20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the regulation requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion considerable weight unless good cause supports discounting it, including lack of evidentiary support or inconsistency with the physician’s records.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-18(c)

For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, ALJs must give a treating physician’s medical opinion considerable weight subject to certain parameters. ... Thus, the ALJ properly discounted the doctors’ opinions by finding that they “[were] not bolstered by the evidence” and “[were] conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor[s’] own medical records.”

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Section 404.1527 generally gives a treating physician’s opinion the most weight and permits controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Gionnette v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-29(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight, and may be “controlling” 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); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give treating-source opinions great weight, but not controlling weight when inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to consider specified factors in deciding their weight.

PLAZA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-19(c)(1)-(6)

However, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Hubert v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 746 F. App’x 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Brunson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 704 F. App’x 56, 59–60 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[A]n ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating physician when it is unsupported and inconsistent with the other evidence in the record.”). “In choosing to reject the treating physician’s assessment, an ALJ may not make speculative inferences from medical reports and may reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence and not due to his or her own credibility judgments, speculation or lay opinion.” Morales, 225 F.3d at 317 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 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).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Rosario-Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-06(c)(2)

For cases filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ is generally required to give an opinion from a treating source “controlling weight,” as long as the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Sutton v. Berryhill, 358 F. Supp. 3d 162, 168 (D. Mass. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (internal quotations omitted)).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and generally gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Fuchs v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-16(c)(2)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in determining whether a claimant is disabled under the [Social Security] Act. ... Treating physician opinions are considered particularly probative because they “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical evidence alone or from reports of individual examinations.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(d)(2). ... An opinion from a treating physician is afforded controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment, provided the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(d)(2).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Szczygielski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-05(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “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). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the requisite factors is a “procedural error.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). However, such error is harmless if “a searching review of the record” confirms “that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” Id. (quotations omitted). Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Harris v. Colvin, 149 F. Supp. 3d 435, 441 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (“A corollary to the treating physician rule is the so-called ‘good reasons rule,’ which is based on the regulations specifying that ‘the Commissioner “will always give good reasons”’ for the weight given to a treating source opinion.” (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32)). “Those good reasons must be supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific. . . .”

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, treating-physician opinions generally receive more weight than opinions from physicians who did not treat the claimant.

Morris v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-06-28(c)(1)-(2)

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinion of those who do not actually treat the claimant. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 generally gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and requires a noncontrolling opinion to be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Tammatha Carrier v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-20(c)(2)–(6)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as here, the opinion of a treating physician is generally entitled to controlling weight. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighed according to other factors set out by rule, including the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, supportability, consistency, and specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating doctor's medical opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well-supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence; the treating relationship alone is not dispositive.

Darcey v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-26(c)(2)

Where, as here, a claimant filed an application for Social Security benefits before March 27, 2017, “[t]he medical opinion of a claimant’s treating doctor is given ‘controlling weight’ so 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 claimant’s] case record.’” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2) (same). ... Essentially, Plaintiff’s position is that the ALJ should have credited the opinions of her treating physicians over the opinions of non-treating physicians solely based on the treatment relationship alone. This argument is without merit. The ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in the medical opinion evidence. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 1995); Reddick, 157 F.3d at 722. A treating relationship alone is not dispositive.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) governs the weight assigned to medical opinions, and a contradicted treating physician’s opinion may be discounted only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-30(c)

For Social Security disability cases filed before March 27, 2017, the weight to be given to medical opinions depends in part on whether the opinions are proffered by treating, examining, or nonexamining health professionals. ... The opinion of a treating or examining physician that is controverted by another doctor may be rejected only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... Absent specific and legitimate reasons, the ALJ must defer to the opinion of a treating or examining physician. ... “For claims filed before March 27, 2017, but not decided until after that date…the rules listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) apply.” ... Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount Dr. Grasser’s opinion.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to state the weight assigned and give good reasons tied to the regulation’s six factors, though the ALJ need not expressly apply every factor.

