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(d)(2)(ii) permits an ALJ to consider the nature of the treatment a physician provided when assessing that physician’s opinion.

Franklin v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-16(d)(2)(ii)

In assessing a physician’s opinion, the ALJ is entitled to consider the nature of the treatment provided. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(ii). We discern no error here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits consideration of the treatment a medical source provided when weighing that source's medical opinion.

Dickinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-28(c)(2)

Further, the ALJ correctly noted that, despite reports of significant stress, depression, and anxiety, Plaintiff received only conservative treatment with medication with no evidence of formal treatment with mental health professionals on a regular basis. ... These factors provide a proper basis to discount an opinion. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) ("We will look at the treatment the source has provided. . . .").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for rejecting parts of a medical opinion.

Tutolo v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

However, Tutolo is correct that the ALJ failed to address the other limitations described by Dr. Pelczar-Wissner. ALJs may reject all or parts of a medical opinion, but they must give good reasons for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). On remand, the ALJ should properly address the other limitations described by Dr. Pelczar-Wissner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to adequately explain why a functional assessment conflicts with and disregards a medical-source opinion.

Ault v. SSA · filed 2012-01-10(d)

Where an ALJ’s functional assessment is at odds with a medical source opinion, he must adequately explain his reasons for disregarding that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject a contradicted treating or examining doctor’s opinion.

Thompson v. King · filed 2025-02-20

Under the applicable standard from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527,1 where contradicted by another doctor, a treating or examining doctor’s opinion may not be rejected without “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... At bottom, the ALJ’s stated reasons for rejecting the medical opinions of Dr. Lu and Dr. Davies are sufficient and supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain why an RFC omits a material limitation from a medical opinion the ALJ credits.

Casso v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-30(f)(2)

Although the ALJ was not required to accept all of Dr. Guenther's conclusions, the ALJ was required to explain the conflict between the RFC and Dr. Guenther's serious concerns about Plaintiff's ability to interact appropriately with supervisors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, permits an ALJ to give little weight to unsupported or inconsistent opinions, and requires reasons when controlling weight is denied.

Antoniolo v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-15(c)(2)(i), (ii)

If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it will be given controlling weight. ... Thus, an ALJ may give little weight to a physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with the medical evidence of record and with her own examination findings. ... If the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she must provide her reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1)-(2) requires the agency to give appropriate weight to a treating physician’s opinion and to clearly explain its good reasons for assigning the opinion less weight.

Watkins v. COmmissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-02-09(d)(1)-(2)

“It is well-established that the testimony of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), 416.927(d)(1)-(2). ... Moreover, “[t]he ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (requiring the agency to “give good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the regulation's factors.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-19(c)(2)

In cases such as this one filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion about “the nature and severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s), including [his] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his] physical and mental restrictions,” if the opinion is both: (1) well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... However, even if a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, "[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to weigh it using the listed factors and give specific reasons.

Hulme v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-31(c)(2)

In the first step, the ALJ must consider whether the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight. If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, *1 (July 2, 1996). If the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ will proceed to the second step of the inquiry. In the second step, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 CFR [§§] 404.1527 and 416.927. In many cases, a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, *4. The factors that must be applied in determining what weight to give an opinion are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Langley v. Barnhart, 373 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “[A]n ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reason for that weight.” Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Failure to apply this analytical framework and to provide sufficiently specific, legitimate reasons tied to the factors for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion warrants reversal. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300-01.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to consider the specified factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Rowell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c)(2), an ALJ is required to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician if it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial medical evidence in the record. If the ALJ does not give the treating physician opinion controlling weight, she must consider the factors listed in § 1527(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(3)-(c)(6). ... Yet, it is clear in this case that the ALJ did not consider all the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c) when evaluating the opinion of Dr. Athari. ... Because the ALJ did not consider the relevant 20 C.F.R. 1527 factors or adequately explain her reasons for disregarding Dr. Athari’s opinions, this matter must be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(d)(2)

An ALJ who does not accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various factors, including “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; [and] (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist.” Id., 362 F.3d at 32 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). After considering these factors, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.” Id. at 33.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and to explain the weight assigned when it is not controlling.

Tilton v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-04(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[,]” the ALJ must give it controlling weight. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis did not sufficiently address why Dr. Chambers’ 2017 assessment report, was not given controlling weight. ... Although the ALJ need not mechanically apply the factors laid out in Skinner, the ALJ still has a duty to articulate the reasoning behind the weight accorded to the opinion. ... Hence, remand is required to allow the ALJ to articulate the reasoning for the limited weight given to Dr. Chambers’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally favors greater weight for treating-source opinions, but a contradicted treating opinion may be discounted for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(d)(1) reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner.

Elmir S. Sanchez Lopez v. Saul · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2), (d)(1)

Generally, the opinion of a treating source is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant because treating sources are “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s medical impairments and bring a perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from objective medical findings alone. See Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2) (governing claims filed before March 27, 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(c) and 416.920c(c) (governing claims filed on or after March 27, 2017). ... Dr. Pirnazar’s assessment of extreme limitations and a total inability to work conflict with the opinions of the consulting clinical psychologist and the state agency medical consultant. Accordingly, the ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Pirnazar’s for specific legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. The ALJ met this standard. First, the ALJ was correct that Dr. Pirnazar’s opinion that Plaintiff is totally disabled and unable to work should be discounted as an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1) (for claims filed before March 27, 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1504, 416.904 (for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017). Second, the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Pirnazar’s opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment records and Plaintiff’s mental health treatment records is a specific and legitimate reason for discounting Dr. Pirnazar’s opinion and it is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(5) gives a well-supported treating-physician opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and otherwise requires the adjudicator to weigh specified treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors.

Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-11(c)(2)-(5)

A treating physician’s opinions are entitled to controlling weight if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2005). Once “well-supported contradicting evidence is introduced,” see Newman v. Colvin, 211 F. Supp. 3d 1126, 1129 (N.D. Ind. 2016), the treating’s physician’s opinion no longer has controlling weight and instead becomes “just one more piece of evidence for the administrative law judge to weigh.” Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). In choosing not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, “the ALJ is not permitted simply to discard it.” Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2014). Instead, the ALJ is required to weigh the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) whether the physician’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (5) whether the treating physician was a specialist in the relevant area. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2-5)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to consider the specified factors in determining the opinion’s weight.

Szczygiel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-23(c)

The opinion of a treating physician on the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ applies the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) to determine the weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) makes deference to a treating physician’s opinion depend in part on whether it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with the record.

Inman v. Saul · filed 2020-06-30(c)(2)

However, deference to their opinions depends in part on whether they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Inman’s examining physicians based their opinions about her disability on her reported symptoms, but did not confirm them with objective testing. We therefore will not disturb the ALJ’s weighting of their opinions, or that of Dr. Boone, which Inman also challenges.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-02(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist in the relevant area. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d); Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion; an ALJ lacks good reasons when the record omits the physician’s underlying treatment notes.

