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(b) requires an ALJ to consider an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source and explain the weight assigned to it, although such an opinion is not entitled to special deference.

Fowler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-16(b)

Regardless, ALJ Brock was still required to consider APRN Dean’s opinion of Fowler and explain why she assigned it “little weight.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b); see also Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 560 Fed.Appx. 547, 550 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing SSR 06-03p at *6) (While an ALJ must consider opinions from other sources and “generally should explain the weight given” to their opinions, these opinions are “not entitled to any special deference.”)); Cruse v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 502 F.3d 532, 541 (6th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) permits opinions from other sources to be used to show the severity of an impairment and its effect on ability to work, even though they may be given less weight than opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Standish v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-03(d)(1)

Although an ALJ may discount “other sources” for germane reasons, opinions from “other sources” may still be used to show the severity of a person’s impairment and how that affects that person’s ability to work. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). Put differently, although the ALJ was permitted to reject QMHP Hatton’s opinion, the fact that QMHP Hatton is an “other source” was not itself a legally independent reason to reject QMHP Hatton’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider a nurse practitioner's opinions about the severity of a claimant's impairments and their effect on the claimant's ability to work, even though a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source.

Valadez v. Social Security · filed 2023-01-18(f)

While a nurse practitioner was not an “acceptable medical source” pursuant to the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ was still required to consider her opinions in determining the severity of a claimant’s impairments and how it affects his ability to do work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider evidence from non-acceptable medical sources and permits rejection of such a source’s opinion for reasons germane to the opinion.

Robinson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-30(f)

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. ... The ALJ gave germane reasons to reject Ms. Stone’s opinion and thus did not error in considering Ms. Stone’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a non-acceptable medical source’s opinions by reference to the regulation’s enumerated factors.

Linton v. Saul · filed 2023-03-31(c)(1)-(6)

Second, an ALJ must explain any weight that is given to the opinions of a non-acceptable medical source with reference to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources under the listed factors, but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss each factor.

Henn v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-29(c), (f)

An ALJ is required to consider "[o]pinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources" using the factors in § 404.1527. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). ... As the Ninth Circuit has noted, "[t]he agency was not required to specifically reference each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)." Harris v. Colvin, 584 Fed.Appx. 526, 528, n.1 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ did not err by failing to expressly discussing each factor listed in § 404.1527(c) when evaluating Freer’s April 29, 2021, opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain generally the weight given to an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source, or otherwise make the ALJ's reasoning traceable to the claimant or a subsequent reviewer.

Pritchard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-25(f)(2)

The ALJ needed only “generally . . . explain the weight given to opinions from [this non-acceptable medical] source[ ] or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows ... [the] claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [the ALJ’s] reasoning.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2). The ALJ did so in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) generally requires an adjudicator to explain the weight given to opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and to discuss the evidence sufficiently for a claimant or reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.

Neumeister v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-16(f)

However, this does not permit an ALJ to disregard the opinion of a physician's assistant without explaining her reasoning in any way. The regulations provided that, when the record contained “[o]pinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources,” “[t]he adjudicator generally should explain the weight given to [these] opinions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). When assigning weight to “[o]pinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources,” the ALJ is still required to “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), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) treats nurse practitioners as non-acceptable medical sources whose opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, leaving the ALJ discretion to weigh those opinions under the regulatory factors.

Grennell v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-19(f)(1)

Moreover, the regulations in place during the relevant time period provided that nurse practitioners were not an acceptable medical source, and not entitled to controlling weight; thus the ALJ had discretion to determine what weight to give NP Korona’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1); see Monette v. Colvin, 654 F. App’x 516, 518 (2d Cir. 2016) (Summary Order) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ committed error by attributing more weight to the opinion of the consulting psychologist than to the opinion of his treating nurse practitioner, because “a nurse practitioner is not an ‘acceptable medical source’ whose opinion is eligible for ‘controlling weight’ . . . and the weight attributed to [the opinion] was supported by the applicable regulatory factors.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits an ALJ to evaluate opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources using the same factors used for acceptable medical-source opinions.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-11-21(f)

Under the regulations governing this case, Ms. Pearson, a licensed mental health counselor, is not an acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ may evaluate opinions of other medical sources using the same factors used to evaluate medical opinions of acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion may be discounted for lack of support or inconsistency.