Laney v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-05-19(c)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, as is the case here, a unique two-step rule applies to the opinions of treating physicians (acceptable medical sources who provide or have provided the claimant with medical treatment and who have an ongoing relationship with the claimant). ... If it is not given controlling weight, “at the second step in the analysis, the ALJ must make clear how much weight the opinion is being given (including whether it is being rejected outright) and give good reasons, tied to the factors specified in the cited regulations for this particular purpose, for the weight assigned.” ... The ALJ is not required to “apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” ... The factors in the regulation 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 the opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ followed the mandate and considered the mental health opinions applying the proper legal standards. As such, there is no error.

Section 404.1527 does not make a treating physician’s disability opinion conclusive on the Secretary.

Davis v. Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1986-04-22

Although plaintiffs treating physician opined that plaintiff is disabled, his opinion is not conclusive on the Secretary.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to apply the regulatory factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Sharieff v. Shalala · filed 1995-02-17(d)(2)

As a result, not only did the ALJ apply “an erroneous legal standard,” Cruz, 912 F.3d at 11; Frerks, 848 F.Supp. at 348, and fail to “give good reasons in [his] notice of ... decision,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), he also failed to provide sufficient information by which the Court could determine whether he accorded the opinions of Sharieffs treating physicians the weight to which they are properly entitled.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits less weight for a physician’s opinion when clinical evidence does not support it or other substantial evidence conflicts with it.

Baker v. Chater · filed 1996-08-08(d)(2)

The necessary implication, of course, is that if a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence, or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded less weight.

Section 404.1527(d) generally gives treating physicians’ opinions more weight than other evidence in a disability determination.

Batista v. Chater · filed 1997-07-29(d)

Because the opinions of a treating ... physician regarding a plaintiffs medical condition generally has more weight than other pertinent evidence in disability determination, ... the ALJ has a duty to obtain sufficient information from a pro se claimant’s treating physician to make his or her decision.

Section 404.1527(d) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when medical evidence supports it and it is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Umscheid v. Apfel · filed 1998-01-06(d)

As discussed above, the court should give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is well supported by medical evidence and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to assess a treating physician’s opinion using the regulatory factors even when the opinion does not receive controlling weight.

Grubb v. Chater · filed 1998-03-10(d)(2)

Even if the ALJ could not assign controlling weight to Dr. Newsome’s report, he should have evaluated the factors laid out in the regulations and assessed the weight to be given Dr. Newsome’s opinion.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons in the written decision for assigning insufficient weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Harris v. Chater · filed 1998-03-26(d)(2)

An ALJ who does not give the treating physician’s opinion sufficient weight is required to give “good reasons” for failing to do so in his notice of determination or written decision.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion for controlling weight and consider the regulatory factors when assigning it weight.

Downs v. Apfel · filed 1998-06-11(d)(2)

The ALJ’s decision never acknowledged that opinion, never evaluated whether the opinion was entitled to compelling weight, nor evaluated the factors outlined in the regulations to assign Dr. Wolfe’s opinion any additional weight. This was clear error that requires remand.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, § 404.1527(d) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, medical support, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialty.

Kendall v. Apfel · filed 1998-08-06(d)

Where, as here, the treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, § 404.1527(d) provides that the following factors should be considered in determining whether there is a disability or not: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examinations, the extent to which the treating source’s opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, the degree to which the treating source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the treating source is a specialist in the area in which the opinion is given.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a genuine inconsistency with other substantial evidence before a treating doctor’s opinion is discounted.

Collins v. Apfel · filed 1998-12-14(d)(2)

We therefore do not think that any aspect of the endocrinologist’s opinion is “inconsistent with ... other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); the ALJ and the government have, at best, pointed out “specious inconsistencies.”

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives greater weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion because the physician can provide a detailed picture of the claimant’s impairment.

Cirino v. Apfel · filed 1999-02-11(d)(2)

Treating physician Dr. Greenberg’s opinion that Cirino’s disorder was eliminated with treatment was appropriately given greater weight than the conclusions of rehabilitation counselors Pasternak and Provder.

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

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-04-22(d)(2)

However, these portions of testimony were not entitled to controlling weight because they are inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization to determine its weight.

Lafferty v. Astrue · filed 2008-05-30(d)(2)-(5)

If the ALJ fails to give controlling weight to the opinion of the treating physician, then the ALJ must consider several factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion of the treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) frequency of examinations, (3) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) support ability by medical signs and laboratory findings, (5) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (6) specialization of the doctor.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive deference when it conflicts with substantial evidence in the record.

