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 treats opinions from other sources as subject to the same evaluation factors as treating-physician opinions, generally requires an explanation of the weight given or reasoning traceable to the claimant or reviewer, and does not impose the treating-source good-reasons requirement.

Dolin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-16(f)(1) & (2)

Ms. Fish is an “other source” under the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. Her opinion is to be considered with the same factors as a treating physician, and the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given” such an opinion “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” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1) & (2), 416.927(f)(1) & (2), even though her opinion is generally entitled to less weight than an acceptable medical source’s opinion, Meuzelaar v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 648 F. App’x 582, 585 (6th Cir. 2016). As an “other source” and non-treating physician, the reasons-giving requirement does not apply to her opinion. See, e.g., Hill v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 560 F. App’x 547, 550 (6th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) says that opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources are evaluated using the listed opinion-weighing factors as applicable to the particular facts, so not every factor must be applied in every case.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-07(f)(1)

The relevant regulation concerning the evaluation of opinion evidence states that “[a]lthough we will consider [other source] opinions using the same factors listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6) in this section,” the same factors provided in SSR 06-3p, “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) (emphasis added). And applying the “germane reasons” standard, the Ninth Circuit has upheld ALJ decisions discrediting other-source opinions based solely on inconsistency with medical evidence. Deluca, 721 Fed. App’x at 611. It was not error for the ALJ to discredit LCSW Chaney’s opinion based solely on its inconsistency with the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits consideration of opinions from nonmedical sources, and an ALJ may not reject such statements solely because the source is not medical.

Gateley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-28(f)

The Code of Federal Regulations specifically provides that opinions from nonmedical sources can be provided for consideration. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 404.1502(e). ... Although Mr. R is not a medical source, the ALJ could not discredit his statements for this reason alone, and therefore was required to consider Mr. R’s statements regarding Plaintiff’s impairments and their effects, or provide germane reasons to discredit them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a non-acceptable medical source’s opinion, or otherwise make the reasoning followable when the opinion may affect the outcome, but only minimally articulate the reason for discounting it.

Sporrer v. Saul · filed 2020-12-01(f)

The ALJ, nonetheless, was generally expected to explain the weight he gave to this opinion “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.” SSR 06-03p (rescinded but applicable to claims filed before March 27, 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). The ALJ need only minimally articulate his reason for discounting such an opinion. ... These observations satisfied the ALJ’s obligation to minimally articulate the basis for his decision to afford Connell’s decision “[s]ome weight.” Nothing more was required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to an opinion from an other source, or otherwise make the reasoning clear when the opinion may affect the outcome.

Lopez v. Saul · filed 2020-12-22(f)(2)

While an ALJ is entitled to afford little or no weight to a physician’s assistant’s opinion, he “generally should explain the weight given” to that opinion “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, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *6; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating statements from other sources, an ALJ need not weigh the factors in § 404.1527, but must consider those statements.

Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-27

In evaluating statements from “other sources,” the ALJ is not required to weigh the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, but rather must simply “consider” these opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source using the same factors used for an acceptable medical source, including the examining and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2021-02-17(f)(1), (c)

Nevertheless, the ALJ was required to consider Follis’s opinion “using the same factors” that are utilized when evaluating an opinion from an acceptable medical source. § 404.1527(f)(1). That is, when evaluating Follis’s opinion, the ALJ was required to consider the examining relationship; treatment relationship (including length of relationship, frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship); supportability; consistency; and specialization. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by § 404.1527, opinions from non-acceptable medical sources are evaluated using the regulatory factors, but not every factor applies in every case, and the ALJ need not explicitly discuss the treatment relationship.

Presto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-02(f)(1)

Although we will consider [opinions from non-acceptable sources] 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. ... The ALJ did not explicitly state her consideration of the length or extent of the treatment relationship with this “other source,” but the regulations do not require her do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-10(f)

While Therapist Utley is not an acceptable medical source, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a), the ALJ is still required to consider his opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). "The RFC assessment must always consider and address medical source opinions. If the RFC assessment conflicts with an opinion from a medical source, the adjudicator must explain why the opinion was not adopted." Social Security Ruling (S.S.R.) 96-8p. Here, the ALJ referenced the evaluation and testing conducted by Therapist Utley when addressing Plaintiff’s symptom statements. AR 152. However, the ALJ failed to address the opinion itself. This is an error.

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 unacceptable medical sources and nonmedical sources, or otherwise make the reasoning traceable when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Bryson v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-03-24(f)(2)

Regarding “[o]pinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and from nonmedical sources . . . [t]he adjudicator 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)(2) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources, and those opinions may inform whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Poor v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-04-15(f)

While PA Marshall may not qualify as a “treating source” in applications filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ must still consider her opinions, and her opinions can inform whether the ALJ decision is supported by substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); Flaherty, 515 F.3d at 1070 (court must “examine the record as a whole, including anything that may undercut or detract from the ALJ’s findings”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source under the applicable regulatory factors, explain its weight or reasoning, and support that consideration with substantial evidence, although the opinion receives no special deference.

Kelly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-18(c)(1)-(6), (f)(1)

Substantial evidence does not support the assessment of Mr. Gallagher’s opinions. A cursory statement that Mr. Gallagher’s opinions were “out of proportion” with his treatment notes from a single encounter does not equate to proper consideration under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... This limited consideration that merely hinted at the factor of supportability is not sufficient based on the particular facts of this case. ... Therefore, although Mr. Gallagher’s opinions were not entitled to any special deference, the consideration of his opinions must nevertheless be supported by substantial evidence. ... For the reasons set forth above, this determination is not supported by substantial evidence, and Mr. Gallagher’s opinions should have been afforded more robust consideration under the applicable factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to assess a physician’s opinion by considering its consistency with the record as a whole.

Busha v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-16(c)(4)

The ALJ properly assessed Dr. Iyer’s opinion pursuant to the pertinent Regulations, which provide the ALJ may adjudge the consistency of the physician’s opinion with “the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Dr. Iyer’s opinion thus constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s residual functional capacity determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires considering the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole, and consistency between two opinions alone does not warrant additional weight when the record does not support the claimed limitations.