Walton v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-06(d)(2)

The opinions and findings of the plaintiff's treating physician are entitled to "controlling weight" if that opinion is "`well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.'" Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(2000)). ... However, while the opinion of the treating physician should be given great weight, this is true only if the treating physician's opinion is based on sufficient medical data. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (providing that more weight will be given to opinion when a medical source presents relevant evidence, such as medical signs, in support of his or her opinion). ... Consistent with the Regulations, the ALJ stated that the opinion of a treating physician is normally entitled to great weight pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). Consistent with the Regulations, the ALJ also stated that such an opinion, may be disregarded or refused if it is not supported by credible medical findings on diagnostic tests and other screenings, or if it is countered by the opinion of a doctor who has greater expertise in the kind of impairment the claimant is alleging, or if the opinion is simply inconsistent with the preponderance of the other evidence in the record, medical and otherwise, including the claimant's own actions or admissions. Tr. 18.

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

When a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still weigh it using the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or conflicting factors.

Vincent Cavarra, Sr. v. Astrue · filed 2010-08-18(d)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, and the ALJ must give adequate reasons for the weight assigned or for rejecting it.

Zemp-Bacher v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-18

According to the regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is owed “controlling weight” as long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ must “give good reasons . . . for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted). If he rejects the opinion completely, he must give “specific legitimate reasons for doing so.” Id. (quotation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician's opinion but does not require an ALJ to explicitly enumerate each of the six regulatory factors.

Grant v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-30(d)(2)

However, the ALJ has no obligation to explicitly enumerate each of the six factors described in the Social Security regulations. The regulations require only that “good reasons” be provided for the weight given a treating physician's opinion. See Turner, 710 F. Supp. 2d at 106 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate the opinion using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Adams v. Berryhill · filed 2017-12-18(d)(2)-(6)

Further, even when an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to the opinions of a treating physician, she still must address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give those opinions. ... Here, the ALJ failed to minimally address many of the enumerated factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Specifically, the ALJ did not discuss the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, or whether Dr. Nash had a relevant specialty. ... The ALJ did not do so here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Musgrove v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-07(c)(2)

The ALJ, in determining not to give any weight to Dr. Dannenmaier’s opinions, failed to specifically address the above-referenced factors. The ALJ’s conclusory statement that she “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR. 1527” was insufficient. R. 21; see also Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697-98 (7th Cir. 2014)(stating that “[t]he ALJ . . . should have addressed these factors in her opinion to enable [the Court] to review whether she engaged in the correct methodology”). On remand, the ALJ should address the required regulatory factors in assessing the weight to be given to Dr. Dannenmaier’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider the applicable regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, and the opinion's consistency and supportability.

Kusher v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-21(c)

Even if these findings were grounded in the record, the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Shi’s opinion, the opinions of plaintiff’s other treating physicians, Drs. Kovari and Taufen, and the opinion of counselor Gross would still be flawed because the ALJ failed to assess them in accordance with the applicable regulatory factors. See Moss, 555 F.3d at 561; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider factors including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the physician's specialization.

Kelly v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-01(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ also erred in her treatment of Dr. Ratcliffe’s opinions by failing to consider the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in assessing a treating physician’s opinion, which we recently described as “reversible legal error.”

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 specified treatment-relationship, examination, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability factors.

James v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-17(c)

“If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... Finally, though the ALJ only discussed a few of Dr. Colleton’s opinions, she rejected all of them and did so without considering the regulatory factors required for assessing medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In short, the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Colleton’s opinions wholesale.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to explain why a treating physician’s opinion is rejected, and an implicit rejection is valid only when the ALJ’s discussion addresses the same ailments as the opinion.

Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(c)(2)

While implicit rejection is capable of satisfying § 1527, it did not in this case. Part of the purpose of this section is to make sure the claimant understands why the doctor’s opinion is being rejected, so for implicit rejection to be valid, the ALJ’s explicit rejection of some opinions must refer to the same ailments as are mentioned in the reports that were not explicitly rejected. See id. at 464-65. In the present case, this standard is not satisfied because Dr. Kistler’s February opinions discuss symptoms that the rejected documents do not mention. Thus, the opinions are not similar enough to ensure that the purpose of the provision is met.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to perform a detailed analysis of a treating physician’s opinion using the specified regulatory factors before rejecting it when there is no good cause to discount it.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-07-30(c)

In the absence of good cause, “an ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth in” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Because the ALJ did not have good cause to reject Dr. Mendez’s medical opinion, she was required to conduct the analysis required by § 404.1527(c). This was also not done here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require a detailed treating physician analysis when the ALJ gives the opinion less weight without rejecting it entirely.

Jones v. Astrue · filed 2011-09-28(d)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ did not entirely reject Dr. Garrison’s opinion, but properly gave it less weight, and therefore did not need to perform the six-step analysis discussed in Newton.

