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 all medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence in the record.

Avalos v. Saul · filed 2021-06-25(b)

The ALJ must also consider all the medical opinions “together with the rest of the relevant evidence [on record].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-03(c)(4)

Furthermore, in light of her permissible findings on these issues, the ALJ could reasonably give more weight to Dr. Fabiano’s opinion than to Kenny’s.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 medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it conflicts with the overall record.

Velasquez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-12(c)(4)

An ALJ may properly discount an opinion that conflicts with the overall record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4); Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154–55.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Adkinson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-16(c)(4)

The ALJ gave Dr. Bateman’s opinions only partial weight because portions of them were clearly inconsistent with the record (Tr. 100-02). 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”); see also 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) provides that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it generally receives.

MANCINO v. SAUL · filed 2021-11-30(c)(4)

Thus, for at least some part of the relevant period, exceeding twelve months, the medical evidence does not support the ALJ’s assessment of the opinions expressed by Drs. Karpf and Weitzner.16 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

Only by considering Dr. Welch’s 2015 opinion in conjunction with the doctor’s 2016 and 2017 opinions and other medical opinions of record opining similar functional limitations can the ALJ determine whether the record as a whole supports greater functional limitations than assessed in the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion in with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). Therefore, the ALJ’s error in failing to address Dr. Welch’s 2015 opinion was not harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

With respect to the ALJ’s first 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.”) ... Thus, post-surgery improvement was not a reason supported by substantial evidence for disregarding Mr. Bilodeau’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Guzman 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.” Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421 (9th Cir. 1988). The ALJ has a burden to “set[] out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir. 1986). The Ninth Circuit explained: “To say that medical opinions are not supported by sufficient objective findings or are contrary to the preponderant conclusions mandated by the objective findings does not achieve the level of specificity our prior cases have required.” Embrey, 849 F.2d at 421-22.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-10(c)(4)

In contrast, he gave “the greatest weight” to Dr. Bolz’s opinion because his opined restrictions most accurately reflected Plaintiff's condition during the relevant time. ... see 20 CER. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Redd v. Saul · filed 2022-02-04(c)(4)

The ALJ also gave Dr. Scher’s opinion “great weight” reasoning the opinion was consistent with medical evidence as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); Casey v. Astrue, 503 F.3d 687, 694 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding ALJ did not err in considering a state agency psychologist’s opinion along with the medical evidence as a whole).

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 examination findings, the claimant’s reports, and the treatment record, and more weight to an opinion consistent with the record as a whole.

B v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-11(c)(4)

The Court finds the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Bowerman’s opinion. 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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (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 that is more consistent with the record as a whole, permitting a treating opinion to be discounted when it conflicts with objective findings.

Padan v. Saul · filed 2022-03-07(c)(4)

Thus, the ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Marshall’s opinion because it was inconsistent with the objective findings in the record. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.”); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-08(c)(4)

The ALJ must also evaluate the “consistency of [an] opinion with the record as a whole.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jacaway v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-10(c)(4)

The ALJ instead accorded more weight to the medical opinions that the ALJ concluded were better aligned with other medical records.2 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 directs that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it receives.

Acuna v. Commissoner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-25

Considering the record as a whole, the ALJ explained that Acuna’s limited clinical abnormalities, stable clinical presentation, and “entirely conservative care” were inconsistent with the CE’s functional assessment conclusion. D.E. 15-3, pp. 16–19 (citing D.E. 15-8, p. 308). These inconsistencies supported the ALJ’s basis for devaluing the CE’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). Therefore, the ALJ satisfactorily addressed consistency with regard to the CE’s report, and the Court OVERRULES Acuna’s objection.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Aquino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-04(c)(4)

Here, Mr. Howard’s assessment was inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record as well as Plaintiff’s admission that he worked as a painter which would presumably require frequent stooping, handling and fingering. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“[g]enerally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Leitz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-11(c)(4)

Relevant factors when evaluating a medical opinion include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, an opinion may be rejected or given less weight if it is based on Plaintiff’s properly discounted subjective complaints. Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ found the notes rely on little more than Plaintiff’s own subjective complaints with no reference to any objective testing and as a result, the ALJ found the opinion inconsistent with the longitudinal record, including the stability of Plaintiff’s cardiac symptoms, the lack of objective evidence corroborating her severity of symptoms, and lack of substantiation of allegations of dizziness. Tr. 1052. These are specific and legitimate reasons to discount the opinion, which are supported by substantial evidence.

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, but the inconsistency must be explained with specific, detailed reasons.