Houser v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-03(c)(4)

Among the factors to consider, however, is the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole. Id. § 404.1527(c)(4). Here, the record evidence did not support any reaching and handling limitations. (See Tr. 35; 391–94.) Thus, the fact that NP Rider’s opinion was consistent with Dr. Carroll’s opinion does not lend additional weight to either opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-06(c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s second reason, an ALJ may discount an opinion as inconsistent with the record as a whole including evidence the claimant's condition improved and stabilized with treatment. See Batson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); 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 that opinion.”). Here, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff’s attention improved when taking Ritalin and, later, Vyvanse; his irritability decreased from taking Lamictal and Namenda, and his nightmares diminished after being prescribed and taking Prazosin. AR 21 (citing AR 620, 623–24, 739, 846).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(c)(4), an ALJ generally gives more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-15(c)(4)

the ALJ explicitly stated the updated medical records are consistent with the overall medical record, including the “significant weight” afforded to the independent medical examiners and the state agency medical examiners. (AT 33.) This is proper. 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) permits an ALJ to consider a claimant’s lack of mental health treatment and daily activities when evaluating whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole.

Green v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-31(c)(4)

Pursuant to the regulations, the Commissioner considers the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole when determining how much weight to give that medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); see also Pisciotta v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 1074, 1078 (10th Cir. 2007) (“In determining the weight to be given an opinion, the ALJ must consider the consistency between that opinion and the record as a whole.”). Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, a claimant’s lack of mental health treatment and daily activities are valid types of evidence in the “record as a whole” with which a medical source’s opinion may be found inconsistent. See, e.g., Montoya v. Berryhill, CIV 16-0901 JHR, 2017 WL 5484658, at *7-8 (D.N.M. Nov. 15, 2017); Guevara v. Astrue, No. 2:07-CV-835 TS, 2010 WL 964263, at *4 (D. Utah Mar. 15, 2010). Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in evaluating the consistency of Dr. Akins’s opinion with this evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion's consistency with the record as a whole, including evidence on which the physician did not rely.

Sippel v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-09-18(c)(4)

The consistency factor refers to how consistent a medical opinion is “with the record as a whole,” which means that it is irrelevant that neither of Sippel’s treating physicians relied on the chiropractic records in forming their opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Ultimately, because the findings of Sippel’s chiropractor contradict the ALJ’s conclusion about her condition and are consistent with the findings of Sippel’s treating physicians, the ALJ was not free to ignore them.

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.

Bradford v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-06-25(c)(4)

The ALJ reasonably concluded that Nurse Ash’s opinion to the contrary was inconsistent with the record as a whole. See Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 2002); 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 evaluate a medical opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, including relevant consultative-examination evidence.

Maggio v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-18(c)(4)

The Court finds that the ALJ failed to properly analyze the consistency of Dr. Khalek’s statements “with the record as a whole,” as required pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... However, the ALJ failed to evaluate the consistency of Dr. Khalek’s statements regarding Plaintiff’s pain from his neuropathy affecting his ability to work full-time with Dr. Valarao’s examination. ... Therefore, remand is necessary so that the ALJ can provide an analysis of Dr. Khalek’s statements that fully comports with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion by considering its consistency with the record as a whole, including objective medical evidence.

Irwin · filed 2026-01-27(c)(4)

The commissioner argues that it is unambiguously the ALJ’s duty to evaluate medical opinions by judging their consistency with “the record as a whole,” which includes objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). This Court agrees with the commissioner. Here, the ALJ reviewed the record as a whole and concluded that the plaintiff needed a cane for walking but not standing. The ALJ’s conclusion is consistent with Dr. Ehman’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to assess a medical opinion’s consistency by comparing it with evidence from other medical and nonmedical sources, including the claimant’s reported symptoms and medical findings and observations.

Galvez · filed 2026-02-09(c)(4)

The ALJ must consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the longitudinal record. The consistency inquiry is not simply a comparison of the opinions given by medical sources. It is a comparison of the medical opinion in question to evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources, including Plaintiff’s reported symptoms and the medical findings and observations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires good reasons and an explanation for the weight given to treating-source opinions, considers their support and consistency, and gives no special significance to opinions on disability because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Bass v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-08-21(d)(2), (d)(3), (d)(4), (e)(1), and (e)(3)

The ALJ properly rejected Dr. Naum’s conclusion of disabling back pain as well as the inference of disability that could be drawn from Dr. Naum ordering plaintiff a handicap parking sticker. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1) explicitly states that the conclusion of disability is reserved to the Secretary, a fact correctly noted by the ALJ. Subsection (e)(3) further elaborates that no “special significance” will be given to opinions of disability, even if they come from a treating physician. ... While controlling weight will not be provided to a treating physician’s opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ still must “explain the consideration given to the treating source’s opinion(s).” ... The ALJ also explained why Dr. Naum’s opinion, if taken to mean that plaintiff met the standard for social security disability benefits, was inconsistent with the record and even inconsistent with Dr. Naum’s own statements. ... Thus, the ALJ provided good reasons for disregarding Dr. Naum’s conclusion of disability by noting that the precise meaning of Dr. Naum’s conclusion was ambiguous and that even if Dr. Naum meant that plaintiff met the level of disability required by the statute, then this finding was inconsistent with Dr. Naum’s previous statements and was contradicted by substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), (d)(4) (2006).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats RFC opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner as receiving no special significance, while requiring good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Vining v. Astrue · filed 2010-07-01(d)(2), (e)(1)-(3)

Opinions concerning RFC touch on a determination reserved to the commissioner with respect to which even opinions of treating sources are accorded no “special significance.” ... The administrative law judge was free to decline to adopt the Smith RFC assessment, so long as she supplied “good reasons” for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits treating-source opinions to receive controlling weight on the nature and severity of an impairment, but opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as residual functional capacity, receive no special significance regardless of their source.

Breen v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2012-11-14(c)(2), (d)(2)–(3)

While treating medical source opinions may be afforded controlling weight on issues such as the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner—i.e., a claimant’s residual functional capacity—are not entitled to “any special significance” regardless of the source of the opinion, id. (d)(2)–(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Opinions from treating sources on whether a claimant is disabled or whether jobs are available address issues reserved to the Commissioner and cannot receive controlling weight or special significance.

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Securit · filed 2012-11-19(d)(1)-(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the availability of jobs and whether a claimant is disabled are opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), 416.927(d)(1)-(2). A treating source’s opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner can never be entitled to controlling weight or given special significance. SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183 *5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) treats whether an applicant is disabled as an issue for the ALJ and does not require special significance for a physician’s treating or non-treating status when weighing an opinion.