Gaskin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-05-30(d)(2)

Because Dr. Brown’s opinion is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record,” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242 (internal quotations omitted), and his conclusion regarding Gaskin’s inability to work addresses an issue reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ did not err in refusing to defer to Dr. Brown’s opinion.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive less weight when medical examinations or tests do not support it, even if the physician saw the claimant regularly.

Elder, Dianna R. v. Astrue, Michael J. · filed 2008-06-16(d)(3)

Thus, it makes no difference if Elder saw Dr. Hanus “every two- and-a-half months”; what does matter is that Dr. Hanus did not confirm the severity of Elder’s fibromyalgia with medical examinations or tests. See id. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”).

A treating physician’s opinion may be discounted when it relies solely or too heavily on the claimant’s subjective complaints.

Rudicel v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-19(d)(2)

Thus, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Rahn must have been relying solely or too heavily on Rudicel’s subjective complaints, which is reason enough to discount his opinion.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s medical opinion and give reasons for discounting its limitations.

Griffith v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-20(d)(2)

Of the three reasons given by the ALJ for discounting LaTonn’s opinion as plaintiffs treating physician, only one is supported by the record: plaintiff does not contest that LaTonn had not treated her for a year prior to his completion of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Questionnaire. There are no specific reasons given for discounting LaTonn’s additional restrictions, several of which were included in the question posed to the VE (e.g., “frequent” pushing and pulling).

Section 404.1527(d) does not permit an ALJ to reject an uncontradicted treating physician’s opinion based on reasons unsupported by the record.

Boertje v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-23(d)

Dr. Koithan’s opinions are uncontradicted. By rejecting them for reasons which are unsupported by the record as a whole, the ALJ ignored the law of the Eighth Circuit, “which states that the ALJ must not substitute his opinion for those of the physician.”

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives treating physicians’ opinions greater weight and calls for controlling weight when they are well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Traynham v. Astrue · filed 2013-02-25(d)(2)

The ALJ is generally required to give more weight to the opinions of treating physicians than to other medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ should give controlling weight to treating physicians’ opinions if the opinions are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when treatment evidence conflicts with that opinion.

Best-Willie v. Astrue · filed 2013-03-26(c)(2)

The record demonstrates that Best-Willie’s somatoform pain disorder was suppressed with medication, and the ALJ appropriately considered this in discounting Dr. Charlat’s opinion.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion greater weight, but good cause supports giving it less weight when it conflicts with the physician’s earlier opinions or the medical record.

Strickland v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-04-11(c)(2)

The ALJ clearly articulated her reasons for assigning “little weight” to the Lumbar Spine Residual Functional Capacity Questionnaires. The ALJ noted that both Questionnaires conflicted with the overall medical record. Moreover, good cause existed for the ALJ’s decision, particularly because both Questionnaires are inconsistent with various aspects of their authors’ previous medical opinions.

An ALJ must give clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence before discounting an uncontradicted treating physician’s opinion.

Martinez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-10(c)(2)

Because the ALJ has not shown clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Denny’s opinion, the ALJ improperly accorded little weight to Dr. Denny’s opinion.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when it is unsupported by or inconsistent with the record, provided the ALJ adequately explains the decision.

Olivas v. Saul · filed 2019-12-16(c)(2)

But in view of the standard set forth in § 404.1527(c)(2), the ALJ’s explanation for discounting Dr. Crowe’s opinion was sufficient. First, the ALJ appropriately found that Dr. Crowe’s key opinions—that Olivas had osteoarthritis in her ankles, that she had difficulty walking, and that she experienced pain flares four to six times per week—were unsupported by and inconsistent with record evidence, including her own progress notes.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Garmhausen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-14(c)(2)

If an ALJ accords less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for doing so. ... Accordingly, the ALJ articulated “good reasons” for assigning little weight to Dr. Woodfin’s opinion.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive little weight when it lacks explanation and supporting evidence, if the ALJ gives specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Casteneda v. Social Security · filed 2019-12-18(d)(2)

The ALJ gave this check box opinion little weight because Dr. Zaledo gave no explanation for his assessment and provided no supporting diagnostic or objective evidence. ... The ALJ rejected the opinion of Dr. Zaledo for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ’s assessment of a treating physician’s opinion must be supported by substantial evidence, including a sound evaluation of its consistency with the record.