Reinhart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-03(c)(4)

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 at 1161 (9th Cir. 2014). Yet, the ALJ must do more than provide conclusions. McAllister v. Sullivan, 888 F.2d 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). The ALJ must provide specific reasons for rejecting a medical opinion. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 (9th Cir. 1988) (“it is incumbent on the ALJ to provide detailed, reasoned, and legitimate rationales for disregarding the physician’s findings.”). ... The ALJ provides a conclusory statement that Dr. Crampton’s opinion about marked and severe limitations was inconsistent with objective findings -- without explaining how the cited medical records are inconsistent with the opined marked and severe limitations. AR 812. The ALJ’s decision fails to provide a detailed and specific explanation regarding how the cited records undermine or contradict Dr. Crampton’s opined limitations. This basis for rejecting Dr. Crampton’s opined marked and severe limitations is not a sufficiently specific and legitimate reason to reject Dr. Crampton’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

KRYSTOPOWICZ v. SAUL · filed 2022-06-28(c)(4)

When there is a conflict in the evidence, the ALJ may choose which evidence to credit and which evidence not to credit, so long as he does not “reject evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason.” Rutherford v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 546, 554 (3d Cir. 2005); Plummer v. Apfel, 196 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1991); see also 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) requires an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Little v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-14(c)(4)

Further, the more consistent the opinion is with the evidence as a whole, the greater weight the opinion should be accorded. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). The ALJ here, however, failed to identify an actual inconsistency. Plaintiff’s presentation at medical appointments with appropriate grooming and the ability to articulate basic medical information in a cooperative manner does not in any way conflict with the doctor’s finding that Plaintiff would struggle maintain normal work routines and appropriate interactions with others. Compare Tr. 27, with Tr. 902. Further, Plaintiff’s IQ score does not conflict with his well-documented memory impairments nor his ability to interact with coworkers, which are entirely consistent with Dr. Freed’s learning disability diagnosis. Finally, Plaintiff’s social anxiety is well documented throughout the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to give medical opinions different weight based on their consistency with the record evidence.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-11-16(c)(4)

When reviewing each medical opinion, the ALJ adequately explained how the expert opinions were inconsistent with record evidence. Statutory requirements permit the ALJ to assign varying weight to medical opinions based on their consistency with the record evidence. 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 give a medical opinion only some weight when it is not consistent with the record as a whole.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-05(c)(4)

The ALJ’s determination to only give the opinion some weight is warranted as it was not entirely consistent with the overall record showing generally benign examination findings. See C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s consistency with the medical record when determining the weight to give that opinion.

(SS) Cuevas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-02(c)(2)

The ALJ reached this determination because she concluded that the State agency’s recommendation was inconsistent with the medical record, which showed plaintiff’s symptoms are stable with medication. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) (the ALJ may consider consistency with the medical record in determining the weight to give to a medical opinion). ... Based on the medical reports surrounding plaintiff’s ability to function while properly taking her medication, the ALJ reached a factually supported conclusion that plaintiff did not need accommodations beyond a limitation to “simple job instructions” and “simple job tasks”, so long as plaintiff took her medication as prescribed. AR 1726, 1728-29. The court finds no legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Heitschmidt v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-20(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) (“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); Nguyen, 100 F.3d at 1464. ... As the ALJ offered supported reasons to find the opinions were more supported and consistent with the record, the ALJ reasonably gave more weight to the opinions than Mr. Agostinelli’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to adequately address and explain the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole.

Sierra Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-19(c)(4)

Accordingly, the ALJ erred by failing to adequately address and explain “how consistent [Dr. Simionescu’s] opinion is with the record as a whole.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Carranza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-10(c)(4)

In sum, the ALJ provided a detailed and thorough summary of the evidence, found the opinions of Drs. Taylor, Spackman, and Sharma were consistent with this evidence, and found that the reaching limitations opined by Dr. Ali, Dr. Ng, and PA James were inconsistent with the same evidence. This meets the Ninth Circuit’s “specific and legitimate reasons” test. See Magallanes, 881 F.2d at 751 (stating specific and legitimate reasons are given by “setting out a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating [an] interpretation thereof, and making findings”); Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1149 (reminding that a contrary opinion of a non-examining medical expert can be included in the rationale for discounting a treating or examining physician’s opinion if “consistent with other independent evidence in the record”); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4); 416.927(c)(4) (noting a medical opinion can be given less weight if less consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Her v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-25(c)(4)

Generally, in assessing a medical opinion, “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight ... will [be] give[n] to that medical opinion.” ... The ALJ rejected Dr. Pancho’s limitation to light work as unsupported by record evidence demonstrating no weakness or swelling, no edema in the legs, and normal gait.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Murillo v. O'Malley · filed 2025-07-21(c)(4)