Burger v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-31(e)

Moreover, and to be clear, the determination as to whether an applicant is or is not disabled is ultimately left to the ALJ to make and the ALJ is not required to give any special significance to the status of a physician as treating or non-treating in weighing an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e); 404.1545 and 404.1546. Accordingly, the ALJ would never have been obliged to summarily accept the providers’ opinions and give them controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, requires good reasons and specified factors when controlling weight is denied, and does not require special weight for legal conclusions reserved to the Commissioner.

McDaniel v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-24(c)(2)–(5), (d)

Social Security regulations that apply to Carolyn’s claim require the ALJ to give the opinion of a treating medical source special weight. Therefore, the opinion of Carolyn’s treating counselor, Ms. Keyes, must be given “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ declines to give such an opinion controlling weight, she is required to give “good reasons” for doing so and must consider (1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) the treating medical source’s specialization. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(5). ... However, an ALJ is not required to give any special weight to a medical treating source’s legal conclusions on issues reserved to the Commissioner “because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case.” Instead, ALJs are only required to consider medical opinions about the “nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment.” Id. §§ 404.1527(d); see Morgan v. Barnhart, 142 F. App’x 716, 722 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that medical opinions that claimant was “disabled,” “can’t work” an 8-hour day, and could not complete duties of previous job were legal conclusions not entitled to special weight). ... Because the ALJ was not required to give these legal conclusions controlling weight, the ALJ was not required to consider all the factors listed in the regulations in explaining the weight that she did assign to Ms. Keyes’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported and consistent with the record, while statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work receive no special significance because disability is reserved to the Commissioner.

Hart, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-07(c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(3)

In general, the opinion of a treating source will be given controlling weight if it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)2. When assigning less than “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the four factors announced in Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). ... see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... First, the ALJ properly assigned no weight to the sources’ statements pertaining to Plaintiff’s disability status. (T. 671.) As the ALJ explained, the determination of disability under the Act is an administrative finding expressly reserved solely to the Commissioner, not to any medical source. (T. 671); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“[a] statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled”). Therefore, the ALJ properly concluded the regulations did not require him to “give any special significance” to medical source statements on issues reserved to the Commissioner. (T. 671); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“[w]e will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) provides that a medical source’s opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work is not dispositive because the disability determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Chapman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-14(d)(1)

An administrative law judge is not required to agree with the statement of a medical source that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... A medical source’s opinion that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” is not dispositive of a disability claim because the determination is reserved to administrative law judge acting on behalf of the Commissioner. Id. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(f) and (f)(1), a nonexamining medical expert's opinion must consider the case record, and the expert's findings about whether a claimant meets a listing are not themselves evidence.

Tagle v. Comm. of Social Security · filed 2008-05-28(f), (f)(1)

All evidence from a nonexamining medical expert is considered opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). In formulating an opinion, nonexamining medical experts must consider the evidence in the “case record” and make findings of fact about whether the claimant meets a listing. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). The factfindings must be based on the case record, but “are not themselves evidence.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires ALJs to consider testimony from non-examining medical and psychological sources as opinion evidence.

Pyle v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-15(f)(2)

Pyle is correct in her assertion that ALJs must consider the testimony of non-examining medical and psychological sources as opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits an administrative law judge to consider the opinions of nonexamining sources.

Connors v. SSA · filed 2011-06-10(f)

Finally, the ALJ reasonably gave significant weight to the opinion of D r . Burton Nault, a nonexamining state agency medical consultant. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(f) (noting that the ALJ may consider the opinions of nonexamining sources).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to consider state-agency psychologists’ findings and opinions as opinion evidence and explain the weight assigned when no treating-source opinion controls.

Richardson v. Astrue · filed 2011-11-10(f)(2)

We therefore remand to allow the ALJ to perform a proper evaluation of Dr. Hedges’ RFC opinion. See Haga, 482 F.3d at 1208; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i) & (ii) (stating ALJ must consider findings and other opinions of state-agency psychologists as opinion evidence and, where no treating source opinion is given controlling weight, must explain the weight given such opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider a nonexamining consultant’s report as opinion evidence.

Fry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-04-16(f)(2)(i)

However, the ALJ properly considered Dr. Beshara’s report as opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and the treating provider’s specialization when weighing the provider’s opinion.

Rounds v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-24(d)(2), (3), (4) & (5)

Lastly, as to Rounds’ treating doctors’ opinions, Rounds argues that ALJ Kossek failed to consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) set forth above. Rounds’argument lacks merit as ALJ Kossek specifically noted: the length, frequency, and nature and extent of Rounds’ treatment with the treating medical providers; the degree to which the opinions were supported by objective medical evidence; and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to weigh that opinion using all relevant factors and determine what lesser weight it merits.

Leyba ex rel. C.J.L. v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-21(d)

Instead, Dr. Cruz’s opinion was “ ‘still entitled to deference’ ” and should have been weighed using all of the relevant factors. ... The ALJ in this case did not give proper deference to Dr. Cruz’s opinion, did not weigh any relevant factors other than the supportability factor, or consider for the record what lesser weight should be given to his opinion. ... These factors are set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship and provide reasons for the weight given to every treating physician's opinion, with a well-supported and consistent treating opinion entitled to controlling weight.

Yurt v. Colvin · filed 2014-07-10(c)(2)

As for treating physicians Dr. Shao and Dr. Ogu, we simply note that in addition to summarizing Yurt’s visits and describing their treatment notes, the ALJ should explicitly consider the details of the treatment relationship and provide reasons for the weight given to their opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (describing six factor weighing process ALJ must perform for “every” treating physician); see also Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing § 404.1527 for principle that ALJ must offer “good reasons” for rejecting treating physicians opinion, which is accorded controlling weight so long as it is “well supported” and consistent with other evidence in the record) (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor in weighing a treating physician’s opinion if the rationale is discernible and supported by good reasons.

Couture v SSA · filed 2015-06-25(c)(2)

The ALJ need not, as Couture suggests, explicitly take account of all the factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, so long as the court is able, as it is here, “to discern the rationale the ALJ used to reach his determination and that determination is founded on ‘good reasons’ that are supported by substantial record evidence.” Figueroa v. Astrue, 2012 DNH 101, 15.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source opinions significant weight, permits an ALJ to discount them when inconsistent with the record, requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons when denying controlling weight, and does not bind the Social Security Administration to opinions that a claimant is disabled.