Martinez · filed 2026-03-31(c)(2)

The ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Smith’s opinions are not supported by substantial evidence. As an initial matter, Dr. Smith’s opinions are not grossly contrary, but demonstrate consistent restrictions on plaintiff’s ability to lift and decreasing capacity for sitting and standing over time given plaintiff’s deteriorating physical condition.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the regulatory factors when assigning it weight.

Jarrell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(c)(2)

Although the ALJ provided analysis that Dr. Hunter’s opinion was not consistent with the longitudinal treatment record, the ALJ did not discuss any of the regulatory factors, including the fact that Dr. Hunter is a psychiatrist and the length and nature of the treating relationship.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, support from medical evidence, and consistency with the record.

Budde v. John J. Callahan Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 1997-10-01(d)(2), (3)-(6)

The ALJ properly resolved the conflict by setting forth specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the treating physician's opinion. See Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that when conflicting medical opinions exist, the ALJ must set forth specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (i-ii), (3-6) (in determining the weight to give to the opinion, the ALJ should consider factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examinations, the degree to which the opinion is supported by relevant medical evidence, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, in determining the weight to give to the opinion).

A treating physician’s opinion may receive little or no weight when it lacks support and concerns a matter outside the physician’s specialty.

Allison v. Astrue · filed 2011-04-04(d)(3), (d)(5)

This might be the case, for instance, if the treating physician “offers an opinion on a matter not related to her or his area of specialization, and presents no support for her or his opinion on the matter.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3), (5)). ... Dr. Williamson-Kirkland presented no support for his opinion that Allison was disabled as a result of the combined effect of his right shoulder condition and his cognitive limitations and avoidant and dependent personality traits.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to consider the regulatory factors and show good cause for the weight assigned.

Jackson v. Colvin · filed 2017-03-06(c)

The ALJ, however, did not show good cause to discount Dr. Lank-ford’s opinion, and remand is required for review in proper accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

A treating physician’s statement about medication-related fatigue is medical opinion evidence, and the ALJ must state the weight assigned to it and explain why.

Farris v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-11(c)(2)

This is medical opinion evidence entitled to deference. Therefore, the ALJ was required to state what weight was given to the opinion and why.

Section 404.1527(c) makes the length and frequency of a treating relationship factors in deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

McKnight v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-08(c)

The ALJ rejected Dr. Nguyen’s opinion on the grounds that Dr. Nguyen began treating Plaintiff in February 2017, saw Plaintiff only once per year, and had seen Plaintiff only twice at the time he offered his opinion. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017)(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)) (“The length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, [and] the nature and extent of the treatment relationship” are factors the ALJ must consider when deciding whether to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.). ... On this record the Court concludes the ALJ did not err when she partially rejected Dr. Nguyen’s opinion because the ALJ provided clear and convincing reasons for doing so based on substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Luckey v. Michael Astrue, Commissioner · filed 2011-12-19(d)(1)-(6)

The ALJ then discussed facts that pertained to each factor, including objective medical evidence from the record, before discounting Dr. Nodarse’s opinion.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinions less weight when the ALJ explains the assessment and substantial evidence supports it.

Walton v. Saul · filed 2020-10-20

The undersigned finds Defendant’s position more persuasive. In short, the undersigned agrees that despite Plaintiff’s protests over the weight assigned to Dr. Kanelos’ opinions, “the ALJ applied the correct law and supported her findings with substantial evidence.”

A treating physician’s opinion that lacks controlling weight must still be weighed under § 404.1527(c)’s factors, and reasons for discounting it must be supported by substantial evidence.

Alvarado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion, (4) consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). ... Based on the foregoing, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s reasons for discounting the opinion of Dr. Dizon were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

For claims governed by the treating physician rule, an ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion little weight after considering the relevant factors and giving good reasons supported by the record.

Mootry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded “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”. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). ... Given the ALJ’s extensive citation to the record and her lengthy discussion of the evidence that included consideration of all of the Burgess factors, I find that substantial evidence supports her determination to assign “little” weight to the functional assessments of Dr. Baskin and NP Conboy.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when its vagueness provides a specific and legitimate reason.