An ALJ is not required to explicitly set forth every reason for rejecting a particular opinion, and the ALJ may reject any opinion not supported by medical evidence or inconsistent with the record. See Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir.1987); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give that medical opinion”). In making the determination that Dr. Calvo’s opinion was unpersuasive, the ALJ cited to various exhibits documenting some evidence of deterioration of David’s function given his chronic conditions. It is the ALJ’s task to examine the specific opinion in the context of the record. Evidence exists to support some level of restriction given David’s medical history and current symptoms, so the ALJ properly supported his lack of reliance on Dr. Calvo’s assessment. Therefore, to the extent that David argues this medical opinion was improperly considered, the Court finds the opinion of Dr. Calvo was properly considered and found unpersuasive by the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) treats consistency as whether a medical opinion accords with the record as a whole, rather than whether the source’s own treatment records support it.

Thornton · filed 2026-03-23(c)(4)

This goes to the supportability factor, not the consistency factor, which asks whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. ... There is no indication that the ALJ compared Dr. Mbonu’s opinion to the rest of the record evidence to determine if it was consistent.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) makes consistency with the record a factor in weighing a medical opinion; an ALJ must adequately explain a decision to discount an opinion on that basis.

Ray v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-07(d)(4)

Because the ALJ failed to account for aspects of Ray’s treatment regimen probative of her condition, the ALJ insufficiently explained how the treatment regimen justified the decision to not give great weight to Dr. Diamond’s report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Russell v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-26(d)(4)

We find the circumstances, here, to be closely analogous, and we conclude that the ALJ properly exercised his discretion to discount that portion of Dr. Greene’s ... opinion which 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 consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole.

Ostovich v. Saul · filed 2020-09-25(c)(4)

While the ALJ concluded that the limitations stemming from Plaintiff’s mental impairment were not disabling, he found that Dr. Garcia’s and Dr. Kjolby’s opinions that he had no severe mental health impairment inconsistent with and unsupported by the record (Tr. 45). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole). And he reasonably concluded that the record provided substantial evidence for his finding that Plaintiff could perform goal oriented but no assembly line-paced work; occasionally interact with co-workers, supervisors, and the general public; adapt to routine changes in the workplace; and was (not) limited to unskilled work4 (Tr. 42).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may give less weight to a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the medical record.

Wilkinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-07(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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole when assigning it weight.

Cota v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-22(c)(4)

The Court finds this valuation of Dr. Fuchs’s opinions improper, as the premise behind the opinions––that Plaintiff exaggerates the severity and limiting effects of his pain, and that only the objective physical examination findings should be taken into account in assessing Plaintiff’s limitations––are unsupported and inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

In citing the inconsistency of the medical evidence with the opinion of Dr. Bhuta and Mr. Rhoads, the ALJ has provided a specific and legitimate reason for discounting their opinion. 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(d)(4) requires an ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole when assigning it weight.

Pisciotta v. Astrue · filed 2007-02-26(d)(4)

In determining the weight to be given an opinion, the ALJ must consider the consistency between that opinion and the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4). The ALJ thus provided a legitimate reason for assigning low weight to Dr. Stanley’s opinion, provided of course that his analysis is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider consistency with the record when weighing a medical opinion.

HELFRICH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY · filed 2020-05-07(c)(4)

Consistency is an important and valid factor to consider when weighing opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may discount a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

ALLMAN v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-14(c)(4)

Inconsistency with the record is an appropriate reason for discounting opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) allows less weight for a medical opinion that is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Jacobs v. Chater · filed 1997-02-24(d)(4)

The ALJ correctly gave less weight to the opinion of Dr. Salvatore, which was not consistent with the record as a whole, than to those of Dr. R.J. Black Schultz and Dr. Robert Young II.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) makes the weight given to a non-examining physician’s opinion depend in part on its support from clinical findings and consistency with other evidence.

Saternus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-12-06(e)

The weight to be given a non-examining physician’s opinion depends, among other things, on the extent to which it is supported by clinical findings and is consistent with other evidence. ... Additionally, the ALJ had substantial evidence supporting the decision to give great weight to Dr. Molis’s opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e), which was plainly explained in his ruling. As a non-examining physician’s opinion, the support it drew from the mild clinical findings and Saternus’s description of his daily activities gave the ALJ ample basis for according it significant weight. See id. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in its significant reliance on Dr. Molis’s report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stephen John Langone, Claimant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant · filed 2015-02-06(c)(3)

The ALJ was entitled to rely on Dr. Landerman’s report, as it was clear that she had reviewed the medical evidence of record. “[A]s a general matter, an ALJ may place ‘[g]reater reliance’ on the assessment of a non-examining physician where the physician ‘reviewed the reports of examining and treating doctors . . . and supported [his] conclusions with reference to medical findings.’” Ferland v. Astrue, No. 11-123, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126188, at *10-*11 (D.N.H. Oct. 31, 2011) (quoting Quintana v. Comm’r of Social Security, 110 Fed. Appx. 142, at *1 (1st Cir. 2004)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“[B]ecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For opinions from nonexamining sources, Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the weight assigned depend on the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations.