Deane v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-29(c)(2), (d)(1), and (d)(2)

Deane disputes the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Weiner’s opinion that the claimant is not a candidate for gainful employment. Though the opinions of a treating physician are generally accorded significant weight, Monroe v. Barnhart, 471 F.Supp.2d 203, 211 (D. Mass. 2007), “[t]he ALJ is entitled ‘to downplay the weight afforded a treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of an impairment where ... it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other evidence in the record,”’ Arrington v. Colvin, 216 F.Supp.3d 217, 240 (D. Mass.2016) (quoting Arruda v. Barnhart, 314 F.Supp.2d 52, 72 (D. Mass. 2004)), appeal docketed, No. 17-1047 (1st Cir. Jan. 10, 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Where the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, as was the case here, the ALJ may consider “an array of factors” in deciding how to weigh the physician’s opinion. Arrington, 216 F.Supp.3d at 240 (quoting Bourinot v. Colvin, 95 F.Supp.3d 161, 175-76 (D. Mass. 2015)). These factors include “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the degree to which the opinion can be supported by relevant evidence, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole.” Id. The ALJ is not required to explicitly list these factors, but must provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s medical opinion. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Social Security Administration is under no obligation to categorize a claimant as “disabled” even if a medical source opines that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, explain any discounting, and consider specified factors when determining its value.

Galarza v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-19(c)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must also “offer good reasons for discounting” the opinion of a treating physician. Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted); Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. And even if a treater’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740; Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but does not require explicit discussion and weighing of every factor if the ALJ minimally articulates the reasoning.

Peak v. Saul · filed 2019-08-05(c)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion (Dkt. 16 at 11), and as discussed below, the ALJ sufficiently addressed the regulatory factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). She did not need to specifically discuss each one. The Seventh Circuit has stated that “[i]n weighing a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must consider the factors found in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c), but need only ‘minimally articulate’ his reasoning; the ALJ need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires considering a treating source opinion's supportability by medical signs and laboratory findings and its consistency with the record as a whole when weighing the opinion.

Seng v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(c)

...; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (factors to consider in weighing treating source opinion include the supportability of the opinion by medical signs and laboratory findings as well as the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and other listed factors.

TELFAIRE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)-(4)

In determining the appropriate weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ weighs the opinion against several factors, including treatment relationship, the doctor’s specialty, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the decree to which an opinion is supported by relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(4) and (d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion and to provide good reasons for the assigned weight.

Reid v. Saul · filed 2019-10-03(d)(2)

Even when a treating physician's opinion is not given “controlling” weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive. See Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Those factors include: “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian, 708 F.3d at 418 (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129). After considering those factors, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (internal citations omitted). “Failure to provide such ‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is a ground for remand.” Id. at 129–30 (internal citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its value by considering the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability.

ROSS v. SAUL · filed 2019-10-17(c)

When a treating opinion is contradicted by other substantial evidence, such that controlling weight is not appropriate, the ALJ is still “required to determine what value the assessment did merit.” Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739-40 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010)). The Seventh Circuit has explained that “[i]f an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (citing Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed regulatory factors when evaluating a treating physician's opinion.

Nelson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-18(c)(2)-(6)

As Plaintiff points out (Joint Stip. at 16), the ALJ’s assessment of the treating physician’s opinions does not indicate consideration of the regulatory factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), an omission which “alone constitutes reversible legal error.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

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

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions.

Scott v. Saul · filed 2020-03-31(d)(2)

Regardless of the decision the ALJ must still provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned the treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ must weigh each opinion by considering the following factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and the medical source, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the physician provides support for his findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the physician’s findings, and the physician’s area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5), 416 .927(c)(1)-(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source's medical opinion using specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Olive v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-31(d)(2)

Even if a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” ... The factors reference in that section are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician's opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... After considering these factors, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 2004)(citations omitted). ... The ALJ provided the basis for rejecting Dr. Suryadevara’s opinion with specific references to the medical record demonstrating the inconsistencies. No error is found in the analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to apply the controlling-weight test to a treating source's opinion and, if controlling weight is denied, evaluate the opinion using the listed factors.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-29(c)(2)

Initially, the Court finds the ALJ erred by failing to: mention the controlling weight test, specifically decline to afford Dr. Grisoni’s opinion controlling weight, and analyze the controlling weight factors with regard to his opinion, i.e., whether Dr. Grisoni’s opinion was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and whether the opinion is consistent “with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” LaRiccia, 549 F. App’x at 384. Such failure constitutes reversible error, see Marks v. Colvin, 201 F. Supp. 3d 870, 882 (S.D. Ohio 2016), because the lack of explanation regarding the “controlling weight [analysis] hinders a meaningful review of whether the ALJ properly applied the treating-physician rule that is at the heart of this regulation.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 377 (6th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs adjudicators to weigh a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability and consistency, and specialization.

Rouzan v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-06-30(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ should weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient working relationship, the frequency of examinations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating source’s opinion using the specified regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Haley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-07-22(c)

“give good reasons, tied to the factors specified in the cited regulations . . . for the weight assigned”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to weigh a treating physician's opinion using listed factors and does not require explicit discussion of every factor if the ALJ minimally articulates the reasoning.

Provenzano v. Saul · filed 2020-07-29(c)

For claims like Regina’s that were filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide a number of factors the ALJ may consider in determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion in situations where the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, because it is either not supported by medically acceptable techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... Those factors include the length and frequency of the treating relationship, the nature and extent of that relationship, the supportability of the doctor’s opinion, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Regina is correct that the ALJ did not explicitly consider the length and frequency of her treating relationship with Dr. Fischer in giving his opinion little weight, but an ALJ is not required to “explicitly discuss and weigh each factor,” so long as he minimally articulates his reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider six listed factors, and the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

ZAVATTARO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-11-19(c)(1)–(6)

However, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... An ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons in the written decision for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion and explain the reasoning sufficiently for later review.

WHEELDON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-10(c)(2)

The regulations mandate that the ALJ provide “good reasons” for the weight he assigns the treating source’s opinion in his written determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ should explain the weight given to ensure that the discussion of the evidence allows a “subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning[.]” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes a claimant's subjective complaints recorded by a physician from the physician's own medical opinion; the complaints do not become medical opinions or receive deference merely because they appear in the physician's notes.

