue falls within their area of expertise. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5)(“ Specialization. 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.”); Lambert v. Berryhill, 896 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to medical opinions, including why a treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight.

Featherly v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-23(d)(2)

I agree with the plaintiff that the ALJ erred when she failed to specify the weight afforded to each of plaintiffs treating and examining physicians, or to explain why the some of the opinions of plaintiffs treating physicians were apparently not afforded controlling weight. ... Further, and most significantly here, the ALJ must articulate her reasons for assigning the weight that she does accord to both treating and non-treating physicians’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as consistency and supportability, but the ALJ must explain why opinion limitations are rejected.

MARTYAK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-03-02(c)

To determine the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ may consider a number of factors, including consistency, length of treatment, corroborating evidence, and supportability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Although the ALJ is entitled to reject limitations that are unsupported by the record, he must provide the reasons for discounting that evidence. Because the ALJ’s opinion is unclear as to whether he accounted for all of Dr. Khan’s limitations in his RFC finding or rejected some of those limitations in whole or in part, remand is necessary on this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) directs that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it receives.

Greenbaum v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-06-29(d)(4)

These opinions, however, were not supported by the record as a whole. Therefore, the ALJ was not required to accord these contradictory opinions controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(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)(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole when evaluating it.

Newbold v. Astrue · filed 2013-06-13(c)(4)

Treating source medical opinions not entitled to controlling weight “are still entitled to deference” and must be evaluated in light of the factors in the relevant regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (stating ALJ must consider whether opinion is consistent “with the record as a whole”); id. § 416.927(c)(4) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) says an opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole generally receives more weight.

Putman v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-17(c)(4)

The ALJ properly gave more weight to the latter conclusion of Dr. Martin because that conclusion considered all of the evidence, rather than just selected portions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, 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)(4) identifies consistency with the record as a whole as a factor in deciding how much weight to give an opinion.

Irvin v. Social Security Administration · filed 2014-07-22(c)(4)

However, the extent to which the nurse practitioner’s opinion is consistent with “the record as a whole” is a factor that is properly considered in determining how much weight to afford that opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

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 consistent with the record as a whole, including the claimant's testimony about her abilities.

Perez-Leeds v. Colvin · filed 2014-12-30(c)(4)

“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the agency] will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); id. § 416.927(c)(4). We see no reversible error in the weight the ALJ gave to Dr. Snow’s opinion. ... It was proper for the ALJ to consider whether the limitations proposed in Dr. Sadek’s opinion were consistent with Ms. Perez-Leeds’s own testimony about her abilities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); id. § 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion when it is more consistent with the record as a whole, rather than requiring comparison only with other medical opinions.

Simmons v. Commissioner Of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-12-22(c)(4)

“[g]enerally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). In other words, the consistency prong requires the ALJ to compare a medical opinion against the record as a whole to determine whether that medical opinion is consistent with all of the evidence of record. See id. The consistency prong does not require the ALJ to compare a medical opinion with other medical opinions alone. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole to be considered when the ALJ weighs that opinion.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-30(c)(4)

While Dr. Davis, therefore could not have taken into consideration the evidence at Exhibit 11F at the time he gave his opinion, the ALJ, who did consider Exhibit 11F along with the other evidence of record, found Dr. Davis’s opinion to be “consistent with the record as a whole[,]” a consideration that is relevant to weighing any medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider an opinion's consistency with the record when evaluating medical opinions.

Magdziak v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-14(c)(4)

Dr. Penn’s opinions and impressions also were inconsistent with plaintiff’s own representation that he was a “good worker and gets around the anxiety.” (See AR 29, citing AR 326). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (an opinion’s consistency with the record a whole is considered in the evaluation of medical opinions); Batson v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may discount treating physicians’ opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider that opinion in relation to the record as a whole.

Herrera v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-30(c)(4)

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider that opinion in relation to the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Here, the ALJ contrasted Dr. Sachs’s opinion with Plaintiff’s employment history.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

Cuevas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(c)(4)

The Court finds these are proper factors for the ALJ to consider, and the ALJ’s assessment is well supported by the record. 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 opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it should receive.

VanSickle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-27(c)(4)

“[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Aydlett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-25(c)(4)

“[T]he 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)(4) provides that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight the adjudicator gives it.

(SS) Demello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(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)(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole.