Lopez v. Colvin · filed 2013-08-13(c)(3)

“[Bjecause nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [the claimant], the weight [the Commissioner] will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives less weight to nonexamining-source opinions and requires the ALJ to consider how fully they account for pertinent evidence, including opinions from treating and examining sources.

Wildman v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-08(d)(1), (d)(3), (f)

First, we note that "the opinions of nonexamining sources are generally . . . given less weight than those of examining sources." Willcockson v. Astrue, 540 F.3d 878, 880 (8th Cir. 2008); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). The regulations also provide that, when evaluating a nonexamining source's opinion, the ALJ "evaluate[s] the degree to which these opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in [the] claim, including opinions of treating and other examining sources." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3); see also id. § 404.1527(f) (discussing rules for evaluating nonexamining state agency opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) makes the frequency of contact with a medical source a relevant factor when assessing that source’s opinion.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2011-01-27(d)

First, Dr. Breckenridge examined Smith only once. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (frequency of contact with a source is a relevant factor in assessing the source’s opinion); ... Next, the record as a whole does not support all of the limitations indicated in Dr. Breckenridge’s report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider and reject a medical source's conclusions without explaining the rejection when other substantial evidence supports doing so.

Letellier v. SSA · filed 2014-03-11

Indeed, the ALJ could have considered and rejected Ms. MacKenzie's conclusions without providing any explanation for doing so if there was other substantial evidence in the record upon which he could rely. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527; 416.927; SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2, 5. In this case, there was not.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits consideration of medical opinions and objective findings regardless of their source, with the weight given to a non-examining consultant's opinion depending on its support in the case record.

Smith-Johnson v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2014-09-08(c)(3)-(4)

Specifically, the objective findings in the report are properly considered because they are relied upon by Dr. Kriauciunas, a non-examining state agency consultant whose opinion should be given weight only “insofar as [it is] supported by evidence in the case record.” SSR 96-6p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4). Koopman's opinions also are properly considered under the regulations that require evaluation of every medical opinion “[r]egardless of its source,” and that permit “other sources” to be used to determine severity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(d), 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires adjudicators to evaluate and weigh medical-source opinions using the regulatory factors, including for a treating source who is not an acceptable medical source.

Harrold v. Berryhill · filed 2017-10-31(c)

The ALJ was required to consider opinions received from medical sources regarding Ms. Harrold’s claimed impairments, and to evaluate and weigh these opinions based on six regulatory factors. ... This is not a legitimate reason to discount the opinions stated on the form, however, because there is no question that Mr. Blasdel, though not an “acceptable medical source,” was still a treating medical source whose opinions should have been evaluated and weighed according to the regulatory factors set out at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Social Security Administration to evaluate every medical opinion it receives regardless of the opinion's source.

Cox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-08(d)

Notwithstanding, the regulations provide that “regardless of source,” the Social Security Administration “will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927 (2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires opinion evidence from other sources to be evaluated using factors including consistency, supporting evidence, explanation, the source’s expertise, and other supporting or refuting factors, with reasoning sufficient for review.

Moore v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-12(c)

The factors for evaluating opinion evidence from “other sources” include: (i) the length of the relationship and frequency of contact; (ii) whether the opinion is consistent with other evidence; (iii) the extent the source provides relevant supporting evidence; (iv) how well the source’s opinion is explained; (v) whether claimant’s impairment is related to a source’s specialty or area of expertise; and (vi) any other supporting or refuting factors. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *4-5; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ thus gave due consideration to the opinions of Ms. Hokit and Mr. Ritchie and ensured that the Court could follow his reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate the degree to which a nonexamining source's medical opinion considers all pertinent evidence in the claim.

Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-20(c)(3)

The ALJ’s assessment fails to explicitly address whether the State agency opinion is consistent with the multitude of records that post-date the State agency review, and this lack of acknowledgement suggests a failure to comply with the regulations, which require an ALJ to “evaluate the degree to which [nonexamining source] medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to assign less weight to a medical source’s opinion when the ALJ provides a well-supported explanation showing that the source’s conclusions are inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Aldridge v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-11

In either case, the ALJ may assign less weight to a source’s opinion by providing a well-supported explanation of how the source’s conclusions are inconsistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041; Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to expressly discuss every regulatory factor when weighing a medical source opinion.