Reynolds v. SSA · filed 2015-05-22(a)(2), (d)

The fact that [the claimant] told [her doctor] that she was experiencing pain and the fact that he recorded her complaints in his notes does not convert her subjective complaints of pain into medical opinion, thus entitling it to some measure of deference. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 404.1527(d), 416.927(a)(2), 416.927(d). Likewise, [the claimant’s] subjective complaints are not entitled to greater weight simply because they appear in her physician’s notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) distinguishes a doctor's recital of a patient's reported history from the doctor's own assessment or medical opinion.

Green v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-13(a)(2)

And Dr. Elmore’s note was part of the doctor’s recital of his patient’s reported history, not part of his assessment or medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits the ALJ to use evidence and opinions from medical sources, including treating sources, regarding the nature and severity of impairments.

Legg v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-24(d)(2)

Furthermore, having found a lack of evidence to support Dr. Bonavita’s assessment, the ALJ was entitled to rely on statements by other physicians in the record, including the statement of Dr. Ganesh. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“We use medical sources, including your treating source, to provide evidence, including opinions, on the nature and severity of your impairment(s).”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats statements as medical opinions only when they come from physicians or psychologists and reflect judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment.

McMahon v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2014-09-24(a)(2)

not constitute “medical opinions” because they are not statements from physicians or psychologists that reflect judgment about the nature and severity of McMahon’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).4 Thus, the ALJ was not required to assign and explain the weight given to that evidence. See id.; see also Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 280-81.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as statements from physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of impairments, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, abilities, and restrictions.

Pena v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-20(a)(2)

Moreover, the regulations define a “medical opinion” as “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.”11 A claimant’s education is a vocational factor the ALJ considers in determining what jobs a claimant is capable of performing; illiteracy is one category of education.12 The regulations consider a claimant illiterate if “the person cannot read or write a simple message such as instructions or inventory lists.”13 Thus, we agree with the Commissioner that Dr. Pelzer’s testimony is not a medical opinion entitled to greater weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) treats findings from nonexamining agency consultants as opinion evidence that the hearing officer must consider and evaluate but need not adopt.

DaSilva-Santos v. Astrue · filed 2009-02-10(f)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) all evidence from nonexamining sources is to be considered opinion evidence. An agency consultant may consider the evidence in the case record and make findings of fact about the medical issues and findings with regard to residual functional capacity. These findings are not evidence themselves. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). The hearing officer is still responsible for reviewing the evidence and making his own findings of fact and drawing his conclusions of law. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). He is not bound by any findings made by agency consultants, but must consider these findings, except for the ultimate determination of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i). He is to evaluate them using factors such as the specialty and expertise of the consultant, the supporting evidence in the case record, and supporting explanations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (2) (ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) does not treat a social worker's assessment as an acceptable-medical-source opinion eligible for controlling weight.

Bliss v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-01-19(a)(2)

At the threshold, the assessment by the social worker is ineligible to receive controlling weight because social workers do not qualify as “acceptable medical source[s].”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) limits medical opinions to acceptable medical sources, including physicians and psychologists whose opinions reflect judgments about the nature and severity of impairments.

Warren v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-12(a)(2)

Regarding Warren’s initial objections, only “acceptable medical sources” can give medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). An “acceptable medical source” includes opinions from physicians, and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats nurse practitioners as outside the list of acceptable medical sources, so their opinions cannot establish a medically determinable impairment.

Balaguer v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-31(a)(2)

The Social Security Regulations' exclude nurse practitioners from the list of acceptable medical sources and they “cannot establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment.” SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 governs the consideration and weight of medical opinions from acceptable medical sources; opinions from other sources do not receive controlling weight, and opinions on ultimate disability are not determinative.

Eusepi v. Colvin · filed 2014-12-01(a)(2), (c), (c)(2), (d)(1)

Title 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) governs consideration of “medical opinions,” which are defined as “statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Physicians’ assistants are not “acceptable medical sources” under this regulation, but rather are “other sources.” Id. § 404.1513(a), (d). While opinions from other sources are properly considered in assessing claimed disability, see id., they need not be given the controlling weight accorded to opinions from treating medical sources, see id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Moreover, an opinion on the ultimate question of the applicant’s “disability” is not determinative, because that finding is reserved to the agency. See id. § 404.1527(d)(1); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) does not treat chiropractors as acceptable medical sources, so an ALJ need not give their opinions special weight or specifically explain why it disregards them.

Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-09-26(a)(2)

Chiropractors are not an “acceptable [medical] source” for these purposes. Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). There is therefore no requirement that an ALJ give special weight to a chiropractor’s opinion or specifically explain his reasons for disregarding the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not give controlling weight to opinions from a licensed professional counselor who is not an acceptable medical source.

Thornton v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-02-05(a)(2)

Upon review, however, Ms. Crane was actually a licensed professional counselor, not a doctor or a psychologist. (Tr. 529). Thus, she is not an “acceptable medical source,” and her opinions are not entitled to any controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (2017). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a) (2017) (defining an “acceptable medical source”). Thus, the Court finds no basis for reversal on this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source, § 404.1527(f)(1) does not require the ALJ to apply every § 404.1527(c) factor in every case.

Burkhart v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-22(f)(1)

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to apply all factors from Section 404.1527(c) in evaluating Ms. Price’s opinion; however, the ALJ is not required to apply all Section 404.1527(c) factors when considering the weight to give a non-acceptable medical source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources using the relevant evaluation factors, explain the weight given, and do so whether or not the source is treating.

Korfiatis v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-03-08(f)

An ALJ must consider both “medical opinions,” defined as opinions provided by “acceptable medical sources,” and “[o]pinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources,” along with other relevant evidence. ... The ALJ is instructed to consider the same factors when evaluating opinions from both acceptable and non-acceptable medical sources. ... The ALJ generally should explain the weight given to non-acceptable medical source opinions or otherwise ensure that his discussion of evidence makes his reasoning apparent. ... I need not resolve this issue because the regulations obligating an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources do not distinguish between treating and non-treating providers. ... In other words, even if Counselor Strong was not a treating source, the ALJ had a duty to consider her opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to consider opinion evidence from non-acceptable medical sources using the factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), although not every factor applies in every case.

Fernandez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-20(f)(1)

True, an ALJ must consider opinion evidence from non-acceptable medical sources using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). ALJ Gabbard clearly used these factors to determine that the opinions lacked consistency and supportability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) (explaining that, when evaluating “other source” evidence, “not every factor…will apply in every case because the evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source…depends on the particular facts in each case.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider evidence from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and permits rejecting their opinions only for reasons germane to the opinion.