Steers v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

The vagueness of this opinion and lack of definition of the term “irregularly” are specific and legitimate reasons for assigning the opinion less than controlling weight.

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

Kosier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

He thus provided good reasons for the weight assigned to the various treating physician opinions.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Thrush v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-30(c)

Furthermore, the ALJ failed to go through the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c) to determine the weight Dr. Bhalla’s opinion should be given.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it using the factors in § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Spina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-13(c)(2)-(6)

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

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when the treatment notes do not support its assessed limitations.

Gray v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-11-12(c)(2)

In the Court’s review of the record, the ALJ did not err in attributing less weight to Dr. Joe’s opinion because the treatment notes as a whole do not support the physical limitations identified in his RFC assessment.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to decline to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when the ALJ gives sufficiently good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Cheathom v. Saul · filed 2022-01-21(c)

Per these quoted passages, the ALJ discounted Dr. Komanduri’s opinions because he opined as to a different job, his opinion’s were unspecific, and his opinions were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s daily activities. The Court concludes that the ALJ gave sufficiently good reasons for discounting Dr. Komanduri’s opinions and finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to give the opinions controlling weight.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives controlling weight to a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with the record and requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned.

Alexander v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-15(d)(2)

A treating physician's opinion will not control in all instances; however, an ALJ must "comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion." Id. at 129 (quoting Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004)). Here, as noted above, the ALJ failed to weigh much of the record evidence from Dr. Gupta and did not elaborate on his reasoning.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when substantial evidence supports discounting it.

Morrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)

Finally, irrespective of the deficiencies in the Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ’s determination to assign little weight to Dr. Hostler’s second opinion is sufficiently bolstered by the medical records, the Plaintiff’s self-reports, and the inconsistencies between Dr. Hostler’s own notes and his second opinion, all of which constitute more than a “mere scintilla.”

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when it lacks support in the medical evidence, provided the ALJ gives sufficient reasons.

Osborn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)–(4)

A finding that an opinion is unsupported by the evidence or is inconsistent with the record constitutes good cause. See Arterberry v. Berryhill, 743 F. App'x 227, 229 (10th Cir. 2018); Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4). ... The court finds that the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Nottingham’s opinion and sufficiently explained his reasons for assigning the opinion little weight.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when medically supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ may give it less weight when it lacks support.

Glover v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)

The ALJ Gave Adequate Weight to Dr. Toba’s Opinion. ... “Under the ‘treating physician rule,’ a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if it is ‘well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in . . . [the] record.’” Finch v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-892, 2019 WL 1434621, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2019) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(S)). ... Dr. Toba’s statement appears as a standard form with minimal notes on Ms. Glover’s conditions.

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when it conflicts with substantial evidence, provided the ALJ gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Steinmetz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(d)(2)

While the ALJ did not always explicitly consider the Burgess factors when assigning the treating physicians’ opinions less than controlling weight, the Court nonetheless concludes that he provided sufficient “good reasons” in each instance for the weight assigned.

An ALJ cannot reject a treating physician’s opinion based on treatment noncompliance without considering whether the claimant’s mental illness caused the noncompliance.

Enos v. Saul · filed 2022-11-08(c)(2)

The ALJ neglected to take into account the role played by Plaintiff’s mental illness and thus her purported noncompliance is not a valid basis for rejecting Dr. Giuffra’s opinions.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only if it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Searles v. SSA · filed 2000-10-13(d)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of ... a treating physician only where 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."

Section 404.1527(c)(2) governs the weight given to treating physicians’ opinions in claims filed before March 27, 2017; an ALJ may discount those opinions for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Goldstein v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-05(c)(2)

Based on the foregoing, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting the ... opinions of Dr. Gabbai and Dr. Khorsan and giving greater weight to the state agency reviewing ... physicians.

An ALJ must give clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject an uncontradicted treating physician’s opinion.

(SS) Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-04(c)(2)

The ALJ’s first reason for the weight given to Dr. Allyn’s opinion is that “this opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole.” Without any citation or further explanation, this general statement is not a clear and convincing reason that is supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the opinion.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when the ALJ gives specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Rock v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-16(c)

To begin, it was proper for the ALJ to assess the various medical opinions, state reasons for doing so, and conclude to give greater weight to the opinions of the State Agency medical consultants than to Plaintiff’s treating physician.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 governs the weight given to treating physicians’ opinions; a conclusory assertion of inconsistency is insufficient to reject such an opinion.