Dunn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-20(c)(4)

In addition, the ALJ properly considered plaintiff's reported daily activities in discounting Dr. Stahl’s opinion. (Tr. 26) See generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs that an opinion's consistency with the record as a whole is a factor in determining how much weight it receives.

Crowley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-29(c)(4)

“[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Regarding Dr. Gray’s opinions, the ALJ observed that “[t]here is no support stated for the limitations[,] which are not consistent with the medical evidence of record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the record as a whole, including the claimant's daily activities.

MITCHELL v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-06-01(c)(4)

Inconsistency with other record evidence, in turn, is a proper basis on which to discount a treating source’s opinion. See, e.g., Thomas P., 2019 WL 495582, at *5 (noting, in conjunction with ALJ’s reliance on claimant’s activities of daily living, “‘Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole [including activities of daily living], the more weight [an ALJ] will give to that medical opinion’”) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (brackets in original)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider a medical opinion's consistency with the record as a whole when evaluating its weight.

Alanis v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(c)(4)

An ALJ may reasonably consider an opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Denoyer v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(c)(4)

Because Dr. Bland’s opinion was consistent with the record evidence, the ALJ afforded it significant weight. (Tr. 33). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, 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)(4) treats consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole as a relevant factor in evaluating that opinion.

Walker v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-20(c)(4)

“[T]he consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole” is a relevant factor in evaluating medical opinions. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

Houck v. Saul · filed 2020-08-25(c)(4)

An ALJ may legitimately consider an opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)(“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs the adjudicator to give more weight to a medical opinion when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Hamsing, Gregory v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-09-11(c)(4)

Under the regulations in effect when Hamsing filed his application, this consistency was an independent ground supporting the ALJ’s decision even if the reviewing psychiatrists didn’t have access to those records. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Truman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)(4)

In so relying on this fact, the ALJ considered the consistency factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), which states that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” Given Plaintiff’s return to full-time work -- and absent argument from Plaintiff (with citation to record evidence showing) that her condition improved at that time or worsened when she again stopped working full-time in 2017 -- the ALJ’s conclusion in this regard is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Atwell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-01(c)(4)

As an initial matter, the regulations authorized the ALJ to consider the extent to which Atwell’s response to treatment was consistent with Dr. Thompson’s opinion. The ALJ noted that Dr. Thompson’s notes reveal that treatment for Atwell’s impairments was relatively conservative and produced some successful results, observations which are inconsistent with the extreme limitations reflected in his opinion. Tr. 519–20. The court agrees with the R&R that the ALJ properly considered evidence of Dr. Thompson’s treatment notes in evaluating his opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Abramaitys v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-07(c)(4)

A plain reading of the decision also reveals the ALJ considered more than just the examination and opinion of Dr. Liu in his RFC analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (ALJ considers whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs that the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole is a factor supporting the weight assigned to it.

JOHNS v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-26(c)(4)

With that in mind, the ALJ assigned “great weight” to Dr. Gorske’s assessment, (R. 26) which was appropriate, considering its consistency with Plaintiff’s “record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when deciding how much weight to give an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source.

Cook v. Saul · filed 2019-09-03(f)(1), (c)

Although the ALJ was correct in stating that “a social worker is not an acceptable medical source” (Tr. 24), that does not mean the ALJ can automatically discount the social worker’s opinion. For example, it may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source, has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for the opinion, and the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). Although Neidhardt-Gruhl’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ is still required to consider the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors in determining how much weight to give her opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The factors in § 404.1527(d) for evaluating medical opinions from acceptable medical sources may also be applied to opinion evidence from other sources.

Cowles v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-24(d)

Although the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d) explicitly apply only to the evaluation of medical opinions from “acceptable medical sources,” these same factors can be applied to opinion evidence from “other sources.” These factors represent basic principles that apply to the consideration of all opinions from medical sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” as well as from “other sources,” such as teachers and school counselors, who have seen the individual in their professional capacity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a disability decisionmaker to consider relevant evidence from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources, including opinions from other sources.

Regalado v SSA · filed 2016-09-14

Although there are certain limitations on the uses to which evidence from “other sources” such as Samson may be put, see SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2, “information from such ‘other sources’ . . . may provide insight into the severity of the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual’s ability to function,” id. For that reason, the Social Security regulations require the decisionmaker to consider evidence from such “other sources.” See id. at *4 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to consider its opinion-weighing factors when evaluating a nurse practitioner’s opinion, but not every factor applies in every case.