Womack-Wright v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(f)

“Only physicians and certain other qualified specialists are considered ‘[a]cceptable medical sources.’ ” Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161 (alteration in original). However, an ALJ is required to consider evidence from non-acceptable medical sources, such as therapists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). An ALJ may reject the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source by giving reasons germane to the opinion. Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) provides that opinions from non-acceptable medical sources receive less deference than acceptable medical-source opinions, but the ALJ must consider them and may discount them for germane reasons.

Decker v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(f)

“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.1 Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111; Dale v. Colvin, 823 F.3d 941, 943 (9th Cir. 2016); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). ... The ALJ assigned less weight to Ms. Williams opinion because it did not provide specific limitations precluding her from performing work activities, it was inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding severity of Plaintiff’s impairments, and indicated that Plaintiff had a greater functional capacity than was assigned by the ALJ. AR 1154-55. ... Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in his consideration of Ms. Williams’ opinion because he provided germane reasons to support a finding of less credibility.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) limits medical opinions to statements from acceptable medical sources, so a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable source for a medical opinion.

Messee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(a)(1)

A nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source who can give a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Former § 404.1527's factors governed medical opinions from physicians, psychologists, and other acceptable medical sources, not opinions from nurse practitioners or therapists.

Ruffin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-27

Plaintiff relies on rescinded Social Security Ruling 06-3p to argue that the ALJ was required to analyze the opinions using the factors found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Even so, the ALJ considered the specialty of the medical providers and the consistency of their opinions compared with the records as a whole. Moreover, the factors set forth in former § 404.1527 were standards by which the Commissioner would consider medical opinions from Aphysicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources@ and not Aother sources,@ such as a nurse practitioner or a therapist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Controlling weight is given only to a medical opinion from an acceptable medical source; an opinion from a nurse practitioner who is not an acceptable medical source does not receive controlling weight.

Aldrich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(a)(1), (c)

However, under the applicable regulations, controlling weight is only given to a medical opinion from an “acceptable medical source,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), (c), and, as noted above, Ms. Strasburger was not an acceptable medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) limits medical opinions to statements from acceptable medical sources.

Ingram v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-23(a)(2)

She did so because Dr. Graham “performed a thorough psychological examination and he identified specific medical reasons for the limitations that he assessed” and because he is a psychiatrist and an “acceptable” medical source under Social Security regulations. (Id.); see Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 06-03p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) (only acceptable medical sources can provide evidence to establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (only acceptable medical sources can provide medical opinions). ... Ingram’s arguments fail to show how the ALJ either (1) misinterpreted Ingram’s medical records or (2) incorrectly weighed opinions of both acceptable and non-acceptable medical sources. Instead, the Court’s review shows the ALJ’s determination of the severity of Ingram’s mental impairments is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, but failure to expressly discuss every factor can be harmless when the outcome would be unchanged.

Centeno v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-24(c)

The Court notes that when an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must still consider a number of factors in determining the value the assessment merits, including the length, nature, and extent of the claimant’s relationship with the treating source; the frequency of examination; whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the treating source is a specialist. ... After assigning “little weight” to Dr. Broeren’s opinion, the ALJ failed to discuss those factors expressly – namely whether Dr. Broeren was a specialist; the frequency of examinations; and the length, nature, and extent of Centeno’s relationship with Dr. Broeren. This omission does not always merit remand, however, when – as in this instance – the doctor was not a specialist and the frequency of examinations was limited. ... Any error in the ALJ’s failure to articulate the §404.1527(c) factors is harmless. Karr, 989 F.3d at 513.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, testing, consistency, and supportability, but does not require the ALJ to address every factor explicitly.

Harrell v. Saul · filed 2023-03-29(c)

It is true that when an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require him to “consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the type of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)); Karr, 989 F.3d at 512. However, an ALJ need not explicitly address each factor, so long as the factors are considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

MEDINA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-06-15(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). ... Because the ALJ’s recitation of the evidence and assessment of opinion evidence does not clearly explain his finding that the other portions of Dr. Cohen’s 2019 opinion are “unsupported by the evidence[,]” R. 21, the Court cannot meaningfully review that finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) makes consistency between a medical opinion and the record as a whole a factor in assigning weight to the opinion.

Reynolds v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-07-13(c)(4)

Consistency between the medical opinion and the record as a whole is one of the standards that the ALJ must look to in assigning weight to a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(C)(4). Here, there was evidence in the record, which the ALJ relied upon, that was in contradiction with Dr. Jetly’s opinions. Consequently, the ALJ was justified in relying on these inconsistencies as a basis for assigning little weight to Dr. Jetly’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires treating-source medical opinions that are not given controlling weight to be weighed under all regulatory factors, but it does not require an explicit factor-by-factor discussion if the decision makes the assigned weight and reasons sufficiently clear.

Lucero v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-27(c)

“Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... “Although the ALJ must consider each factor in weighing a medical opinion, [he] is not required to engage in an explicit factor-by-factor analysis, so long as [his] written decision is ‘sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers that weight the adjudicator gave to the [ ] opinion and the reason for that weight.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its weight by considering the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, testing, support, and consistency.

Gaskew v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-20(c)

Even if an ALJ gives good reasons for not giving controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion, she still must decide what weight to give that opinion. Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. In making this decision, the ALJ must consider a variety of factors, including: “the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician's specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician's opinion.” Kaminski v. Berryhill, 894 F.3d 870, 875 (7th Cir. 2018), amended on reh'g (Aug. 30, 2018) (quoting Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). Here, the ALJ failed to address several of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. For example, the ALJ did not acknowledge Dr. Sokolowski's specialty in orthopedics, which would support favoring his opinion over the opinions of non-specialists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”). The ALJ also did not discuss the support for Dr. Sokolowski’s opinion in the medical record. The ALJ's failure to sufficiently account for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 prevents the Court from determining the reasonableness of the ALJ's decision considering these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before 2017, § 404.1527(c) generally gives treating-source opinions more weight and, when no opinion is controlling, requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the regulation’s listed factors.

Neifert · filed 2025-12-11(c)

On this score, Neifert’s case was filed prior to 2017, when the regulations provided that ALJs were to evaluate medical source opinions in correlation with their ties to the claimant. Thus, under this paradigm, treating sources are generally entitled to more weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources...”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502 (defining treating source). ... Finally, where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors before rejecting a treating source opinion.