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

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

BULAVINETZ v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-09(d)(2)

It is well-settled that “the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kalmbach v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2011-01-07(d)(2)

The ALJ must give a treating source opinion “controlling weight” if the treating source opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Carter v. Astrue · filed 2011-03-04(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.”

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

The regulation requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, and failure to do so warrants remand.

Hobbs v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-21(d)(2), (c)(2)

Regardless of how much weight the ALJ affords a treating physicians opinion, the ALJ must “always give good reason” for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Failure to provide good reason for discrediting a treating physician’s opinion is grounds for remand. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Therefore, this Court finds that the ALJ did not err in assigning little weight to the opinions of Dr. Inveen and Dr. Goetz, and provided good reason for discounting their opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s medical opinion receives controlling weight when supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-12-17(d)(2)

The medical opinion of Wilson’s treating physicians was supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and was not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record; it therefore should have been giv...en controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s medical opinion receives controlling weight when supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-12-17(d)(2)

The ALJ also failed to support his discrediting of Wilson’s four treating physicians with clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits controlling weight only for a treating source’s medical opinion.

Simms v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-30(d)(2)

Accordingly, since the regulation only addresses giving controlling weight to a treating source, the ALJ erred in giving controlling weight to Dr. Smejkal’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

MENEY v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-22(d)(2)

Given the inconsistencies between some of the conclusions reached by Drs. Pielnik and Barnett and the rest of the record as a whole, including but not limited to treatment notes from Dr. Pielnik and others showing plaintiff to be consistently alert, with normal or average concentration, insight and judgment, and plaintiffs borderline intellectual functioning and demonstrated ability to complete college coursework and manage her household with little assistance, I find that their opinions that plaintiff is totally disabled are not entitled to controlling weight, and were properly rejected by the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when the objective medical evidence does not adequately support it.

Khounesavatdy v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-10(d)(2)

The ALJ’s opinion is reasonably interpreted as reflecting a conclusion that the treating physician’s opinion was not well-supported by the weight of the objective medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not permit an ALJ to deny a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight because the physician lacks knowledge of the disability program.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-21(c)(2)

But a lack of program knowledge is not a “good reason” for giving a treating physician’s opinion less-than-controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Sepulveda v. Callahan · filed 1998-04-16(d)(2)

The Court finds the ALJ committed no error in refusing to afford controlling weight to Dr. Flecha’s conclusory opinion for, under the regulations, it is not well supported and is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion to weigh it using the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, and to explain the decision.

Bateman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-08(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must still determine what weight to give it according to the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimants; whether the physician’s opinions were sufficiently supported; how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue; and other factors, such as the amount of understanding of the disability programs and their evidentiary requirements or the extent to which an acceptable medical source is familiar with other information in the claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6). Furthermore, “whenever an ALJ does reject a treating source’s opinion, a sound explanation must be given for that decision.” ... The ALJ mischaracterized the evidence by stating that the record reflected full strength “longitudinally” in order to discount the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician and did not address the treatment relationship or explain how the other factors he was required to consider affected his analysis of what weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, while opinions that a claimant is disabled or unable to work concern issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Mainella v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(c), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(3)

The Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to employ when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). For instance, the more a medical source presents evidence to support an opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight that medical opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). ... Statements by a medical source that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” constitute opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner and do not direct that a finding of disabled is warranted. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1); see Denomme v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 518 F. App’x 875, 877-78 (11th Cir. 2013) (stating that it is the Commissioner, not a claimant’s physician, who determines whether a claimant is statutorily disabled, and a statement by a medical source that a claimant is disabled does not mean that the Commissioner will conclude a claimant is disabled). ... The Commissioner need not afford any special significance to the source of such an opinion because the determination of disability and ability to work remain issues reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3). ... Importantly, though Dr. Mughni was a treating physician, the ALJ properly showed good cause for assigning little weight to his opinion. The ALJ noted that Dr. Mughni did not offer specific limitations and his opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole, his own treatment notes, and the Plaintiff’s daily activities (Tr. 17-19).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) favors giving a treating physician's opinion more weight when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

McDonaugh v. Astrue · filed 2009-12-02(d)(4)

In general, more weight should be accorded to a treating physician’s opinion “[t]he more consistent [the] opinion is with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4). Here, the ALJ correctly pointed out that Dr. Gair’s opinion that Plaintiff was precluded from sedentary work was at odds with that of every other professional who had examined Plaintiff or reviewed her medical records. Under the circumstances, it was appropriate for the ALJ to reason that this was a factor weighing against the acceptance of Dr. Gair’s conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)-(4) gives more weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the record as a whole.