Antonetti v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-11(c)(2)

In the absence of Dr. Chaudhry’s complete treatment notes, and the detailed treatment notes from the Community Healthcare Network, all of which pre-dated Dr. Chaudhry’s treatment of plaintiff, ALJ lacked “good reasons” for discounting Dr. Chaudhry’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); id. § 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s medical opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise directs consideration of specified factors.

Goeken v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-07-27(c)(2)

“Generally, a treating physician's opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding.” Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If “a treating source's medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight the factors contained in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii), and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(6), are applied to determine the weight to give the medical opinion. Id. The factors to be considered are 1) length of the treatment relationship, 2) nature and extent of treatment relationship, 3) supportability, 4) consistency, 5) specialization, and 6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. “[T]he ALJ must ‘give good reasons’ to explain the weight given the treating physician's opinion.” Anderson, 696 F.3d at 793 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require a rigid, factor-by-factor discussion.

Pavel v. Saul · filed 2020-07-30(c)

Here, Pavel asserts that the ALJ erred by improperly failing to give controlling weight to Dr. Walton’s opinion and improperly failing to conduct an analysis of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors before discounting the treating doctor’s conclusions. ... To the extent Pavel takes issue with the fact that the ALJ did not go through a factor-by-factor Newton analysis, that argument fails. While an ALJ is required to consider the Newton factors, an ALJ is not obligated to “specifically name, enumerate, and discuss each factor in outline or other rigid, mechanical form.” ... The ALJ evaluated the supportability of Dr. Walton’s opinion and its inconsistency with other evidence of record, including Dr. Walton’s own treating notes. Tr. 51.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with the physician’s treatment notes and the overall medical record.

Alexander v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-05(c)(2)

The ALJ assigned “less than substantial weight” to Dr. Warnakulasuriya’s opinion. (T. 23.) When considering Dr. Warnakulasuriya’s opinion, the ALJ recognized her status as a treating physician. (Id.) However, the ALJ also noted the inconsistency between the treating physician’s opinion and her own treatment notes. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (“When other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion . . . that opinion will not be deemed controlling. And the less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). For example, Plaintiff visited Dr. Warnakulasuriya in May 2017 and showed only mild pain in the lumbar spine with movement, along with normal deep tendon reflexes, and normal gait while walking. (T. 23, 271.) At her next appointment in October 2017, Plaintiff ranked her current pain as a 0/10, and reported only mild pain in the lumbar spine with movement. (T. 23, 260.) This discrepancy was further highlighted by the physician’s repeated notations on the opinion form showing it was based on Plaintiff’s current description of her condition. Coupled with the documented inconsistencies with the overall medical record, the ALJ had substantial evidence to discount Dr. Warnakulasuriya’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while section 404.1527(c) lists factors for evaluating such opinions.

Vega v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-06(d)(2), (c)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a patient’s impairments must be accorded controlling weight if 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(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... A treating physician’s opinions are not conclusive and may be assigned little or no weight when good cause is shown. Id. at 456. ... The regulations require the ALJ to perform a detailed analysis of a treating physician’s views under the criteria set for in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) in the absence of controverting medical evidence from other treating and/or examining physicians. Id. at 453. ... Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ erred when he assigned little weight to the opinion of treating physician Dr. Wright. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err when he assigned little weight to Dr. Wright’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions, requires controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Edwards v. Saul · filed 2020-08-06(c)(2)

The regulations provide that more weight is generally to be given to medical opinions from the claimant’s treating sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... “Under the regulation’s treating physician rule, controlling weight is to be accorded to ‘a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)’ if that opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.’” ... The ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ gave good reasons for assigning little weight to Bonner’s opinion. ... Therefore, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not commit reversible error in evaluating and weighing Bonner’s opinion and gave good reasons for his decision as to the weight he gave such opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bollinger v. Saul · filed 2020-08-14(c)(2)

However, a treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight only if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... Should an ALJ find the treating physician’s opinion is not controlling or determinative, the ALJ must provide “good reasons . . . for the weight [given to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2000). ... The ALJ’s stated reasons are consistent with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion to be well-supported and consistent with the record for controlling weight, and otherwise directs the ALJ to weigh it using the listed factors.

Kimbrough v. Saul · filed 2020-08-17(c)(2), (c)(4)

If the “longitudinal view” that a treating physician brings to the table is lacking, then the physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight and becomes another piece of evidence for the ALJ to weigh according to the checklist of factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... As discussed above, in evaluating Dr. Childers’s opinion the ALJ touched on many of the checklist’s factors, such as the nature and extent of her treatment relationship with Andrea—which the ALJ emphasized was the product of a single encounter—and the supportability and consistency of her opinion. (A.R. 16-17); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... What matters is that the ALJ found that the record as a whole lacks evidence to support the extreme limitations that Dr. Childers assessed. 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 the ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability and consistency, and specialization.

Myles v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-08-25(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives treating physicians' opinions substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports disregarding them, and requires the ALJ to clearly articulate the reasons and state the weight assigned to the medical opinions.

Clements v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-25(c)(2)

The method for weighing medical opinions under the Social Security Act is in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).2 Relevant here, the opinions of examining physicians are ... generally given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1-5). A court must give a treating physician’s opinions substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. ... This rule – the “treating physician rule” – reflects the regulations, which recognize that treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most likely to provide a detailed, ... longitudinal picture of . . . medical impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). With good cause, an ALJ may disregard a treating physician’s opinion but “must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so.” ... And the ALJ must state the weight given to different medical opinions and why. Id. Otherwise, “it is impossible for a reviewing court to determine whether the ultimate decision on the merits of the claim is rational and supported by substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors governing a treating physician’s opinion and explain how those factors affect the weight assigned to it.

Zito v. Saul · filed 2020-09-03(c)

The ALJ was required to address the treating physician factors and explain how they impacted her decision to give little weight to Dr. Fairbairn’s opinions. Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 Fed. Appx. 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (ALJ shall “sufficiently account[ ] for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it using specified factors, while giving good reasons for the weight assigned.

Walter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4)

Under Second Circuit precedent and the applicable Social Security Regulations, an ALJ must follow a two-step procedure in evaluating the medical opinion of a treating physician. See Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). First, the ALJ determines whether the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” Id. If these criteria are satisfied, then the opinion is “entitled to controlling weight.” Id. If not, then the ALJ proceeds to the second step, determining “how much weight, if any, to give” the opinion. Id. Specifically, at step two the ALJ must consider the following factors: “(1)the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Id. at 95-96 (citing Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir.2013) (per curiam) (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 120 (2d Cir.2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)))). The ALJ must provide “good reasons” regarding the weight assigned to a treating physician’s medical opinion at both steps. Id. at 96. (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir.2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2))).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using factors including its supportability and consistency with the record as a whole.

OLIVERI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-11(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; ... and (6) any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating medical source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,” for disability benefits claims filed, like the instant claim, prior to March 27, 2017, an opinion from a treating medical source is entitled to controlling weight so long as the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source's medical opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations when controlling weight is not given.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)(1)–(6)

If the opinion of the treating physician is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply a number of factors in order to determine the opinion’s proper weight. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination as well as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating source’s opinion; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the treating source is a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise directs the adjudicator to weigh the opinion using the listed factors.