Mueller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(c)

This is sufficient, as an ALJ need not expressly discuss all of the regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) treats the amount of explanation a medical source provides as a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider when evaluating the source's opinion.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-03(c)(3)

The amount of explanation provided by a source is a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(3). Dr. Cline documented Plaintiff’s reports, including her high level of symptom reporting, but did not explain how she reached her conclusions regarding the marked limitations. Tr. 1008-09.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires opinions from other medical sources to be evaluated using factors including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

(SS) Longoria v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-29(c) and (f)(1)

Factors used to evaluate the opinions of other medical sources include: (1) examining relationship; (2) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (3) supportability of opinion; (4) consistency with the record; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c) and (f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats residual functional capacity as an issue reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion, does not give opinions from licensed clinical social workers or other non-acceptable medical sources special weight, and favors opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Burdine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(c)(4), (d)(2), (f)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC). ... Unlike the opinions of physicians, the opinions of licensed clinical social workers and others not categorized as acceptable medical sources are not entitled to special weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). ... 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 requires the ALJ to consider the supporting explanations for a nonexamining source's opinion and the extent to which that opinion considers all pertinent evidence.

Burke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-01(c)(3), (d)(3)

The weight assigned to such opinions often relies on the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations for his or her opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions”). ... The Court concludes the ALJ appropriately evaluated the opinion of non-examining physician Dr. Buitrago and finds that his opinion is compatible with other evidence in the record and appropriately afforded it greater weight. As evidenced by the hearing transcripts in the record, Dr. Buitrago’s testimony was based on a thorough review of Plaintiff’s medical history. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (non-examining sources are to be evaluated according to the “the degree to which these opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim”). Moreover, the ALJ provided detailed reasons for attributing significant weight to the medical expert’s opinion, which ALJ expounded in approximately two and a half pages of his determination. Tr. 29-31.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a nonexamining source's opinion, an ALJ must consider the degree to which the opinion considered all pertinent evidence, including opinions from treating and other examining sources.

Bury v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-02(d)(3)

That general rule is bullied by departmental regulations stating that “when evaluating a nonexamining source's opinion, the ALJ ‘evaluate[s] the degree to which these opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in [the] claim, including opinions of treating and other examining sources.” Id, quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires opinions from nonexamining state-agency reviewers to be weighed under the treating-physician factors, including the treatment and examination relationships, supportability, and specialization.

Bouchette v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-12(c)

The opinions of these chart reviewers are to be measured by the standards of the Treating Physician Rule, § 404.1527(c), which includes such factors as the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examinations, the supportability of findings and opinions, and the whether the medical source is a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate an other medical source's opinion using the factors in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6), based on the particular facts of the case, and permits discounting evidence that is inconsistent with the record.

Meder v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-12(f)(1)

The opinions of an “other medical source” will be considered “using the same factors as listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6) [of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527,]” where the relevant factors “depend[] on the particular facts in each case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). “Evidence provided by ‘other sources’ must be considered by the ALJ; however, the ALJ is permitted to discount such evidence if it is inconsistent with the evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) treats an LCSW's assessment as evidence from an "other source" and requires germane reasons to discount it.

Bass v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(f)

However, since the statement relays the opinions of LCSW Jennings-Parriott, who is an “other source” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f), the ALJ was required to provide germane reasons to discount the assessment. See Kelly, 471 F. App’x at 676. The court will therefore apply the “germane reason” test to the ALJ’s remaining reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) permits, but does not require, an ALJ to call a medical expert.

Cline v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-29(f)(2)(iii)

An ALJ is permitted, but not required, to call a medical expert. So, the ALJ’s decision here to call and then excuse the medical expert from the hearing falls within the ALJ’s discretionary authority regarding medical expert testimony.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(iii) permits, but does not require, an ALJ to seek a medical expert’s opinion when the record is adequate to decide the claim.

Sims v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-27(e)(2)(iii)

An ALJ’s decision whether to consult a medical expert, however, is discretionary, and the law is clear that an ALJ is not required to consult a medical expert when the record is adequate to render a decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(iii) (stating that an ALJ may, but is not required to, seek the opinion of a medical expert); Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 504 (7th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) permits an ALJ to ask for and consider a medical expert's opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment but does not require expert testimony when the ALJ considers sufficient additional evidence.