Hersey v SSA · filed 2016-11-02(d)

The ALJ may consider “the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d)” when weighing a nurse practitioner’s opinion, though “[n]ot every factor . . . will apply in every case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider all medical-source evidence, explain the weight given to each opinion, and apply the opinion-weighing factors to opinions from non-acceptable medical and other sources.

Carr v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2018-05-29(c)

It is well-established that an ALJ must consider all the medical source evidence and discuss the weight he gives to each opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012). ... An ALJ should still explain the weight given to opinions from other sources. Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1163. ... And “the factors for weighing the opinions of acceptable medical sources set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527[(c)] and § 416.927[(c)] apply equally to ‘all opinions from medical sources who are not ‘acceptable medical sources’ as well as from ‘other [non-medical] sources.’” Frantz, 509 F.3d at 1302 (quoting SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) allows opinions from nonmedical sources to be considered in evaluating a claimant's impairment and ability to work.

Schaepe · filed 2019-06-06(f)

The Code of Federal Regulations specifically provide that opinions from nonmedical sources can be provided for consideration. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 404.1502(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to opinions from other sources so a claimant or subsequent reviewer can follow the ALJ's reasoning.

Engle v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-10(f)(2)

Generally, the ALJ “should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources . . . [to] allow[] a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). Though phrased clumsily, the ALJ considered the extent to which Nurse Draper’s opinion was supported by evidence within his report and found this support lacking. The ALJ noted that Nurse Draper “does not . . . explain[] what the claimant is able to do or why he is unable to work.” (Tr. 21-22). While Plaintiff is correct that the “function-by-function analysis” is not required of treating opinions, it remains the case that the ALJ found Nurse Draper’s conclusion unsupported and unconvincing, an evaluation the ALJ was at liberty to draw. Beyond that analysis, Plaintiff is correct in noting that the ALJ did not address any other factors to explain the weight allotted to Nurse Draper’s opinion. (Pl.’s Br. at 25). However, such error is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to weigh and explain the weight given to opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources.

Greene v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19(f)

The ALJ erred by categorically rejecting Ms. Casady’s opinion because of her status as a non-medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (requiring the ALJ to weigh and explain the weight given to “opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources…”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally calls for an adjudicator to explain the weight given to a non-acceptable medical source’s opinion when it may affect the outcome, but does not necessarily require an express explanation unless the source receives greater weight than a treating source.

Chopka v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-27(f)(2)

The regulations also require an ALJ to “evaluate” every medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(f). Opinions from physical therapists are considered non-acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1513(a) & (d)(1), 404.1527(f); see Nierzwick v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 7 Fed.Appx. 358, 363 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[A] physical therapist is not recognized as an acceptable medical source.”). ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). Plaintiff correctly points out that the ALJ did not expressly discuss the April 3, 2007 functional capacity evaluation. ECF Dkt. #13 at 17. However, this regulation does not necessarily require the ALJ to expressly explain the weight, let alone the reasoning, given to a non-acceptable medical source, unless that source is given greater weight than that of a treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires opinions from non-acceptable medical sources to be evaluated under the listed factors, with their weight depending on the particular facts, and permits discounting them when they are inconsistent with the record.

Steward v. Saul · filed 2019-09-24(c), (f)(1)

That said, opinions from “other sources” are still to be evaluated under the criteria provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including, the length and frequency of treatment, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, consistency of the opinion, supportability of the opinion, and the specialization of the provider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); see also Dols v. Saul, No. 18-1910, --- F.3d ---- 2019 WL 3366655, at *8 (8th Cir. July 26, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (f)(1)); SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *3-5. Further, “[t]he evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an ‘acceptable medical source’ depends on the particular facts in each case. Each case must be adjudicated on its own merits based on a consideration of the probative value of the opinions and a weighing of all the evidence in that particular case.” SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *5. However, while “[e]vidence provided by ‘other sources’ must be considered by the ALJ . . . the ALJ is permitted to discount such evidence if it is inconsistent with the evidence in the record.” Lawson v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 962, 967 (8th Cir. 2015) (citing Lacroix v. Barnhart, 465 F.3d 881, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2006); Raney v. Barnhart, 396 F.3d 1007, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) treats a nurse practitioner as an other source rather than an acceptable medical source, whose testimony may be discounted for reasons germane to the witness.