PERRY v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)-(6)

Rather, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight only if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” When controlling weight is not warranted, several factors are used to determine the weight given to the medical opinion including: the length of the treatment relationship; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability by the medical evidence; and consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, supportability, and consistency and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

LYNCH v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2020-10-01(c)

In Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)), the Seventh Circuit held that a "treating doctor's opinion receives controlling weight if it is 'well-supported' and 'not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence' in the record." See Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). "An ALJ must offer 'good reasons' for discounting the opinion of a treating physician." Scott, 647 F.3d at 739 (citing Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell, 627 F.3d at 306). "And even if there had been sound reasons for refusing to give [a treating physician's] assessment controlling weight, the ALJ still would have been required to determine what value the assessment did merit." Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (citing Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010)). "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." Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (citing Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, so long as the ALJ "minimally articulates" her reasoning for discounting a treating source opinion, the Court must uphold the determination. See Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of benefits where ALJ discussed only two of the relevant factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh treating-source opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record, and permits little weight where the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent.

Mercado-Collazo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-14

The assessments offered by Dr. Caussade that plaintiff was unable to meet competitive standards and had no useful ability in all areas of mental functioning were extreme; the ALJ found they were “not consistent with the stable and at most moderate depression and anxiety documented in his treatment notes and in the record as a whole.” (TR at 48); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (the more evidence and support given for an opinion, the more weight it will be given); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (more weight is given to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole). ... The ALJ undertook a detailed review of Dr. Caussade’s treatment notes and opinions in the context of the record evidence as a whole. The ALJ’s determination that Dr. Caussade’s treating source opinions were entitled to little weight is amply supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to analyze specified factors when determining the weight to give a treating physician’s opinion after declining controlling weight.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(c)(1)-(6)

Even assuming the Commissioner is correct and that the “objective findings” mentioned by the ALJ was simply a reference to the medical records, the ALJ’s conclusive finding that the opinion of Dr. Ortega was not supported by the medical evidence was insufficient pursuant to the required analysis set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) provides that a supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight; otherwise, its weight is determined using factors including the treatment relationship and the physician’s specialty.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(c)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by medical findings and consistent with other evidence in the record; if it is not, the ALJ must determine what weight to afford the treating physician opinion after considering regulatory factors including the length, nature, frequency, and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant, as well as the physician’s specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here, however, despite citing repeatedly -- albeit, selectively -- to some of Dr. Daugherty’s opinions, the ALJ erred by “ignor[ing] the relevant regulatory considerations in assessing the weight to give Dr. [Daugherty’s] opinion about [Plaintiff’s] limitations” and failing to specify what weight Dr. Daugherty’s opinions did deserve.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) 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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Lozina v. Saul · filed 2020-12-08(c)

A treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Hacker, 459 F.3d at 937.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires considering factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship and the physician’s area of specialty when determining the weight due to medical opinion evidence.

Dam v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-14(c)

The ALJ also did not address other factors bearing on the correct weight to give to Dr. Kim’s testimony, such as the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship” or a physician’s “area of specialty.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (enumerating factors to consider when determining weight due to medical opinion evidence); see also Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1013 (physician’s “significant experience” with claimant entitles opinion to greater weight).1 Even in the face of “substantial contradictory evidence,” a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to some deference if justified by these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial record evidence, and to give good reasons when discounting it.

Johns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-08(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... Simply stating that an opinion is not consistent with the overall record, without citing to examples of inconsistencies or discussing the inconsistencies in the record, is insufficient rationale for discounting the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Francis v. Commissioner for Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-15(c)(2)

The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument (see Doc. 15 at 17–20), the ALJ properly considered whether Dr. Flynn’s opinion is well supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. She also provided good reasons for affording it “little weight.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered Dr. Flynn’s letter and clearly articulated good reasons for discounting it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) favors opinions from treating physicians because they can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's medical impairments, while not categorically prohibiting greater weight for non-examining state agency physicians.

Sims v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-02-23(c)(2)

However, despite the regulations’ preference for the opinions of treating physicians, there is no categorical rule prohibiting ALJs from giving greater weight to non-examining state agency physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Cranmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)

In determining whether to accord controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, factors to be considered by the ALJ include: (1) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ acknowledged Dr. Deines’s status as a treating psychiatrist, and considered plaintiff’s treatment history with Dr. Deines and Ms. Stager, which commenced in or around 2010 and continued throughout the relevant period, albeit with at least one gap of approximately six months when plaintiff discontinued mental health treatment. ... In summary, I find that the weight given by the ALJ to the medical opinions of record was appropriate and sufficiently explained, and that the ALJ’s finding that plaintiff’s mental health limitations are not greater than moderate is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, but an ALJ need not recite every regulatory factor expressly when the decision shows substantive adherence to the rule.

Osman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources . . . . If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... Here, although the ALJ did not necessarily recount the factors (see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927) in assigning “very little weight” to some of Dr. Livieri’s opinions, the Second Circuit has made clear that the ALJ need not produce a “slavish recitation of each and every factor [set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to the opinions of treating physicians than to the opinions of non-treating physicians.

Oudinot-Robertson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-21(c)(2)

The opinions of treating physicians are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the version applicable to this appeal, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

Cummings v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(c)

In doing so, the ALJ must explicitly consider what is known as “Burgess factors,” which include “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of Plaintiff's treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source controlling weight to consider specified factors, but permits the ALJ to omit discussion of each factor when the decision gives good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Reid v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-28(c)

If an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source, the ALJ must use a “factors-based test that considers the length of the treatment relationship, nature and extent of the relationship with [the] applicant, whether the source provided evidence in support of the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the source specializes in the field.” ... The ALJ, however, “need not discuss each factor in his decision on the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion if the ALJ provides good reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator who discounts a treating source's opinion to weigh it using the regulatory factors, but does not require an exhaustive, step-by-step discussion of every factor when the adjudicator gives adequate reasons for the weight assigned.

Thompson v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-03-05(c)(2)-(6)

“Where an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source opinion, [he or she] weighs that opinion in light of the regulations, using the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).” Perry v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 734 F. App'x 335, 339 (6th Cir. 2018). ... Thompson is correct in arguing that the ALJ did not systematically address each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527. However, Thompson’s reliance on Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2011), for the proposition that failing to explicitly weigh each factor is automatically grounds for remand is misplaced. ... Further, the ALJ referred to Dr. Bryan as a treating physician and discussed Thompson’s extensive medical history at the Jackson Clinic. Thus, the only factor that he did not directly address was Dr. Bryan’s specialization as a physician, which this court has held is not, on its own, a reason to find reversible error. See Lucy v. Saul, No. 19-1083-TMP, 2020 WL 1318803, at *6 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 20, 2020).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) recognizes the treating-source rule: a long-standing treatment relationship can provide a more complete picture, so an ALJ must give special attention to the treating source's findings when assessing medical evidence.

Garlinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08(d)(2)

According to the “treating source rule,” physicians who have a long-standing treatment relationship with an individual are better equipped to provide a complete picture of the individual’s health and treatment history. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Therefore, when assessing the medical evidence in a claimant’s file, the ALJ must give special attention to the findings of the claimant’s treating source(s).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to meaningfully consider each listed factor when deciding what weight to give it.

Ansah v. Saul · filed 2021-03-12(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), an ALJ must “consider all of the enumerated factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” ... Still, the ALJ’s failure to consider each of the § 404.1527(c)(2) factors constitutes error. “While an ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician, it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that [s]he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, consider specified factors otherwise, and provide good reasons for giving it less weight.

Saylor v. SSA · filed 2021-03-18(c)(2)

Generally speaking, the SSA “give[s] more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [her].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). Moreover, an ALJ must give the medical opinion of a “treating physician controlling weight as long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.” Fox v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 827 F. App’x 531, 536 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). When an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight, she should consider the following factors in determining how much weight to give the opinion: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Id. at 537 (quoting Blakey v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(6). An ALJ must give “good reasons” for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to meaningfully consider the specified factors before deciding how much weight to give it, although a detailed factor-by-factor analysis is not required.

Pegues v. Saul · filed 2021-03-18(c)(2)

While “an ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician, it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.” ... Here, the ALJ stated that he had considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. R. at 26. It does not appear, however, that the ALJ meaningfully considered each of the § 404.1527(c) factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating sources. See Dowling, 986 F.3d at 385; Arakas, 983 F.3d at 107 n.16. Although it seems that the ALJ considered the consistency of the opinions with the record as a whole and arguably also their supportability, the ALJ apparently considered neither the nature and length of the treatment relationships nor the treating sources’ specializations. Remand is thus warranted under Dowling as well.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to decline controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Ramos-Munoz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(c)

In the case at hand, the ALJ determined that Dr. Pérez’s opinion was inconsistent with the other record evidence. Lozada-Miranda v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 18-1410, 2020 WL 4671838, at *6 (D.P.R. Aug. 11, 2020) (“the opinion of a treating physician need not be given controlling weight where the ALJ determines that it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives treating physicians’ opinions more weight than examining and non-examining physicians’ opinions when evaluating medical opinions.

Boulch v. Saul · filed 2021-03-23(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors and determine the opinion’s appropriate weight.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-24(c)(1)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. ... But the ALJ’s opinion makes clear that she considered other required factors. Accordingly, she did not err.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency, and specialization when deciding whether to give a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight, but failure to explicitly address every factor is harmless when substantial evidence supports the decision.

Denson v. Saul · filed 2021-05-04(c)

SSA regulations set forth multiple factors ALJs must consider when determining whether to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight: “(1) whether the physician examined the claimant, (2) whether the physician treated the claimant, and if so, the duration of overall treatment and the thoroughness and frequency of examinations, (3) whether other medical evidence supports the physician’s opinion, (4) whether the physician’s opinion is consistent with the record, and (5) whether the opinion relates to the physician’s specialty.” ... The Court agrees that the ALJ should have more explicitly considered the nature and extent of Dr. Grady’s treatment relationship with Henry D. ... However, the Court cannot find that the ALJ’s failure to do so amounts to a legal error requiring reversal. ... Therefore, the Court finds this error harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally directs the ALJ to give more weight to treating-source medical opinions because those sources can provide a detailed longitudinal picture and unique perspective on a claimant's impairment.

Borja v. Saul · filed 2021-05-07

“Generally, we give more weight to medical opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider and address medical-source opinions and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Romero v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-10(b)

The ALJ must consider and address medical source opinions and give good reasons for the weight accorded to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b)20; SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) allows controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, but permits rejection when inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-26(d)

Controlling weight may be granted when the opinion of the treating physician is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The opinion of such a treating physician can be rejected if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source medical opinion controlling weight, to weigh non-controlling opinions using specified factors, and to treat disability determinations as administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner.

Conn v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-30(d)(2)-(d)(6), (e)

Plaintiff correctly points out that deference is provided to the opinions of treating physicians. In fact, a treating source’s medical opinion will be given “controlling weight” if an ALJ finds: 1) the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and 2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... In order to determine what weight to accord a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ is required to weigh the evidence in light of several factors. ... These factors include: 1) the examining relationship — more weight is given to the opinion of a source that has examined a plaintiff as compared to a source that has not; 2) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship — more weight is given to the opinion of treating sources since these professionals are most able to provide a detailed and longitudinal picture ... of a plaintiffs medical history; 3) the supportability of the opinion — more weight is given the opinions that are well explained and supported with clinical or diagnostic findings; 4) the consistency of the opinion — more weight is given to opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole; 5) specialization' — opinions of specialists are given more weight; and 6) other factors which tend to support or contradict an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Regardless of the weight accorded, an ALJ’s determination must always provide “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion, ... Some treating source opinions, including opinions of “disability” or an “inability to work,” are not controlling or even considered medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). This is because such opinions are administrative findings on issues reserved for defendant. ... Therefore, to the extent that plaintiff argues that she deserves benefits based upon Dr. Bur-dick’s determinations that she was “disabled” and “unable to work,” that argument fails since those determinations are administrative decisions explicitly reserved for defendant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider specified regulatory factors and explain the weight assigned.

Sublette v. Astrue · filed 2012-04-13(d)(2)

If an ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must consider: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the extent of the treatment relationship; (3) medical support for the opinion: (4) consistency; and (5) the physician’s specialization, along with any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ’s failure to apply these factors and provide reasons for the weight given to the treating physician’s report is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation 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, and requires an ALJ to give good reasons when discounting it.

Mueller v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-21(c)(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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010). When discounting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must give “good reasons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Ritter v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-15(d)(2)

Under the “treating physician’s rule,” the ALJ must give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion when the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) provides that a treating physician’s opinion controls unless it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Parrott v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-03(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion controls unless it is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Scott v. As*true,* 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.2011). In this case, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Reynold’s opinion was inconsistent with the objective evidence and with Parrott’s own account of his abilities. Our job is not to reweigh that evidence. See Shideler v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 306, 310 (7th Cir.2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ need not explicitly discuss every § 404.1527(d) factor if the decision adequately addresses supportability and consistency.

Henke v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-21(d)

When an ALJ decides not to give a treating doctor’s opinion controlling weight, there are several factors relevant to an ALJ’s consideration of how much weight to give the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2009); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2010). The ALJ did not explicitly weigh every factor while discussing her decision to reject Dr. Preciado’s reports, but she did note the lack of medical evidence supporting Dr. Preciado’s opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (2009), and its inconsistency with the rest of the record, see id. § 404.1527(d)(4). This is enough. See Elder, 529 F.3d at 415–16 (affirming denial of benefits where ALJ discussed only two of the relevant factors laid out in § 404.1527(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.

Reich v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-24(d)(2)

Furthermore, the ALJ must give good reasons in his decision as to the weight afforded the treating physicians’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests performed, and the opinion’s consistency and supportability.