Tases Mills v. Astrue · filed 2010-09-17(f)(2)(iii)

According to both of those sections, the ALJ “may . . . ask for and consider opinions from medical experts on the nature and severity of [the] impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) and 416.927(f)(2)(iii). Thus, the ALJ was not required to obtain evidence in the form of expert medical testimony so long as it “consider[ed]” additional evidence in some form.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) does not require an ALJ to obtain additional medical evidence when the existing record contains sufficient information to determine whether the claimant is disabled.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-21(c)(3)

But the ALJ need not solicit additional medical evidence unless the record contains insufficient information to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to try to obtain additional evidence when the existing evidence is consistent but insufficient to decide whether the claimant is disabled.

Lemay v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-18(c)(3)

There is no duty to seek additional evidence unless the evidence received is inadequate to allow the ALJ to reach a conclusion about whether the applicant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (providing that ALJ “will try to obtain additional evidence” when “the evidence is consistent but we do not have sufficient evidence to decide whether you are disabled”); ... In this case, there was no reason for the ALJ to think any evidence was missing. To require the ALJ to seek more information under these circumstances would be to shift the burden that belongs to Lemay.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lopez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-09(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 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions and explain the weight assigned, generally give a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports discounting it, and give no weight to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Lockridge v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-12-30(b)-(c), (c)(3)-(4), and (d)(1)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c),1 and “state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987)). ... In addition, an ALJ must give “substantial or considerable weight” to the opinion of a treating physician “unless ‘good cause’ is shown.” ... First, Dr. Kelly’s opinion that Lockridge is unable to work is not entitled to any weight because it is an “issue[] reserved to the Commissioner . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... In discounting Dr. Shubair’s opinion, the ALJ properly considered that the opinion is not consistent with the doctor’s own observations or the treating notes from other physicians. R. 26. See Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241 (explaining that good cause to discount a physician’s opinion is shown when that “opinion was . . . inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Sections 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider medical opinion evidence when evaluating a claimant's medical opinions.

Hale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-19(b), (c)

These findings could reasonably support Ms. Allender’s opinion that Plaintiff should not stand for longer than 30-60 minutes or lift more than 25 pounds. The ALJ failed to consider this medical evidence. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.”); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) and (c); Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 570-571 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Vincent ex rel. Vincent v. Heckler, 739 F.3d 1393, 1394-1395 (9th Cir. 1984)) (The ALJ “may not reject ‘significant probative evidence’ without explanation.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires all medical opinions in a claimant’s case record to be considered together with other relevant evidence received.

Colon v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-09-12(b)

All medical opinions in a claimant’s case record must be considered together with other relevant evidence received. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) requires the ALJ to apply standards when considering expert testimony and provide adequate reasons before rejecting a supported medical expert opinion.

Davis v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-19(f)(2)(iii)

Davis contends that the ALJ erred by rejecting the opinion of Dr. Joseph Cools, the impartial medical expert selected by the ALJ to testify at the disability hearing, without providing legally adequate reasons for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. y 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) (providing standards for the ALJ's consideration of expert testimony). We agree. ... Since Dr. Cools's testimony was supported by evidence in the record and did not improperly ignore the evidence of malingering, we conclude that the ALJ failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Cools. See 20 C.F.R. y 404.1527(f)(2)(iii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinion receives more weight when the treatment relationship is longer and the claimant has been seen more often.

TIPPIE v. Astrue · filed 2011-06-09(d)(2)(i)

The ALJ accordingly “acted within the acceptable zone of choice in declining to give [Dr. Paparella’s] opinion controlling weight” because of the infrequent nature of Tippie’s treatment visits. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)(i), 416.927(d)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated [the claimant] and the more times [the claimant has] been seen by a treating source, the more weight [the Commissioner] will give to the source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence, and subsection (c) requires evaluation of every medical opinion regardless of source.

Williams v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-06(b), (c)

However, it is clear from our precedent and the Social Security Regulations that “[t]he ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1996) (ALJ errs completely ignoring medical evidence); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). Thus, the ALJ erred in failing to consider Dr. Johnson’s reports from 1994 and 1998 and Dr. Wicher’s report from 2000.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ evaluating disability eligibility to consider all medical opinions in the case record.

Dillon v. SSA · filed 2012-10-08(b)

When determining a claimant’s eligibility for disability benefits, an ALJ must consider all medical opinions in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence when determining a claimant’s limitations.

Dallas Cox v. Colvin · filed 2016-05-04(b)

In determining the claimant’s limitations, “[t]he ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion received, resolve conflicts among the various opinions, and reject conclusions inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Xiong v. Colvin · filed 2014-02-05(c)

The ALJ must consider every medical opinion received, (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)), and the ALJ must resolve the conflicts among the various opinions and reject those conclusions if they are inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a source consulted solely to support a disability claim as nontreating and requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions and explain the reasons for accepting or rejecting them.