(SS) Wentz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-22

The ALJ’s conclusory statement that Dr. Patel’s assessment is “overly restrictive and inconsistent with the evidence of record” is insufficient, particularly where Dr. Patel had a long-term treatment relationship with the plaintiff and the record consists of extensive notes along with medical imaging upon which he relied.

A treating physician’s opinion may be given little weight when specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence show that it is inconsistent with the medical record.

(SS) Wilkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(c)(2)–(6)

The ALJ accordingly provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Gursahani’s opinion due to inconsistency with the medical record.

When a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted, an ALJ must give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for assigning it little weight.

(SS) Herrera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(c)(2)

After consideration, the Court finds that the ALJ’s reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Fernandez’s opinion were not specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ may give a contradicted treating physician’s opinion little weight for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(c)(2)

Therefore, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving Dr. Goklaney’s testimony little weight.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion and provide good reasons for that weight.

Tourville v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-13(c)(2)

Although an ALJ is not required to discuss all the relevant factors in determining what weight to give a physician’s opinion, ... the ALJ must explain the weight given the opinion and give “good reasons” for doing so.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from a treating physician’s opinion when it is not well-supported or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Azzarello v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-13(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. ... Therefore, the ... ALJ did not err when he rejected Dr. Pansing’s opinion.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Lee v. Saul · filed 2021-12-06(c)(2)–(6)

With respect to the ALJ’s first responsibility—consideration of other factors—the ALJ did not address any of the factors listed under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), which provides: ... The ALJ did not discuss any of the factors as relevant to Dr. Haycraft.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s medical opinion receives substantial weight.

Reeves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-26(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, substantial weight is given to ... the treating physician's medical opinion.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and permits an ALJ to weigh the opinion’s supporting explanation.

Plummer v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1999-08-05(d)(2)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (providing for controlling weight where treating physician opinion is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.) An ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, but may afford a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the regulatory factors in deciding what weight to give it.

Cloutier v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-23(d)(2)

The ALJ’s decision never acknowledged that opinion, never evaluated whether the opinion was entitled to compelling weight, nor evaluated the factors outlined in the regulations to assign Dr. Arluck’s opinion any additional weight. This was clear error that requires remand.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion; a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Parsons v. Apfel · filed 2000-06-06

When evaluating any medical opinion, an ALJ is required to consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. These factors include the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the amount of evidence presented to support an opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the area of specialization of the physician rendering the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The regulation also provides that a treating physician’s opinion is controlling only if it is consistent with other substantial evidence and well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques. ... A review of the ALJ’s decision reveals that he considered the appropriate factors in weighing Dr. Keleman’s opinion and that the ALJ’s decision to disregard Dr. Keleman’s opinion to the extent it was inconsistent with Mr. Parsons’ ability to perform light work is supported by substantial evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion must receive controlling weight when adequately supported, and an ALJ cannot reject it without sufficient contrary medical evidence.

Rieder v. Apfel · filed 2000-09-30(d)(2)

In addition, “a treating physician’s report not only may be given more weight, it must be given controlling weight if so supported. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... In the instant case, we find that the ALJ’s and magistrate’s refusal to credit Dr. Sebastianelli’s opinion was not based on objective medical evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and the ALJ must give the opinion adequate consideration.

Hirschfeld v. Apfel · filed 2001-02-26(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician should be given “controlling weight” when it is “not inconsistent” with other “substantial evidence” in the case record and is “well supported” by “medically ae-ceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” ... Consequently, the Court concludes that the ALJ sufficiently considered the opinion of Hirschfeld’s treating physician in reaching his decision to deny disability benefits.

A treating physician’s opinion is weighed according to its medical support and consistency with other substantial evidence.

Ricci v. Apfel · filed 2001-03-30(d)(2)

At any rate, his conclusory one-page letter opinion is unsupported by treatment notes or records. It also contradicts other evidence in this case, including the medical records (and the lack thereof), testimony, and Plaintiffs school history. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that weight will be accorded treating physician’s opinion if it is “well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence”).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives treating physicians’ opinions greater weight; rejecting one requires reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Smith Ex Rel. Enge v. Massanari · filed 2001-04-30(d)(2)

The medical opinions of treating physicians are entitled to special weight. ... In making this finding, the Commissioner implicitly rejected Dr. Banks’s opinion that Jeanette’s asthma is severe, and he did so without setting forth any reasons for rejecting Dr. Banks’s opinion. This is legal error.