Phillips v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-05(d)(2)

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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight or provide good reasons for rejecting it, consider specified factors when assigning lesser weight, and explain the weight given to state-agency medical opinions.

Gutierrez-Gonzalez v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-19(d)(2)-(6), (f)(2)(ii)

In doing so, she must determine what weight to give the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir.2010). If the ALJ determines that the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record, the ALJ may reject the opinion but must give “good reasons” for doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir.2010). ... When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is to consider a number of factors identified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Those factors include: the length, nature, and extent of the physician and claimant’s treatment relationship; whether the physician supported his opinions with sufficient explanations; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue; and any other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). An ALJ must “minimally articulate” her reasons for how much weight a treating squrce’s opinion is afforded after consideration of those factors — a very deferential standard. Berger v. Astrue, 516 F.3d 539, 545 (7th Cir.2008) (quoting Rice v. Barnhart, 384 F.3d 363, 372 (7th Cir.2004)). Finally, unless a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must “explain in the decision the weight given to the opinions of a State agency medical or psychological consultant or other program physician, psychologist, or other medical specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii). ... This assessment simply does not meet the standards of 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 as the ALJ merely .alluded to one of the requisite factors (consistency with other medical evidence) with respect to Dr. Reyes and did not even mention the other medical opinions. ... However, the ALJ must articulate some consideration of the factors identified in the regulations— the treating history and relationship at the very least. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir.2011) (“And even if there had been sound reasons for refusing to give Dr. Tate’s assessment controlling weight, the ALJ still would have been required to determine what value the assessment did merit.”). Moreover, the Court notes that the ALJ failed to consider or give any weight to other medical opinions of record, including those of the state agency physicians. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(f)(2)(ii) (requiring the ALJ to explain weight afforded to state agency doctors).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A physician’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not by itself establish disability; the agency must review the supporting medical findings and other evidence.

Whitney v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health & Human Services · filed 1982-12-21

... a statement by your physician that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled. We have to review the medical findings and other evidence that support a physician’s statement that you are ‘disabled’.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a physician’s conclusion on the ultimate question of disability is not binding on the hearing examiner.

Juraj Sitar v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1982-02-12

Furthermore, a physician’s conclusions with respect to the ultimate question of disability are not binding on the hearing examiner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's opinion on the nature or severity of a claimant's impairments must be given controlling weight when supported by medical evidence and not contradicted by substantial evidence, and an ALJ rejecting it must consider the relevant treatment and support factors and provide good reasons.

Selian v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-21(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician on the nature or severity of a claimant’s impairments is binding if it is supported by medical evidence and not contradicted by substantial evidence in the record. ... In order to override the opinion of the treating physician, we have held that the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequently, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist. ... The failure to provide “good reasons” for not crediting Dr. Corey’s diagnosis by itself warrants remand. ... see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion when it is not given controlling weight.

Sissom v. Astrue · filed 2013-03-01(c)(2)

But even if Dr. Jameson’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the pertinent factors and “give good reasons” for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). And if the opinion is rejected completely, the ALJ must give “specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight and requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for discounting it.

Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-03-12(c)(2)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not-inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, id., as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence, id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability of the opinion.

Suess v. Colvin · filed 2013-05-10(d)(2)

It is well-established that “[i]f an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires consideration of medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence, and § 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to opinions supported by relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Parent v. Astrue · filed 2013-04-08(b), (c)(3)

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. ... The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When determining the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner must consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and whether the physician is a relevant specialist.

Crayton v. Astrue · filed 2013-05-10(d)

In determining the weight to which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled, the Commissioner must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence supporting the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is rendered by a specialist in a relevant field(s).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to opinions from treating sources, and a treating physician’s opinion must receive substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports a contrary decision.

Denomme v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2013-05-16(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[g]enerally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources . . .”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Dillman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-06-11(c)(2)

Social Security regulations require an ALJ give the opinion of a treating physician controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) permits controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, but permits rejection when it is inconsistent with substantial evidence or unsupported by the physician's own findings.

Camacho v. Astrue · filed 2013-10-15(d)

Controlling weight may be granted when the opinion of the treating physician is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The opinion of such a treating physician can be rejected if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, but also when it is not supported by the physician’s own medical findings. The weighing of such inconsistencies is a function delegated to the administrative law judge, not to the court on judicial review. Thus, the administrative law judge was not required to give the opinions controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hernández v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-10-17(c)(2)

The Commissioner’s regulations require the ALJ to give the opinions of treating physicians “on the nature and severity” of a plaintiffs impairments “controlling weight,” at least where the opinions are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and are “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight it gives a treating source opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Failure to state the reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion constitutes grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for the weight assigned to it.

LaRiccia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-12-13(c)(2)

An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s)” if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ does not afford a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must “must apply certain factors—namely, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source—in determining what weight to give the opinion.” ... The treating-source rule includes a procedural requirement that the ALJ “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given a] treating source’s opinion.” ... Failure to provide “good reasons” for rejecting the opinion of a treating source generally requires remand, even if “a different outcome on remand is unlikely.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) makes the length of the treatment relationship relevant when evaluating how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Bates v. Colvin · filed 2013-12-02(c)(2)(i)

While length of the treatment relationship is relevant for evaluating how much weight to accord a treating physician’s evaluation, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), in this case there was no other medical opinion for the ALJ to fall upon.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to explain the weight assigned using all six regulatory factors.

Crawford v. Astrue · filed 2014-03-25(c)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight the ALJ must explain what weight, if any, was assigned to the opinion “using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an administrative law judge to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight.

Sanchez-Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-02-07(d)

The administrative law judge is not always required to give such opinions controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) governs the weight given to treating-physician opinions, and § 404.1527(c) requires evaluation of every medical opinion; errors in those duties may be harmless when the opinions were otherwise thoroughly considered and consistent with the record.

Bryant v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-09(c)(2) and (c)

The magistrate judge found that, because Dr. Dimitrova was Bryant’s treating physician, the ALJ erred under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) by not giving her statement more weight. However, the magistrate judge found that the error was harmless because Dr. Dimitrova’s opinions were thoroughly evaluated by the ALJ, were discussed by the two state agency consultants in their reports, and were consistent with the other medical evidence. The magistrate judge also found that the ALJ erred by failing to discuss a report written by consultative examiner Dr. Jethalal Harkhani in February 2007. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (obligating ALJs to “evaluate every medical opinion” they receive). The ALJ found this error harmless as well because Dr. Harkhani’s report was discussed by the two state agency consultants and was consistent with the medical evidence on the record. We likewise find the ALJ errors harmless and affirm the ALJ’s determination of Bryant’s RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to determine the weight it deserves by considering the listed factors and explaining the reasons for that weight, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor.