Roberts v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-22(a)(2), (c)(2)

But the only opinion he refers to that is in the administrative record is from a psychologist, Dr. Derozier, who examined him for purposes of helping him obtain benefits, making him a “nontreating” source. See § 404.1527(a)(2) (“treating source” excludes those without ongoing treatment relationship and those consulted “solely” for support for disability claim); Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 514 (7th Cir. 2009) (same). More important, our review of the record reveals that the judge thoroughly evaluated all the opinions from treating and nontreating sources alike and carefully explained his reasons for accepting or rejecting them. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (explaining how to evaluate opinions by treating sources). The judge did not clearly err in evaluating the medical opinions, none of which describe functional limitations earlier than September 1982 anyway. See Stepp v. Colvin, 795 F.3d 711, 718–19 (7th Cir. 2015).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, regardless of its source, when evaluating a disability claim.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(c)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions that are consistent with the record and to opinions from treating sources.

(SS) Munoz Ferrer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-08(c)(2), (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”). ... The Commissioner must generally give more weight to medical opinions from a claimant’s treating sources since treating professionals are most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s medical impairments and may provide a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be drawn from objective medical findings along or from reports of individual examinations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion in the record, including opinions prepared for a long-term-disability dispute.

San Antonio v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-03

As an initial matter, there is nothing in the Commissioner’s rulings or regulations that prohibits consideration of medical opinions prepared as part of an LTD dispute. Indeed, the regulations require an ALJ to consider every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527. The fact that Dr. Kales’s opinion was prepared in connection with an LTD dispute is irrelevant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity to consider all relevant evidence, including medical source opinions.

Bond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-29(d)

When assessing a Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence, including medical source opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 404.1545(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the record.

Winkelman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-21(b), (c)

An ALJ is required to consider all medical opinions in the record. Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh non-treating and non-examining physicians' opinions under the same factors as treating-source opinions, including supportability and consistency.

Chiccola v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(c)

The ALJ is still required to weigh the opinions of non-treating and non-examining physicians under the same factors as treating physicians, including the supportability and consistency of those opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions received in evaluating a claimant's case, while distinguishing between treating-source and consultative-source opinions.

Earley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-06(c)

ALJs must consider all medical opinions that they receive in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A distinction is made, however, between how an ALJ must treat opinions rendered by “treating sources” versus “consultative” sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

Duarte v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-22(b)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F. R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions received when evaluating a disability claim.

Slaughter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-04(c)

However, the ALJ must consider all medical opinions that he or she receives in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see also SSR 96–8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 (July 2, 1996) (“The RFC assessment must always consider and address medical source opinions.”). ... In short, the ALJ made clear that he did not adopt Dr. Meyer’s opinions and assigned them only “partial weight,” and he offered an explanation for his finding that, at least in some regards, Plaintiff was not as limited as Dr. Meyer opined. ... Thus, the undersigned finds that the ALJ did not err in either his consideration of Dr. Meyer’s opinion or his RFC determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to properly consider the regulatory factors when weighing medical opinions.

Fendler v. Saul · filed 2020-06-11(c)

Accordingly, because the ALJ failed to consider the entirety of Dr. Hyde’s opinion and failed to properly consider the factors set out in § 404.1527, I cannot say that the weight she gave to Dr. Hyde’s June 2016 opinion is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; especially since she gave greater weight to this opinion than to the opinion rendered by CBIS Davis, a source who, as discussed below, had seen Fendler more often, provided a better explanation for her opinion, and whose opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence and to treat findings by State agency medical consultants and experts as opinion evidence.

Magallanes v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(b), (e)

The ALJ must also consider all the medical opinions “together with the rest of the relevant evidence [on record].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The ALJ considers findings by State agency medical consultants and experts as opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). ... Accordingly, the ALJ was required to discuss the limitation and explain why it was rejected.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Malveaux v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider relevant factors, generally give a treating doctor’s opinion more weight with good reasons, and permits discounting an opinion that is conclusory, unsupported, or inconsistent with the record.