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

Davis v. Apfel · filed 2001-06-27(d)(2)

Treating physicians’ reports should be accorded great weight, especially “when their opinions reflect expert judgment based on a continuing observation of the patient’s condition over a prolonged period of time.” Morales, 225 F.3d at 317 (quoting Rocco v. Heckler, 826 F.2d 1348, 1350 (3d Cir.1987)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (providing for controlling weight where treating physician opinion is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record). ... Without any supporting medical evidence of record, the ALJ could not improperly reject evidence that did not exist.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion; failure to analyze the first two factors can be harmless when substantial evidence supports the weight assigned.

Hill v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-03(d)(2)-(6)

The ALJ apparently did not analyze the first two factors of the test, but even if the Court considered those favorable to plaintiff, substantial evidence would still support the ALJ’s position.

An administrative law judge need not discuss contrary evidence when a treating physician’s opinion lacks support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Portlock v. Apfel · filed 2001-07-03(d)(2)

An Administrative Law Judge is not required to discuss contrary evidence if he or she finds that the treating physician’s opinion was not supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s assessment when it conflicts with objective medical evidence, other doctors’ assessments, and the claimant’s activities.

Makuch v. Halter · filed 2001-10-31(d)(2)

Although Dr. Leffers was a treating physician, the ALJ is not held hostage to his bottom line assessment in the RFC because it is so out-of-sync with the objective medical testimony, the assessments of other doctors and claimant’s own testimony regarding his lifestyle.

A treating physician’s opinion may be denied controlling weight when it conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record.

Connour v. Massanari · filed 2001-11-09(d)

In this case, the ALJ properly rejected the portion of Dr. Lee-Sigler’s opinion that Connour needed a sit/stand option every twenty to thirty minutes while on the job. The ALJ’s decision demonstrates that she found Dr. Lee-Sigler’s opinion inconsistent with other evidence in the record.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must determine its weight using the regulatory factors.

Sullivan v. SSA · filed 2001-12-07(d)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician where 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(d)(2). When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine the appropriate weight to give to the opinion by evaluating certain factors. ... There is no evidence that the ALJ unjustifiably discounted Dr. Trapnell’s opinions.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is medically supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Spears v. Barnhart · filed 2002-03-28(d)(2)

The treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable evidence and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence contained in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, however, the ALJ must provide good reason in his decision for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion.

An ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion must consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the physician’s specialty.

Kellogg v. Barnhart · filed 2002-04-11(d)(2)

In addition to considering whether the treating physician’s opinion is well-supported by objective evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ is also required to consider the length of the treating relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and whether the physician is a specialist in the area.

A treating physician’s opinion is weighed by its consistency with other evidence, the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and support from objective medical evidence.

Smith v. Massanari · filed 2002-05-22(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is considered in relation to its consistency with other evidence, the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the extent to which the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion may be discounted when it conflicts with clearly established, contemporaneous medical records.

Rogers v. Barnhart · filed 2002-05-23(d)(4)

Even the opinion of a treating physician may be disregarded where it is inconsistent with clearly established, contemporaneous medical records. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4). Here, the ALJ cited the earlier contradictory evidence as one of his reasons for discounting this doctor’s testimony.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial medical evidence; the ALJ may give it less weight when such inconsistencies exist.

Bouchard v. Barnhart · filed 2002-06-14(d)(2)

A treating physician’s report must be given controlling weight over the report of a consultative examiner, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), but when the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with substantial medical evidence, the ALJ is not required to do so. ... In the face of these inconsistencies, as well as others contained within Dr. Leffs own report, the ALJ was entitled to give Dr. Leffs opinion less weight.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives treating physicians’ opinions great weight but permits an ALJ to give them less weight when they conflict with other substantial evidence.

Parker v. Barnhart · filed 2003-02-11(d)(2)

The court finds that the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Gorrin’s report. While the findings and opinions of treating physicians are entitled to great weight, the ALJ is not bound by the treating physician’s opinion.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to apply the regulatory factors in deciding how much weight it receives.