Hernandez v. Colvin · filed 2014-05-28(c)

If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, then the ALJ must decide how much weight to assign the opinion. We are not at all certain that Dr. Mai gave any opinion as to Mr. Hernandez’s ability to reach, but assuming her comments amounted to an opinion, the ALJ considered the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and gave “good reasons in the . . . decision for the weight he ultimately assign[ed] the opinion.” Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Of course, an ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss all of the factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits a treating physician's opinion to receive comparatively less weight when it rests on limited knowledge of the applicant's condition or conflicts with the weight of the evidence.

Maurice Meyer, III v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-10(c)

Both Social Security regulations and our case law establish that a treating physician’s opinion is to be accorded comparatively less weight if it is based on the physician’s limited knowledge of the applicant’s condition or conflicts with the weight of the evidence. Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Dr. Bailey’s letter falls into both of these categories.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned using all of the regulation’s factors.

Knight Ex Rel. P.K. v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-24

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain what weight, if any, was assigned to the opinion “using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.”5 Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (quotation omitted).

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 consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Rogers v. Colvin · filed 2014-04-24(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and ... consistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Agostini-Cisco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-07-16(d)

Nevertheless, controlling weight may be granted when the opinion of the treating physician is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with substantial evidence, but permits discounting it when the ALJ gives good reasons based on the record.

Toland v. Colvin · filed 2014-08-05(c)(2)

If “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [an ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Yet “[a] treating physician’s opinion ‘does not automatically control or obviate the need to evaluate the record as a whole.’” Brown, 390 F.3d at 540 (quoting Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir. 2001)); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(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.”). “Ultimately, the ALJ must ‘give good reasons’ to explain the weight given the treating physician’s opinion.” Anderson, 696 F.3d at 793 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) recognizes that treating sources may provide a detailed longitudinal perspective on impairment unavailable from objective findings or isolated examinations.

Price v. Astrue · filed 2014-08-06(c)(2)

It is the treating sources who are the “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and [who] may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Moran v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2014-08-22(c)(2)

The regulations mandate that the ALJ provide “good reasons” for the weight he assigns the treating source’s opinion in his written determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s written decision shows her close scrutiny of the evidence and contains “good reasons” for denying Plaintiffs claim. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give great weight to a treating physician’s opinion but permits discounting it when other evidence contradicts it.

Seney v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2014-09-26(c)

While an ALJ must generally give great weight to a claimant’s treating physician, an ALJ may discredit the treating physician’s opinion if other evidence contradicts it. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000); see also Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361. Here, it was appropriate for the ALJ to discredit portions of the opinions of Seney’s treating physicians. In particular, Dr. Lee Dresser’s opinion that Seney could stand or walk for only less than two hours in an eight-hour day and was incapable of low stress jobs, was not supported by objective medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Drinnin v. Colvin · filed 2015-01-09(c)(2)

Indeed, when the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. ... Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) governs when a treating physician’s assessment receives controlling weight, allowing it to be discounted when it is inconsistent with the record or a consultant’s opinion.

Lazier v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-06(c)(2)

A treating physician’s assessment is entitled to controlling weight if supported by objective medical evidence and other substantial evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013), but it also may be discounted if internally inconsistent or inconsistent with a consultant’s opinion, see Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). The ALJ noted that Dr. Chandarana’s restrictive assessment was at odds with the opinions of five consulting doctors (including Dr. Brauer, who personally examined Lazier), all of whom agreed that Lazier retained the mental capacity to perform at least unskilled work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while generally giving more weight to treating than nonexamining opinions.

Thudium v. Colvin · filed 2015-02-12(b)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairments) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)(2). ... Not only does the above cited regulation state that such opinions are less valuable then one rendered by a treating and/or examining physician, but the regulation is consistent with the case law of the Eighth Circuit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record as whole, and specialization when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

Borsching v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-23(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner must consider:' (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) denies controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion that is not well supported or is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the case record.

Peters v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-23(a)(2)

A treating physician’s medical opinion is not entitled controlling weight if it is not well supported or it is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while the regulation’s factors guide the amount of weight given when that standard is not met.

Sanchez v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-28(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a treating physician must be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported and ‘not inconsistent’ with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... The regulations provide the hearing officer with factors to assist in his determination of how much weight or deference to give the opinion of the treating physician, ... and although it is “desirable” for a hearing officer to analyze each of the factors, the Court will not “remand [the] case so that another hearing officer may arrive at the same decision with more clarity.” ... The hearing officer is required, however, to provide “good reasons” for deciding to give the treating source’s opinion the weight he did and must state “specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinion ... and must be sufficiently specific to make [it] clear to any subsequent reviewers[.]”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an administrative law judge who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to weigh that opinion using the regulation’s other listed factors.

Cookson v. Colvin · filed 2015-07-01(c)

When the ALJ finds that a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, he or she must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on other factors included in the Commissioner’s regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s medical opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Quick Bear v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-04(d)(2)

“A treating physician’s medical opinion is given 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] case record.’ ”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Perkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-10-19(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as -whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature, severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, functional capacity, or restrictions as medical opinions, and requires good reasons when an ALJ gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion less than controlling weight.

Leigh Ayn D. Laurey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-12-01(a)(2), (c)(2)

“Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists and other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). A treating physician’s medical opinion “must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1159 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that the treating physician’s opinion that is well-supported and not inconsistent with other evidence receives “controlling weight”). Further, “[t]he ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.” Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (requiring the ALJ to “give good reasons” for not giving weight to a treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, an ALJ may reject it for specific, legitimate reasons.

Simmons v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-23(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician is properly denied controlling weight “‘if it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or if it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-2p and citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). And the opinion may be rejected outright if the ALJ gives “specific, legitimate reasons for doing so,” relating to such matters as “the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence,” the “consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole,” and any “other factors . . . which tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating source’s opinion to give specific, supportable reasons that address the opinion and permit meaningful judicial review.

Lavoie v. SSA · filed 2015-12-28(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence...” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Even if a treating source’s opinion deserves less than controlling weight, it is “entitled to deference.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996), at *4. To determine how much weight a treating source’s opinion should receive, the ALJ must consider the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, the treating source’s area of specialization, if any, and any other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Where the ALJ discounts a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ is required to provide “good reasons” for doing so. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ’s decision must be “sufficiently specific to make clear . . . the weight [the ALJ] gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5; see also Jenness v. Colvin, 2015 DNH 167, 15 (“To meet the ‘good reasons’ requirement, the ALJ’s reasons must be both specific and supportable.”) (internal citations and punctuation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to treating-physician opinions and controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence.

Bryson v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2016-02-25(c)(2)

An ALJ generally must give “more weight” to opinions from treating physicians.10 When the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,” the ALJ must give that opinion “controlling weight.” 11 When the medical evidence conflicts, however, “the ALJ may choose whom to credit but ‘cannot reject evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason.’” 12 Here, the ALJ did not afford Dr. Salopek’s opinion controlling weight because it was not consistent with the medical evidence as a whole, with Dr. Salopek’s own treatment records, or with Bryson’s subjective complaints.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, but does not require separate discussion of every factor when the decision shows the factors were considered.