Napier v. Saul · filed 2019-11-20(f)

When reviewing claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, “a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source,” but is instead defined as an “other source[]” entitled to less deference. Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). “The ALJ may discount testimony from these other sources if the ALJ gives reasons germane to each witness for doing so.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) treats a provider who is not an acceptable medical source as an other source whose evidence may address the severity of a claimant's impairments and how they affect the ability to work.

Wood v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-02(f)

I note that under the regulations in effect when Plaintiff applied for benefits, Smith, who is not a physician, was not an “acceptable medical source.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (governing evaluation of opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (acceptable medical sources are generally limited to physicians and other qualified specialists). ... In his role as an “other source,” Smith may provide evidence on the severity of Plaintiffs mental impairments and how they affect her ability to work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to opinions from acceptable medical sources than to opinions from other sources, while requiring consideration of other-source evidence about how an impairment affects a claimant's ability to work.

Pape v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-01-07(f)

Generally, the ALJ should give more weight to the opinion of an acceptable medical source than to the opinion of an “other source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. For applications filed before March 27, 2017, Nurse Practitioners do not qualify as acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a)(7). An ALJ is required, however, to consider evidence from “other sources” who are not acceptable medical sources, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f), “as to how an impairment affects a claimant’s ability to work,” Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 1987).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to opinions from nonmedical sources, or otherwise make the reasoning traceable, when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Steele v. Saul · filed 2020-01-27(f)(2)

An ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from [non-medical] sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’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(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, which may sometimes outweigh opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Meeker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11(f)

An ALJ must consider all opinions, including those from non-acceptable medical sources, which may in some cases even outweigh the opinions of acceptable medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) treats nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants as other sources whose evidence about an impairment’s severity and work effects may be considered but is not entitled to the same deference as evidence from an acceptable medical source.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2020-04-16(f)(1)

Pursuant to the regulations applicable to this case, nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants are not “acceptable medical source” and are instead considered “other sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1); 416.927(f); 416.902. Other sources cannot give medical opinions but can provide evidence about the severity of a claimant’s impairments and how they affect the claimant’s ability to work. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(f)(1); 416.927(f); 416.902. While an ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons based on substantial evidence to discount evidence from an “acceptable medical source,” evidence from an “other source” is not entitled to the same deference and may be discounted if the ALJ provides germane reasons for doing so. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111-12 (9th Cir. 2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from other medical professionals, including nurse practitioners, about issues addressed in opinions from acceptable medical sources.

(SS) Socorro Jacobo Aguilar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(f)(1)

As noted above, an ALJ must consider the opinions of nurse practitioners when reviewing the medical record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1); Revels, 874 F.3d at 655. However, nurse practitioners are not considered acceptable medical sources, but rather “other sources.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires the weight given to a nonexamining source's medical opinion to depend on its supporting explanation and consideration of all pertinent evidence, including treating and examining opinions.

Weber v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-04(c)(3)

Social Security Regulations provide: [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. We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources. ... Although Drs. Wiggins and Nesbit based their opinions on the medical evidence available to them at the time of their evaluation in 2016, Dr. Macalester and PA Lowery gave opinions one year later based on additional medical evidence that contradicted the opinions of Drs. Wiggins and Nesbit. ... The Court concludes on this record that the ALJ erred when she gave "some weight" to and relied on the opinions of the nonexamining physicians and failed to give greater weight to the opinions of the treating providers.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally does not require an ALJ to articulate specific reasons for discounting opinions from other sources.

Fleck v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-29(f)(2)

The ALJ is not generally required to articulate specific reasons for discounting opinions from other sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) generally requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to opinions from other medical sources, or otherwise make the reasoning followable when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Persons v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-31(f)(1)

Additionally, the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... This explanation does not meet the standard for explaining the weight given to opinions from “other” sources because the ALJ failed to explain the amount of weight, if any, given to Mr. Bledsoe’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) treats a nurse practitioner as an other source whose opinion is entitled to less deference than an acceptable medical source’s opinion.

Pock v. Saul · filed 2020-08-04(f)

When reviewing claims such as this filed prior to March 27, 2017, “a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source,” but is instead defined as an “other source[ ]” entitled to less deference. Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) allows an ALJ to give more weight to an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source when that source has seen the individual more often than the treating source.

Cole v. Saul · filed 2020-08-17(f)(1)

The regulations specifically contemplate that it “may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). That is exactly the scenario here.