Price v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-12(d)

Before rejecting a treating source opinion, the ALJ must address several relevant factors, including the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treating relationship, evidence supporting the opinions, the consistency of those opinions, and medical specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning reduced weight to a treating source’s opinion.

Vázquez-Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-05-07(c)(2)

Without citing to particular examples or providing additional explanation, statements that a treating physician’s notes “do not support such a debilitating assessment as noted in the reports” and “include referrals from other physicians who indicated a more improved condition,” (Tr. 18), do not constitute good reasons to accord reduced weight to a treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) calls for considering the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination when weighing a treating source’s opinion.

Martin v. Saul · filed 2020-04-20(c)(2)(i)

The ALJ first correctly noted that Dr. Clayton said he had only seen Plaintiff for six months. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (stating that, when weighing treating source opinions, both the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination is considered).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Schmoll v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-18(c)(2)

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.”). ... Because the only reason cited by the ALJ in support of his decision to discount Dr. Kerrigan’s opinion is not supported by the record, and this error could impact the outcome of this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)’s criteria guide the weight an ALJ gives opinions from other medical sources, including physician’s assistants.

Phillips v. Astrue · filed 2010-12-23(d)(2)

In deciding how much weight to give to opinions from these “other medical sources,” an ALJ should apply the same criteria listed in § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) and (f)(2) require an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources and generally explain the weight given to them, but those opinions are not entitled to controlling weight over opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Kirby v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-30(f)(1), (f)(2)

The regulations indicate that an ALJ considers opinions from such sources, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1), and should generally explain the weight given to them, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2), but they are not entitled to controlling weight over the opinions of other acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) calls for an ALJ to explain the weight given to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, or otherwise make the reasoning followable, when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-22(f)(2)

An ALJ may consider medical evidence from non-acceptable medical sources using the same factors that apply to acceptable medical sources in §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(1)-(6). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1). The regulations further explain to what extent the ALJ must explain the weight given to evidence from a non-acceptable medical source. An 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 [ALJ’s] reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2). Here, the ALJ failed to discuss the nurse practitioner’s report or any of the evidence related to Plaintiff’s depression diagnosis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources, does not require assigning them specific weight, and generally calls for an explanation sufficient to let a claimant or later reviewer follow the reasoning when the opinion could affect the outcome.

Gregg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-12(f)(1), (f)(2)

A licensed clinical social worker is not an “acceptable medical source,” but can provide a medical opinion as to the severity of a claimant’s impairments and how they affect a claimant’s ability to work. Anteau v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 708 F. App’x 611, 613 (11th Cir. 2017); § 1527(f)(1). While an ALJ must consider such an opinion, the ALJ is not required to give it any specific weight. See Anteau, 708 F. App’x at 613. An 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.” Id. § 1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives an ALJ discretion to determine how much weight to give a medical source who is not an accepted medical source.

Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-12

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the ALJ has discretion to determine how much weight to afford to a medical source that is not an “accepted” medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources when assessing the severity of an impairment and its effect on ability to work, but does not require those opinions to receive controlling weight.

Muronda v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-13(f)

NP Hershkowitz was not an “acceptable medical source” for purposes of the treating physician rule, but her opinion may be considered in determining the limitations that an impairment may impose on a plaintiff. ... The ALJ mentioned that NP Hershdowitz was not an acceptable medical source, but still gave her opinions and notes “some weight” because “she did examine [plaintiff] on multiple occasions and treat [plaintiff] for most of the relevant period at issue.” (T. 21).

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.

Jimenez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03(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) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, which may sometimes outweigh opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Fleischman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03(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) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, which may sometimes outweigh opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Auxier-Fagg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-14(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 requires consideration of opinions from non-acceptable medical sources and does not allow an opinion to be rejected in its entirety merely because it addresses the ultimate issue of disability.

(SS) (CONSENT) Korobova v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-24(f) and (d)

Testimony from a treating therapist qualifies as an “other source” or as a non-acceptable medical source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d) (2013). ... The opinions of non-acceptable medical sources, who often have “close contact with . . . individuals and have personal knowledge and expertise to make judgments about their impairment(s), activities, and level of functioning over a period of time,” are to be considered as “valuable sources of evidence for assessing impairment severity and functioning.” ... The ALJ’s first reason for discounting Mr. Kagan’s opinion — that it is an impermissible finding on the ultimate issue of disability, AR 32 — is not sufficient. ... However, the mere fact that a medical source offers an opinion as to the ultimate issue of disability is not a valid reason to discount the opinion in its entirety. ... Accordingly, the ALJ erred in discounting Mr. Kagan’s opinion as to particular limitations, as opposed to his conclusion of disability, on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires opinions from non-acceptable medical sources to be considered using the applicable factors and generally requires the adjudicator to explain the weight given when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-25(f)(1)

The regulations state that, while “[o]pinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources” will be “consider[ed] using the same factors” for considering acceptable medical source opinions, “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 . . . depends on the particular facts of each case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527/(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1). ... Finally, the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from” sources who are not acceptable 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)(1), 416.927(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires adjudicators to consider opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources using the listed factors and generally explain the weight given or their reasoning when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(f)(1), (f)(2)

Accordingly, the A.L.J. was incorrect in summarily concluding that since Ms. Scott and Ms. Louis do not qualify as acceptable medical sources, they cannot provide opinions that must be considered. To the extent that the A.L.J. discounted their opinions on this basis, which is not clear from the decision, it was error. Moreover, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2) and 416.927(f)(2), an A.L.J. “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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source to outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source.

Hetherington v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-27(f)

The mere fact that a medical source is not an “acceptable” medical source is not a germane reason to reject their opinion. Indeed, “an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats only an acceptable medical source as capable of providing a medical opinion or being a treating source, but permits an ALJ to consider opinions from other medical sources using the factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Bonato v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13(a)(1), (a)(2), (f)(1)

As a result, her report does not constitute a “medical opinion,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), and report was not entitled to any special weight or deference, as only an “acceptable medical source” can be a “treating source.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Rather, the law allowed the ALJ to consider Ms. DeFrancisco’s opinions to assess the severity of Kevin’s impairments on his ability to work, and that is what the ALJ did. SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1) (ALJs may consider opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources using the same factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For an opinion from a source who is not an acceptable medical source, the factors used to evaluate acceptable-source opinions depend on the facts, and not every factor applies in every case.