Bennett v. Colvin · filed 2016-03-29(c)(2)-(6)

Bennett also argues that the ALJ failed to apply the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, as required when rejecting the opinion of a treating physician. While the ALJ did not specifically lay out the factors noted above and address each one in turn, she did consider the factors in determining that Dr. Irvin’s con-clusory opinions were not entitled to weight. The ALJ named the specific, work-related conclusions of Dr. Irvin, and methodically stated the evidence, primarily from the hearing and related to Bennett’s ability to maintain employment with the St. Louis Cardinals, that contradicted Dr. Irvin’s conclusions. (Tr. 19.) Thus, the ALJ properly considered the degree to which Dr. Irvin’s opinions are supported by the relevant evidence, the consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole, and additional factors that contradicted Dr. Irvin’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Olejniczak v. Colvin · filed 2016-04-15(c)

The regulations provide that when a treating source’s opinion is rejected, the ALJ must consider various factors including (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An assessment of the factors in this case does not support the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Kang’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Martz v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2016-05-19(c)(2)

When evaluating the medical opinion evidence, the ALJ must give the opinion of a treating physician “substantial or considerable weight” unless there is good cause not to do so. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that the opinion of a treating physician will be given controlling weight if it is supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Andersen v. Colvin · filed 2016-07-11(c)

“If a treating physician’s opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [it will be given] controlling weight.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 632; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when controlling weight is denied.

Conner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-08-05(c)(2)

The Commissioner imposes certain standards on the treatment of medical source evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502, one of which requires the ALJ to assign a treating source opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). If an ALJ does not grant controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must provide good reasons for that decision. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors to determine the weight it deserves.

Smith v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-21(c)(2)

If an ALJ determines under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) that a treating physician’s opinion is not due controlling weight he “is not permitted simply to discard it.” ... Rather, he is required to consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to determine how much weight it is due.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh it under the regulatory factors.

Bowman v. Colvin · filed 2017-01-06(c)(1)-(2)

If the treating physician’s medical opinion is supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007); Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202. If a treating physician’s opinion is not given “controlling weight” because it is not “well-supported” or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must still articulate the relevant weight to be given to the opinion under the factors provided for in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Orn, 495 F.3d at 631.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the listed factors before an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when no other reliable evidence from treating physicians contradicts it.

Leah Heck v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2017-01-09(c)

Nor did the ALJ err in failing to consider the factors identified in the regulation before declining to give controlling weight to Dr. Henderson’s responses, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), because such consideration is required only when there is no other reliable evidence from treating physicians that contradicts the responses, see Newton, 209 F.3d at 453.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, and requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Young v. Berryhill · filed 2017-02-13(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the severity of an impairment receives controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When the ALJ does not afford controlling weight to the treating physician, the ALJ must weigh the medical opinion based' on six factors: (1) the “[ljength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” § 404.1527(c)(2)(i); (2) the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship,” § 404.1527(c)(2)(h); (3) the supportability of the opinion, § 404.1527(c)(3); (4) the consistency of the opinion “with the record as a whole,” § 404,1527(c)(4); (5) the specialization of the source, § 404.1527(c)(5); and (6) “[o]ther factors,” § 404.1527(c)(6). Here, the ALJ afforded minimal weight to Dr. Guevara-Pineda’s medical opinions of Mr. Young, finding Dr. Guevara-Pineda’s opinions inconsistent with the record as a whole and formed over a year ago. Tr. 21.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating doctor's medical opinion more weight and requires consideration of the treatment relationship's length, frequency, nature, and extent.

Lannon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2017-02-10(c)(2)

The regulations make clear that opinions of treating doctors generally should be given more weight than the opinions of other doctors. ... “These factors include the ‘length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’ by the treating physician, [and] the ‘nature and extent of the treatment relationship’ between the patient and the treating physician[.]”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to provide good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Frederick v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-27(d)(2)

Regardless of the decision the ALJ must still provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned the treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to determine whether it merits controlling weight and, if not, explain the weight assigned using the applicable regulatory factors.

Brownrigg v. Berryhill · filed 2017-04-19(c)

Although this statement was preceded by a recitation of the medical evidence dating back to July 28, 2010, it does not satisfy either step. The ALJ did not assess whether the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” See Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1330. And he did not even mention the relevant factors, let alone “give good reasons” or “tie[]” his reasoning to them, as required for the second step. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (the “decision must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports giving it less weight.

Burgos v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-07-21(c)(2)

In addition, the ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the contrary.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1240 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source medical opinions more weight and requires controlling weight when they are well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, with good reasons for the assigned weight.

Jackson v. Colvin · filed 2017-08-02(c)(2)

By regulation, opinions from treating physicians should “generally” be given “more weight” by ALJs because these sources are “likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations. . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ALJs are instructed to give “controlling weight” to such opinions where they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. In addition, ALJs are directed to “give good reasons” for the weight they give to a treating source’s opinion. ... Here, the ALJ’s decision to accord the opinions of Drs. Kossoff and Menon less than controlling weigh comports with the treating physician’s rule. The ALJ explained his reasons for giving less weigh to their opinions, and the reasons given were legitimate and supported by substantial evidence found in the record. The treating physician’s rule does not require more.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Sturgis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

If the treating source’s opinion “is well-supported by medically and acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” it must be given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless analyze other factors such as the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship; the supportability and consistency of the opinion; and the degree of medical specialization possessed by the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c); see also Sameena, Inc. v. U. S. Air Force, 147 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] federal agency is obliged to abide by the regulations it promulgates.”). “In many cases, a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *4 (July 2, 1996) In sum, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-physician opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Tepper v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence,” it is given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is given less than controlling weight, it is evaluated using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Klingbeil v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)

Because the ALJ gave Dr. Meis’ opinions less than controlling weight, Judge Roberts considered the ALJ’s evaluation of it according to the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Id. These factors are: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization and (6) other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion; a conclusory statement that a claimant is disabled is not determinative.

Ehlers v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(d)(2)

“Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for doing so.” /d. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... The ALJ assigned no weight to Dr. Hunter’s conclusory statement that Plaintiff was permanently disabled. This determination comports with controlling social security law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hurley v. Saul · filed 2021-06-09(c)(2)

Put simply, the ALJ must provide a good reason for the weight that the ALJ affords the treating physicians’ opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ’s justification for granting the treating physicians’ opinions such little weight proves insufficient. As explained above, the ALJ failed to explain adequately why their interpretations, rather than the doctors’ opinions, were correct.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) requires an ALJ to consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of a treating relationship when weighing the treating source’s opinion.

Stewart, III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-25(c)(2)(i)-(ii)

The ALJ provided no discussion of the 14 year treating relationship between Stewart and Dr. Cooke as required by 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c)(2)(i-ii). In doing so, the ALJ failed to explain how the 14 year treatment relationship factored into the analysis or whether the length of the relationship weighed in favor of Dr. Cooke’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using specified regulatory factors and provide good reasons for discounting it.