Williams v. Asture · filed 2011-03-03(d)(3)-(4)

The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. . . . Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight" will be given to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3)-(4) and 416.927(d)(3)-(4). In this case, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination to give little weight to the opinion of Dr. Linda Abeles that Williams had a psychotic disorder. As the record shows, Dr. Abeles did not perform clinical tests, her opinion was unsupported by other medical findings in the record, her opinion was contradicted by another doctor’s psychiatric evaluation that was based upon clinical tests, and her opinion appeared to be inconsistent with Williams’s own statements.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Keefer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-30(c)(4)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (2012) (“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.

Under § 404.1527(c)(4), an ALJ may give more weight to medical opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-21(c)(4)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to opinions that are more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Erb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-06(c)(4)

She properly determines the weight to be given each medical opinion by considering the evidence in the record as the ALJ did here. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation permits an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) McMillen IV v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-17(c)(4)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Aldridge v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-07(c)(4)

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider that opinion in relation to the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) says that the weight given to a medical-source opinion depends in part on how consistent it is with the record as a whole.

Harold Boyd White, Sr. v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-10(c)(4)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (stating that the weight an ALJ accords to a medical source opinion depends, in part, on the consistency of that opinion with the record evidence as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Armbruster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-19(c)(4)

“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ] will give to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). ... The ALJ here detailed the clinical evidence, including many largely normal or only mildly abnormal findings, and set forth his interpretation that light work, rather than sedentary work, was the appropriate limitation. The ALJ explained that Dr. Hurley’s opinion was not fully consistent with the minimal objective findings. ... These were specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. Hurley’s limitations to less than light work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Coronado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-09(c)(4)

S/he properly determines the weight to be given each medical opinion by considering the evidence in the record, as the ALJ did here. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ gives more weight to a medical opinion that is supported by relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, and is consistent with the record as a whole.

Corbin v. SSA · filed 2020-07-10(c)(3), (c)(4)

The consistency between Dr. Chaney’s opinions that Corbin could perform some sitting, standing, moving, and carrying—signifying ability to perform light work—and the other medical evidence in the record, as well as these opinions’ internal support per Dr. Chaney’s own recorded clinical findings, fairly justify ALJ Francis’s weight assignments and conclusions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [an ALJ] will give that medical opinion.”); id. at § 404.1527(c)(4) (providing that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole,” the more weight an ALJ will give it).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Queen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-22(c)(4)

Moreover, the ALJ’s assessment of the opinion evidence is supported by substantial evidence. (R. at 900-901.) He appropriately discounted these opinions because they were inconsistent with the record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (providing that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight” it is given).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

KAPLAN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-07-24(c)(4)

Additionally, “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight” it will be given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-29(c)(4)

The ALJ explained that he gave significant weight to Dr. Brauer’s opinion because it was consistent with the medical evidence, which, as discussed above, showed conservative treatment and generally benign findings. Tr. 17. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“[g]enerally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Meyer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-06(c)(4)

These opinions were “more consistent with the objective medical evidence.” (R. at 33); see also 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.”). ... There was, therefore, substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision to heavily weight Dr. Keer and Dr. Coleman.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions from specialists and to opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole.

Lyons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-19(c)(4), (c)(5)

The ALJ reasonably relied on their opinions, assigning them “great weight.”3 Id. at 38. He credited their opinions “because of their medical specialties, Social Security disability programs expertise and extensive experience evaluating Social Security disability cases.” Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”). Further, ALJ Adkins found their opinions to be consistent with the other evidence of record. (Doc. #4, PageID #38); 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.

Under § 404.1527(c)(4), an ALJ gives more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole and cannot reject an opinion as inconsistent merely by stating a conclusion.

(SS) Cowan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-22(c)(4)

An ALJ may reject the opinions of a physician when they are inconsistent with the overall record. Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”). To reject an opinion as inconsistent with treatment notes or medical record, the “ALJ must do more than offer his conclusions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an adjudicator to give less weight to a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the record as a whole and more weight to an opinion that is consistent with it.