Lopez v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-10-22(c), (c)(2), (c)(3)

The ALJ considers numerous factors when evaluating a medical opinion, including whether the doctor examined the claimant, whether the doctor treated the claimant, whether the doctor presented evidence to support his or her opinion, and whether the doctor’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). A treating doctor’s opinion generally is entitled to more weight, and an ALJ must give good reasons for the weight given a treating doctor’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). An ALJ, however, may discount any doctor’s opinion, including a treating doctor’s opinion, when the opinion is conclusory, the doctor fails to provide objective medical evidence to support his or her opinions, or the opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Crawford v. Commr’ Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 2004). ... Although the opinions at issue are presented on a form, and Dr. Hudson used checkmarks to indicate his opinions, Dr. Hudson also provided comments. (Tr. 343-45). Specifically, Dr. Hudson explained that Lopez has significant degenerative changes in his lumbar spine with some central canal stenosis and foraminal narrowing. (Tr. 343). This is an objective finding from Lopez’s MRI. ... Although Dr. Hudson’s opinions do not cite specific treatment notes, this alone is insufficient to constitute good cause for discounting it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider evidence from state-agency medical and psychological consultants, although the ALJ need not adopt their administrative medical findings.

Nelson v. Saul · filed 2020-10-27

As the regulations provide, while ALJs are not required to adopt any administrative medical findings from State agency medical or psychological consultants, they must consider the evidence under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence in the record when deciding disability.

Pittman v. Saul · filed 2020-11-04(b)

The Ninth Circuit, however, has held that the ALJ is required to consider “all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and explain the weight assigned to it.

Lamb v. Commissioner for Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-23(b), (c)

The governing regulations require that the ALJ consider all medical opinions in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“[W]e will always consider the medical opinions in your case. . . .”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[W]e will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). This includes a discussion of the weight assigned to such opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence in the claimant's record.

(SS) Alcala v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-17(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Wofford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS)(PS) Wilburn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Lenox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give substantial weight to a nonexamining medical expert’s opinion when it is based on a comprehensive review of the record and supported by the medical findings.

Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-15(f)

ALJ Weir accorded great weight to the opinion explaining it was based on a comprehensive review of the medical record and supported by medical findings of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). (Tr. 1019). ALJs are permitted to rely on opinions from non-examining medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Ballesteros v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-03(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions together with the other relevant evidence when determining disability.

Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-12(b)

In determining disability, the ALJ will consider the medical opinions in the case record along with the other relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in a claimant’s case together with other relevant evidence.

Easley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-06-21(b)

An ALJ must consider all opinions in a claimant’s case, together with other relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence when determining eligibility for benefits.

MacArthur v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-08(b)

When determining eligibility for benefits, an “ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.”1 Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Sections 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the record.

Hunt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-09(b), (c)

“An ALJ must consider all medical opinions in the record.” Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the record.

Birch v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-09-12(c)

As plaintiff notes, it is an “the ALJ’s duty to give consideration to all the medical opinions in the record.” Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1161 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, though the ALJ need not address every piece of evidence, and requires a logical bridge between the evidence and the conclusions.

Reef · filed 2026-02-04(b), (c)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions and, even though the ALJ is not required to address each piece of evidence, a logical bridge between the evidence and conclusions is necessary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b,c); Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013); Rabdeau, 155 F.4th at 913 (quoting Denton, 596 F.3d at 425).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received, regardless of its source.

Bosch · filed 2026-02-18(d)

The ALJ made no reference to Dr. Tudor’s opinion in his decision. Dr. Tudor’s opinion constituted relevant medical evidence and should have been considered. Unlike Bierhaus’s medical opinion, Dr. Tudor provided both qualitative and quantitative descriptions of plaintiff’s functional limitations relevant to the question of disability. See Ford, 950 F.3d at 1156. Dr. Tudor discussed plaintiff’s mental health impairments and how her symptoms have not improved despite her compliance with treatment and, therefore, his opinion was relevant. Failure to consider all the relevant medical source opinion evidence is clear error. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”); see also Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1286 (9th Cir. 1996) (finding error where ALJ’s decision did not discuss relevant medical source opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(3) requires the Appeals Council to use the ALJ's opinion-evidence rules only when it makes its own decision after granting review, so it does not require an explanation when the Council denies review.

Meyer v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-02(f)(3)

Rather, the regulation on which Meyer relies, § 404.1527(f)(3), provides that "[w]hen the Appeals Council makes a decision, it will follow the same rules for considering opinion evidence as [ALJs] follow." (emphasis added). By its own terms, the regulation only applies when the Appeals Council actually "makes a decision," and the Appeals Council may "issue a decision" only after it "grant[s] the request" for review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.967. Here, the Appeals Council never granted Meyer’s request for review and, thus, did not "make a decision" within the terms of the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Appeals Council to use the same rules for considering opinion evidence as an ALJ when the Council makes its own decision on the merits.

Sun v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2015-07-17

When the Appeals Council makes a decision,” as it did in Epps, “it will follow the same rules for considering opinion evidence as [ALJs] follow.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 706 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Only if the Appeals Council grants a request for review and issues its own decision on the merits is the Appeals Council required to make findings of fact and explain its reasoning.”).