Powers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-25(c)(2)-(6)

Social Security Regulations require ALJs to generally extend “greater deference…to the opinions of treating physicians than to those of non-treating physicians, commonly known as the treating physician rule.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242. The Commissioner must afford controlling weight to a treating physician opinion when it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If the opinion is not controlling, then the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors, which include “the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). Additionally, in discounting the weight given to a treating physician opinion, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” that are “supported by the evidence in the case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an administrative law judge to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating doctor's opinion, whether the opinion receives great or little weight.

Shearer v. Saul · filed 2021-07-13(c)(2)

Even if the ALJ finds that the treating opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight given to a treating doctor’s opinion whether he gives great or little weight to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); See also Reece v. Colvin, 834 F.3d 904, 909 (8th Cir. 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Plymire v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-26(d)(2)

“A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Stephens v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 323, 328 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives 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 evidence in the case record.

Burkard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-28(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s essentially is arguing Defendant, by failing to fully accept Dr. Martin’s opinion which points toward finding Plaintiff disabled based on his mental impairments, has violated the so-called “treating physician rule” which provides that an opinion from a treating medical source is entitled to controlling weight so long as the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Where the ALJ fails to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ is required to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to it and “explicitly consider” a number of factors set forth by the Second Circuit in Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008). ... In the instant case, the ALJ did not violate the treating physician rule by failing to afford controlling weight to Dr. Martin’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(5) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and explain the weight given when controlling weight is not warranted.

Saunders v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-16(c)(2)-(5)

The social security regulations require that an ALJ give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”8 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... The ALJ must give “good reasons” for not affording controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); ... Further, if the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s medical opinion is not deserving of controlling weight, the following factors must be considered to determine the appropriate weight to which the opinion is entitled: (1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the opinion’s support by medical evidence; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) the treating physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(5), 416.927(c)(2)-(5). “None of these factors may be omitted or disregarded by the ALJ in weighing the value of a treating physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the relevant regulatory factors and determine the appropriate weight to assign it.

Duarte v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-19(c)(1)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the Administration to consider specified factors when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion if it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Stickney v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-26(c)

Treating physician’s opinions are normally given “controlling weight,” but they are not entitled controlling weight if the opinion is not “well-supported” or inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). If the treating physician’s opinions are not entitled controlling weight, the Administration considers specific factors in determining the weight they will be given, including “length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination” by the treating physician; the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship” between the patient and the treating physician; the supportability of the opinion (whether there are lab findings or other medical signs); consistency with the record; and whether the treating physician specializes in the area at issue. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by § 404.1527, an ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and consider the regulatory factors.

Diaz v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-07(c)(2)

The ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Court finds that these were not good reasons for discounting the treating physician’s weight. ... It appears that the ALJ dismissed the physical functional limitations provided by Dr. Neubauer without first analyzing those opinions under the standards applicable to treating source opinions. ... Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings so the ALJ can fully consider Dr. Neubauer’s opinions and Plaintiff’s physical limitations within the context of Plaintiff’s treatment history. The ALJ must then reconsider Plaintiff’s RFC and provide good reasons for the weight given to Dr. Neubauer’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require expressly discussing each factor if the ALJ explains why the opinion lacks support and is inconsistent with the record.

Ellis v. Saul · filed 2021-09-09(c)

Although an ALJ must consider all the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), she need not expressly discuss each factor in her written opinion. ... As long as she otherwise explains why the treating physician’s opinion is not supported by the medical record and is inconsistent with the rest of the record, that usually will suffice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider an array of factors when deciding whether to give a treating source’s medical opinion less than controlling weight.

Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c)

The ALJ should revisit whether and to what extent it might be appropriate to afford less than controlling weight to Liebowitz. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (providing an array of factors an ALJ must consider when affording less than controlling weight to a treating source’s medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

ARGUEYUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-12(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the appropriate factors when evaluating a treating-source medical opinion, but does not require an ALJ to expressly recite each factor if the decision shows that the factors were considered and permits meaningful review.

MOORE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-11-30(c)

Plaintiff argues that this assessment is inadequate because the ALJ failed to expressly reference the factors at sections 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), e.g., the nature and extent of the treating relationship, supportability, and consistency. However, it is clear from the decision, read as a whole, that the ALJ considered Plaintiff’s treating history with Dr. Sharma including its length, Dr. Sharma’s specialty, and the degree to which other evidence in the record supported Dr. Sharma’s opinion. And while explicit mention of the relevant factors might have aided this Court’s review, ALJs are not required to use any “particular language” or “format” where their decisions demonstrate consideration of the “appropriate factors” and permit “meaningful review.” Jones v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 501, 504—05 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Burnett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 220 F.3d 112, 119—20 (3d Cir. 2000)) (explaining—in the context of a step-three listed impairments inquiry—that the substantial evidence inquiry is an examination of substance, not form). Accordingly, the Court is satisfied by the ALJ’s consideration of Dr. Sharma’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to apply the remaining factors only if it is not controlling.

Snell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-14(c)(2)

That is, the ALJ failed to discuss whether Dr. Brown’s opinion is (1) well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. Instead, the ALJ improperly reduced the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by the Regulations into solely consideration of the remaining factors in the Regulations, such as the “supportability” and “consistency” factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and otherwise weigh it using the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, consistency, and supportability.

Garland v. Saul · filed 2022-01-31(c)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported” by medical findings and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.3 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight it merits by considering the following factors: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; and (4) the consistency and supportability of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c); Gerstner, 879 F.3d at 263. ... Instead, he appropriately considered Plaintiff’s daily activities in assessing the consistency and supportability of Dr. Harris’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight to consider factors including supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Quiala v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-11(c)

The existence of a treating relationship, however, does not mean these opinions are automatically entitled to controlling weight. When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, several other factors are considered, including supportability, consistency, and the physician’s specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957 (“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.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Lambert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-04(c)(2)

When a medical opinion comes from a treating physician, an ALJ of the SSA must give that opinion “controlling weight” if it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while excluding conclusory opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work.

Rivera-Quiles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-01(c)(2)

"Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s), including [his or her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant's] physical or mental restrictions." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Regulations provide that the opinion of a treating physician is presumed to carry 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 in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). "[T]he regulations specifically exclude from consideration opinions on certain issues, such as conclusory statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work." Dunlap v. Commr. of Soc. Sec., 509 Fed. Appx. 472, 476 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a medical source’s assessment of absenteeism and time off task as a medical opinion, not a conclusion reserved to the Commissioner, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Steele v. Berryhill · filed 2022-03-10(d)

Plaintiff asserts the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Bergman’s opinion relating to absenteeism and time off task because it “goes to an issue reserved to the Commissioner.” ... As Plaintiff correctly points out, “[t]hese are not summary conclusions that Plaintiff cannot work that are reserved to the commissioner by CFR [§§] 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).” ... The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Dr. Bergman’s opinions relating to absenteeism and time off task were proper medical opinions under the regulations. ... Although the ALJ did not provide a “good reason” for discounting Dr. Bergman’s opinion relating to absenteeism and time off task, the Court finds that the error was harmless because that opinion was not supported by his treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an administrative law judge to give greater weight to treating-source opinions.

Daniels v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-16

Generally, ALJs “give more weight to the opinion from… treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.