Slayton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-11(c)(4)

Moreover, the ALJ found that Dr. Haggerty’s opinion was “inconsistent with the claimant’s reported activities of daily living and receipt of only conservative treatment.” AR 20. “An ALJ may accord less weight to a doctor’s opinion that is inconsistent with the examination findings, a claimant’s own reports, and the treatment records.” Robert B. v. Kijakazi, 2022 WL 425358, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2022) (citing 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.”). The record shows that Plaintiff’s treatment was mainly comprised of physical therapy, acupuncture, and medications such as ibuprofen, flexeril, and gabapentin. See, e.g., AR 410, 448-558, 1491, 1744, 2053; see Jones v. Astrue, 499 Fed. App’x 676, 677 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he record supports the ALJ’s decision not to give controlling or great weight to Dr. Johnson’s opinion because the ALJ reasonably found that the treatment notes reflecting a conservative course of treatment provided little in the way of support for Dr. Johnson’s conclusory statement regarding Jones’s ability to work”) (citing Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sosh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(c)(4)

The “more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [is given] to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c)(4) directs that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight should be given to it.

Aguirre v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-10(c)(4)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-11(c)(4)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(3) (“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) identifies the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole as a relevant factor for an ALJ to consider.

Dalley v. Saul · filed 2019-11-12(c)(4)

The consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole is a relevant factor for an ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Reaser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-21(c)(4)

The “more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [is given] to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). The ALJ provided adequate insight into how he evaluated the opinion evidence, and why he did not credit the three FCE restrictions at issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the other evidence in the record when weighing that opinion.

Brant v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-22(c)(4)

When there is conflicting evidence in the claimant’s record, the consistency of the opinion with the other evidence in the record is a proper factor for an ALJ to consider when weighing an opinion from an other source. ... The ALJ clearly articulated his reasons for assigning little weight to P.T. Hubert’s conclusions regarding Brant’s ability to sit and use his hands, and the ALJ appropriately evaluated the consistency of those conclusions with the other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it is inconsistent with the objective medical evidence.

Kahoonei v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-27(c)(4)

The ALJ reasonably discounted Dr. Faiola’s October 2017 opinion about the severity of plaintiff’s limitations because an MRI of plaintiff’s tailbone and nerve conduction studies were negative and neurological examinations revealed largely normal findings, such as normal gait, sensation, and motor strength. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (c)(4), 416.927(c)(4), Tr. 32 (citing 498, 514).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Leigh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-12(c)(4)

An ALJ cannot reject a treating or examining physician’s opinion in favor of another physician’s opinion without first providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence, such as finding that the physician’s opinion is inconsistent with and not supported by the record as a whole. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole); see also Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (finding it not improper for an ALJ to reject a treating physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with the record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight the ALJ gives it when evaluating the opinion.

(SS) Narvaiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-08(c)(4)

He properly determines the weight to be given each medical opinion by considering the evidence in the record as the ALJ did here. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Barton v. Saul · filed 2020-01-02(c)(4)

The Court finds that the ALJ reasonably concluded that this evidence was inconsistent with the limitations assessed by Dr. Shinedling (Tr. 20). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole); Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (ALJ reasonably discounted treating physician opinion which was inconsistent with other medical evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-23(c)(4)

Inconsistency with the record is a reasonable basis upon which an ALJ may discount a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”); Abel, 2015 WL 4755204, at *13.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

King v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-05(c)(4)

The Commissioner cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) as support for the ALJ’s decision regarding pain medication, which states: “Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” Doc. 23 at 15. As the Court observed above, Dr. Patel’s opinion is consistent with substantial evidence in the medical record. Section 404.1527(c)(4), therefore, cannot be used to justify the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Patel’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kelly v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-05(c)(4)

Indeed, by only giving the opinion great weight “insofar as it is consistent with the evidence,” the ALJ’s language tracked the regulation’s instructions to give a non-examining medical source weight to the extent it is consistent with “the record as a whole.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an administrative law judge to assign weight to a medical opinion based on its consistency with the record as a whole.

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-07(c)(4)

The regulations expressly permit a Law Judge to assign weight to a medical opinion based on how “consistent [the] medical opinion is with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Thus, the Law Judge clearly expressed a legitimate reason for discounting Dr. Humphries’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sarran v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-07(c)(4)

The ALJ’s observations are supported by the record and directly implicate the factor of consistency under the regulations. Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 660; 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) provides that generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight the opinion receives.

Denslow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11(c)(4)

The ALJ found Dr. Pasman’s conclusion regarding Plaintiff’s limitations in interacting with others to be unsupported by Dr. Pasman’s own examination, see Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997) (“We have also found good cause where the doctors’ opinions were conclusory or inconsistent with their own medical records.”), and to be inconsistent with the other evidence of record, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). These findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole when deciding what weight to give it.