Sosh v. Saul · filed 2020-07-14(f)(1)

True, the ALJ here did not explicitly consider every factor listed under § 404.1527(c). But for someone like Bow who was not an acceptable medical source, the application of these factors “depends on the particular facts” and “not every factor … will apply in every case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) says an ALJ generally should explain the weight given to opinions from non-medical sources.

Brookins, II v. Saul · filed 2020-07-30(f)(2)

And an ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from [non-medical] sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources and bars rejecting an opinion solely because of the source’s status, although that status may affect the deference given.

Haley v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-08-20

The ALJ is required to consider evidence from non-acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2012). Although an individual’s status as a medically acceptable source may impact the amount of deference the ALJ gives to an opinion, the ALJ may not reject an opinion as to a claimant’s limitations because the opinion comes from a non-acceptable medical source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2012). The fact that Mr. Aquilino is not an acceptable medical source is not a germane reason to reject the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources and bars rejecting such an opinion solely because of the source’s status.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(f)

The ALJ is required to consider evidence from non-acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2012). Although an individual’s status as a medically acceptable source may impact the amount of deference the ALJ gives to an opinion, the ALJ may not reject an opinion as to a claimant’s limitations because the opinion comes from a non-acceptable medical source. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) provides that opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources are not entitled to controlling weight.

Holscher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(f)

Moreover, neither NP Longdon nor LMHC Nolan-Eaton is an acceptable medical source under the regulations requiring their opinions be given controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source.

Ard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-05(f)

While Ms. Mata is not an acceptable medical source, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 416.902(a), the ALJ is still required to consider her opinion, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires non-treating medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, supportability, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion, rather than being given controlling weight.

Helton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-03-17(c)

Opinions from non-treating sources are never assessed for controlling weight but are evaluated using the regulatory balancing factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). These opinions are weighed “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). “Other factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the opinion’ may be considered in assessing any type of medical opinion.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(c)(6) should be considered when weighing an unacceptable medical source’s opinion, but the regulation does not require the same rigorous explanation required for a licensed psychologist’s opinion.

Sadakhom v. Saul · filed 2021-04-08(c)(1)-(c)(6)

Therefore, although the factors outlined in Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(c)(6) should be considered and may aid the ALJ in determining what weight to give an unacceptable medical source, the regulations do not insist on the same rigorous explanation as would be required for the opinion of a licensed psychologist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship and supporting explanations, and it does not permit discounting a medical source merely because the claimant, rather than the agency, sought the consultation.

Gordon v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-17(d)

Nothing in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 allows the Social Security Administration to discredit a medical source because the Plaintiff, instead of the administration, sought the consultation. That provision outlines the amount of weight afforded to medical opinions based on the length of treatment and the type of relationship, among other things.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, such as nurse practitioners, must still be considered using the factors generally used to evaluate treating-source opinions, although those sources cannot receive controlling weight as treating sources.

Parent v. Colvin · filed 2014-09-10(c)(2)-(6)

Nevertheless, the opinions of “other” medical sources such as Ms. Ridley still must be considered, applying the same factors as are generally used to assess treating source opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The factors in § 404.1527(c) are basic principles for evaluating all medical-source opinions, including those from sources who are not acceptable medical sources, but an ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor if the reasoning can be followed.

Fulton v. Colvin · filed 2015-11-09(c)

Although those factors “explicitly apply only to the evaluation of medical opinions from ‘acceptable medical sources,’” they “represent basic principles that apply to the consideration of all opinions from medical sources who are not ‘acceptable medical sources.’” ... But not every factor will apply in every case, id. at *5, and an ALJ is not required to expressly discuss those factors in his decision: “In the case of a nonacceptable medical source[,] . . . the ALJ’s decision is sufficient if it permits us to ‘follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.’” ... Here, the ALJ’s discussion allows us to follow his reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires adjudicators to apply the same opinion-weighing factors to opinions from nonacceptable medical sources as to opinions from acceptable medical sources, and those factors may support giving the former greater weight.

Quinn v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-20(f)

The adjudicator is to apply the same factors to the opinions of nonacceptable medical sources as applied to acceptable medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). The factors include the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and a catchall other factors that the claimant brings to the attention of the adjudicator. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). After applying any applicable factors, which depend on the facts of each particular case, an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source, including the medical opinion of a treating source. 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527's criteria should be applied when evaluating opinions from other medical sources.

Sanders v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-23

To evaluate opinions from “other medical sources,” an ALJ should “‘apply the same criteria listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 for evaluating medical opinions from acceptable medical sources … includ[ing] ‘the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant regulatory factors when evaluating opinions from non-acceptable and acceptable medical sources, including the factors identified in § 404.1527(c).

Devery v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-12(f)(1)

The ALJ also should consider the same factors, if relevant under the facts of the particular case, to evaluate the opinions of both non-acceptable and acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). These factors include: (1) the examining relationship (more weight is generally given to an examining source over a non-examining source); ... (8) other relevant factors (including knowledge about social security “disability programs and their evidentiary requirements” and “the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record”). Id. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ “should explain the weight given to opinions from [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 [ALJ’s] reasoning.” Id. § 404.1527(f)(2). ... The ALJ also did not provide a germane reason to discount the opinion of Ms. Ford, nor did the ALJ appear to follow 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) and consider the appropriate factors under § 404.1527(c) in evaluating Ms. Ford’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires non-treating medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, and supportability, rather than being given controlling weight.

Delozier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of (PLR1) · filed 2019-09-24(c)

Opinions from non-treating sources are never assessed for controlling weight but are evaluated using the regulatory balancing factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). These opinions are weighed “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including supportability, consistency, the treatment relationship, specialization, and other relevant considerations, and consultative examiners' opinions are evaluated as opinions from non-treating sources.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-04(c)

The opinions of the consultative examiners are subject to the same evaluation as all medical opinions from non-treating sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Thus, the ALJ is entitled to accept or reject those portions of these opinions based on the consistency of the opinion with the medical record. Upon review of the ALJ's decision, it is clear that the ALJ considered the level of support for the opinions of the consultative examiners, the consultative nature of the examination, and the consistency of that opinion with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) does not require an ALJ to consider each of the six factors used to evaluate opinions from acceptable medical sources when evaluating an opinion from a provider who is not an acceptable medical source.

Kent v. Saul · filed 2021-03-03(f)(1)

With respect to Petitioner’s first assignment of error, the ALJ is not required to consider each of the six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when considering opinion evidence from providers who are not acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1).