Cantres v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-11(c)(4)

An ALJ may give weight to the opinion of a state agency medical consultant when that opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole); see also Flaherty v. Astrue, 515 F.3d 1067, 1071 (10th Cir. 2008) (a non-examining physician is an “acceptable medical source,” whose opinion the ALJ is “entitled to consider”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation permits an ALJ to discount a physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with the medical evidence.

Fletcher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-13(c)(4)

An inconsistency with the medical evidence may serve as a specific, legitimate reason for discounting limitations assessed by a physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ryan v. Saul · filed 2020-02-18(c)(4)

Here the ALJ provided good reasons for assigning Dr. Tanney’s opinions little weight. ... Thus, the ALJ adequately supported her finding that Patrick’s subjective complaints of pain—and any related difficulty “concentrating due to this pain,” (id. at 19)—conflicted with Dr. Tanney’s notes, (id. at 22). See Hinds, 2020 WL 110257, at *2 (finding that ALJ did not err in discounting treating physician’s opinion that relied too heavily on claimant’s complaints of “constant lower lumbar pain,” where the ALJ had reasonably determined that those complaints lacked the support of objective evidence); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ramirez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-10(c)(4)

In general, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight will be given to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation directs adjudicators to give greater weight to a medical opinion when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Swanson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-16(c)(4)

Generally speaking, these are all legitimate reasons for discounting a medical provider’s opinion. See Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202 (non-examining physicians’ opinions generally entitled to least weight); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (same); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (inconsistencies between physician’s opinion and claimant’s daily activities is legitimate reason to discount that opinion); Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600-02 (9th Cir. 1999) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to assign weight to a medical opinion based on how consistent it is with the record as a whole.

Brown v. Commissioner · filed 2020-03-31(c)(4)

The regulations expressly permit a Law Judge to assign weight to a medical opinion based on how “consistent [the] medical opinion is with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization; an explicit discussion of every factor is unnecessary when the analysis shows that the factors were considered.

Gallegos v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-31(c)(4)

To be sure, the factors to consider in weighing opinions from medical sources include: (1) how long the source has known the individual; (2) how frequently the source has seen the individual; (3) how consistent the opinion is with other evidence; (4) the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion; (5) how well the source explains the opinion; (6) whether the source has a specialty or area of expertise related to the individual's impairment(s); and (7) any other factors that tend to support or refute the opinion. Id. See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) – (6). While the ALJ did not specifically walk through each factor, the Court sees no error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Youngs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-14(c)(4)

Therefore, the ALJ validly relied on evidence consistent with the record when she decided not to credit Dr. Oman's medical opinion with regards to Plaintiff having a learned disorder that affected her abilities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Blanchard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-08(c)(4)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Oza v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(c)(4)

As demonstrated by the summaries above, Dr. Cuickshank’s opinions of Plaintiff’s mental RFC as expressed in his April 2016 MIQ are out of line with the opinions of Drs. Danger, Candela, Menkin, Dalton, and DiDio. Thus, the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Cruickshank’s MIQ was an outlier opinion is supported by substantial evidence. While Plaintiff argues that Dr. Cruickshank’s opinions are entitled to more weight because he was a treating physician (JS at 5-6), the ALJ may discount medical opinions that are outliers compared to most of the other medical evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Voght v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-19(c)(4)

Here, the ALJ complied with the treating physician rule and gave good reasons for affording only partial or little weight to Dr. Norman’s opinion. While acknowledging that Dr. Norman is Voght's “long-time primary care physician’, the ALJ found that Dr. Norman's assessment of Voght's “lifetime” limitations was not supported by either the medical evidence in the record or Voght’s testimony regarding his capabilities as of the date last insured. (Tr. 18) See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent [an] opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion."); Monroe v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 676 F. App’x 5, 8 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (upholding the ALJ’s decision to reject treating physician's opinion where the opinion was contrary to the physician's own treatment notes). Indeed, Dr. Norman's opinion is inconsistent with his own treatment notes and other medical evidence, all of which reflect that, during the relevarit time period and for a number of years thereafter, Voght had minor medical problems and received minimal medical treatment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to assess a medical opinion's consistency with other medical evidence and the claimant's activities when weighing it.

Wildman v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-06(c)(4)

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ may consider whether the opinion is consistent with other medical evidence and a plaintiff's activities. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Here the ALJ weighed the opinions of Drs. Kahl and Rogers and concluded based on the medical record that Dr. Rogers overstated Plaintiff's limitation as to her ability to work. Tr. 21. On this record the Court concludes the ALJ properly considered the opinions of Drs. Kahl and Rogers and provided legally sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for discounting the opinion of Dr. Rogers.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) allows an ALJ to reject a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

DePasquale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-07(c)(4)

It is, in fact, the role of the ALJ to compare specific medical opinions against the record as a whole, and to reject those opinions that are inconsistent with the evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4); see also Monroe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 676 F. App’x 5, 7-8 (2d Cir. 2017) (holding that the ALJ did not violate the “treating physician” rule, where ALJ determined that the treating doctor’s treatment notes often stated that the claimant’s mood was “stable” or “good,” contradicting the doctor’s restrictive RFC assessment).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits the ALJ to consider whether a medical opinion is supported by and consistent with the claimant’s treatment records.

Ramsey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-08(c)(4)

The ALJ’s first reason for rejecting Dr. Francois’s and nurse practitioner Toth’s opinion—its inconsistency with their medical records—is a specific and legitimate reason that is supported by substantial evidence. Whether an opinion is supported by the available treatment records is a proper consideration. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); see Valentine v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 574 F.3d 685, 692-93 (9th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Breckle v. Saul · filed 2020-07-16(c)(4)

As the ALJ did so here with all three of these opinions, an ALJ may properly evaluate an opinion based on an opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more-consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tahir v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-14(c)(4)

The ALJ is allowed to evaluate medical opinions based on their consistency with the overall record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c)(4); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(c)(4)

The record supports the ALJ’s conclusion (AR 809-10 (“symptoms have been improved”), 813 (cognitive behavioral therapy helped him manage his symptoms, depression in partial remission), 1122 (depression in partial remission)). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”); ... The ALJ properly weighed Dr. Chambers’ opinion, and there is no error here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An opinion's consistency with the record as a whole supports giving it greater weight.

Hildreth v. Saul · filed 2020-09-14(c)(4)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider a medical opinion's consistency with the record as a whole when weighing it.

Hucks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)(4)

It is, in fact, the role of the ALJ to compare specific medical opinions against the record as a whole. 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) supports giving greater weight to a medical opinion when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Vue v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-22(c)(4)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kuehl v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-29(c)(4)

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s reliance on portions of Dr. Wright’s assessment. First, an ALJ appropriately gives more weight to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an administrative law judge to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole when weighing it.

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

An ALJ cannot reject a treating or examining physician’s opinion in favor of another physician’s opinion without first providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence. Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole); see also Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195; Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002); Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (finding it not improper for an ALJ to reject a treating physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with the record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an adjudicator to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the other evidence in the record when deciding what weight to give it.

Stoker v. Saul · filed 2020-11-03(c)(4)

Moreover, Dr. McMenemy’s opinion was consistent with Stoker’s testimony that he tries to keep his feet elevated to prevent painful swelling in his legs and to promote healing when he has ulcers on his foot. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); Brown, 873 F.3d at 269 (“Of course, the ALJ is supposed to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent, or inconsistent, with other evidence in the record in deciding what weight to accord the opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to a medical opinion when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Watson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-06(c)(4)

Inconsistency with the record is a valid reason for discounting a medical opinion. See C.F.R. 20 § 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”). The ALJ found that Dr. Alvord’s opinion conflicted with multiple mental status examinations performed throughout the period at issue by multiple treating providers that showed normal results.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs that a medical opinion's consistency with the record as a whole generally warrants greater weight.

Fernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-16(c)(4)

Nevertheless, NP Lee and Toussaint’s opinion were “considered . . . and the weight attributed to them was supported by the applicable regulatory factors.” See id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) makes an opinion's consistency with the record as a whole a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider.

Davidson v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-11-23(c)(4)

The consistency of an opinion with the record as a whole is a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). However, the Court finds substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Ruppel’s opinion is inconsistent with her own exam notes or the record in general. The evidence the ALJ pointed to in order to demonstrate inconsistency does not actually undermine Dr. Ruppel’s report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wozniak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-16(c)(4)

The ALJ concluded Dr. Fabiano’s opinion was consistent with Plaintiff’s ongoing treatment including medication management, as well as Plaintiff’s ability to engage in a range of daily activities without significant limitations. (Id.); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it will be given).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) gives greater weight to medical opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole and permits rejecting an opinion inconsistent with that record.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-21(d)(4)

An ALJ may properly reject a physician’s opinion which is inconsistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(4), 416.927(d)(4) (the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it will be given); see also Morgan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1999) (a medical report’s inconsistency with the overall record constitutes a legitimate reason for discounting the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) gives more weight to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole and less weight to one that is inconsistent with the other medical evidence or opinions.

Melloan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-06(c)(4)

While not citing the precise regulation, the C.F.R. states, “Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... While more weight will be awarded to an opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole, minimal weight, like here, will be awarded to an opinion that is not consistent with other medical evidence or opinions in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Graves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-04(c)(4)

In addition, inconsistencies with objective findings can constitute a good reason for rejecting an opinion or accepting parts of the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (indicating that the extent that an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole is one of the factors considered when determining the amount of weight to which an opinion is entitled); see also Otts v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 249 F. App’x 887, 889 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that an ALJ may reject an opinion from a treating physician “upon the identification of good reasons, such as substantial contradictory evidence in the record”) (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004)); Saxon v. Astrue, 781 F. Supp. 2d 92, 102 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (Mordue, C.J.) (citing Stevens v. Barnhart, 473 F. Supp. 2d 357, 362 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (Bianchini, M.J.)) (“The less consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it is to be given.”); Matthews v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2018 WL 4356495, at *3 (W.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2018) (the court found that “[i]n resolving evidence, an ALJ is entitled to accept parts of a doctor's opinion and reject others.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dorsey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-20(c)(4)

“[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... The ALJ’s findings are consistent with the medical records in this case. Dr. Morris’s opinion contradicted his own notes and other treatment records. ... The ALJ provided “‘specific and legitimate reasons’ supported by substantial evidence in the record” to reject Dr. Morris’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s mental limitations. ... Accordingly, she did not err.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) requires the ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the record when deciding its weight, so an opinion inconsistent with substantial evidence may be discounted.

Ray v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-27(d)(4)

Indeed, an ALJ properly discounts a medical opinion if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 441.1527(d)(4) (noting ALJ is required to determine weight that should be accorded to a medical opinion by considering, inter alia, the consistency of the opinion with the record); Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406; Hixon v. Astrue, No. 3:08-cv-288, 2009 WL 2195418, *11 (6th Cir. July 23, 2009) (holding ALJ properly afforded little weight to an opinion that was inconsistent with the record as a whole).

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 when weighing it.

Mason v. Saul · filed 2021-03-04(c)(4)

In weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ evaluates its consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); see Sanders, 879 F. Supp. 2d at 940.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the consistency of each medical opinion with the other evidence, including other medical opinions in the record.

SARDINA-GARCIA v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-28(c)(4)

In other words, the ALJ considered all of the opinions in crafting the RFC, just as she was supposed to do. This is particularly necessary in a case like this one where there is a good deal of objective medical evidence and several opinions regarding Plaintiff’s functional capacity. An important part of the ALJ’s job in a case like this is to consider the consistency of each medical opinion with the other evidence, including the other medical opinions of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Here, the ALJ did just that.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-05(c)(4)

Here, the ALJ properly considered whether Dr. Kirby’s opinion was consistent with the record as a whole, including records that both predated and postdated Plaintiff’s surgery. See Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195 (“[A]n ALJ may discredit treating physicians’ opinions that are . . . unsupported by the record as a whole[.]”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 4041.527(c)(4), 416.927 (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 give less weight to a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Wielenbeck v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(c)(4)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Haderman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, an inconsistency with the medical record can serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting limitations assessed by a physician. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the Social Security Administration] will give to that medical opinion.”); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (An ALJ may give less weight to medical opinions that conflict with treatment notes).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) allows an ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the rest of the record.

Compton v. Saul · filed 2021-04-01(c)(3)

An ALJ may reasonably consider the consistency of an opinion with the rest of the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to reject a medical opinion when it is inconsistent with other medical opinions.

Medina v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-08(c)(4)

And an ALJ can reject a medical opinion because it was inconsistent with other opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to ordinarily give greater weight to opinions from treating physicians and specialists.

Carlson v. Astrue · filed 2010-01-21(d)(2) and (5)

The ALJ must ordinarily give greater weight to opinions rendered by both treating physicians and specialists.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) identifies an opinion's consistency with the record as a factor in deciding how much weight to give it.

Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-21(c)(4)

Inconsistency or lack of support from the evidence can constitute a good reason for rejecting an opinion, even from a treating physician. See Saxon, 781 F. Supp. 2d at 102 (“The less consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it is to be given.”) (citing Stevens v. Barnhart, 473 F. Supp. 2d 357, 362 (N.D.N.Y. 2007) (Bianchini, M.J.)); Otts v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 249 F. App’x 887, 889 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting that an ALJ may reject an opinion from a treating physician “upon the identification of good reasons, such as substantial contradictory evidence in the record”) (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004)); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (indicating that the extent that an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole is one of the factors considered when determining the amount of weight to which an opinion is entitled).