Mejia v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-16(d)(2)

Moreover, even if the ALJ had adequate grounds for according less than controlling weight to Dr. Kleinplatz’s reports, he was still required to apply the factors specified in the regulations to determine the degree of weight to be applied to the treating physician’s reports. The ALJ’s failure to do so is alone ground for remand.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when the ALJ explains that objective tests do not support it and it rests on the claimant’s subjective complaints.

Deitemeyer v. Barnhart · filed 2003-04-21(d)(2)

Unlike in Clifford, the ALJ here explained why he rejected Dr. Pierson’s opinion that Deitemeyer needed frequent rest, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ pointed out that (1) no objective test results supported such a restriction, (2) the restriction was based solely on Deitemeyer’s subjective complaints, and (3) Dr. Pierson only indicated that Deitemeyer could probably not return to his previous level of work, (emphasis added).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion; failure to give reasons is legal error requiring remand.

Dailey v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-24(d)(2)

The ALJ simply does not articulate the reasons for the weight he assigned, if any, to the opinions of Drs. Kline and Lasser. This lapse alone constitutes legal error and requires that the case be remanded.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight if it is well supported by acceptable medical evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ cannot reject it based on a mistaken assessment of the record.

Thompson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-09-10(d)(2)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (opinion of treating physician is accorded “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence”). ... It was not permissible for the ALJ to reject Dr. Zimmerman’s opinion for this “wrong reason.”

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a non-treating physician’s opinion when it relies on subjective complaints and conflicts with medical evidence and treating physicians’ findings.

Austin v. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-21(d)(2)

The ALJ considered and explicitly discredited Dr. Tausk’s report because he thought it was based on Austin’s subjective complaints and it conflicted with the medical evidence and findings of Austin’s treating neurosurgeons — a permissible reason ...to reject the opinion of a non-treating physician.

Section 404.1527(d) does not require controlling weight for a medical opinion solely because it comes from a treating physician.

Quintana v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-12-10(d)

The administrative law judge was not required to give the opinions controlling weight.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when it lacks support from medical findings or conflicts with other record evidence.

Ottman v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-03(d)(2)

However, an ALJ may properly discredit the opinion of a treating physician if it is not supported by medical findings or is inconsistent with other evidence in the record. ... Moreover, Dr. Nolan’s report describing Ms. Ottman’s limitations is further supported by the record as a whole, whereas Dr. Holley’s limitations appear to be inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Halloran v. Jo Anne Barnhart, as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2004-03-09(d)(2)

An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various “factors” to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The regulations also specify that the Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] give[s] [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give less weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it conflicts with the physician’s own findings or other medical evidence.

Arruda v. Barnhart · filed 2004-04-12(d)(2)-(4)

The relevant regulations further permit the ALJ to downplay the weight afforded a treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of an impairment where, as here, it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other evidence in the record including treatment notes and evaluations by examining and nonexamining physicians.

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion based on the treatment relationship, clinical support, and the physician’s specialization.

Melloni v. Massanari · filed 2004-05-19(d)

The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Barrantes’s opinion based on the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship, the lack of contemporaneous clinical evidence, and his lack of specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give adequate reasons for discounting a treating physician’s medical opinion.

Kay v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-12(d)(2)

These portions of Dr. Allen’s report do not conflict with Dr. Ghicadus’ findings, in particular his determination that appellant had marked limitations understanding and carrying out detailed instructions. Since the ALJ’s findings were insufficient to justify discounting a treating source’s medical opinion, we must remand.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who rejects a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing it.

Sanchez v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-16(d)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is rejected, the A.L.J. must consider such factors as the length of the treatment relationship, ... the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record evidence, any specialization of the opining physician and other factors the plaintiff raises, in determining how to weigh the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). ... Because the opinions of Plaintiffs treating physicians were contradicted by the medical evidence of record and the A.L.J. adequately explained his reasons for rejecting those opinions, the Court concludes that the A.L.J.’s decision was not erroneous.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider factors including treatment length, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization when deciding its weight.

Hillman v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-20(d)(2)

When the ALJ determines that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight,17 the regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in deciding how much weight to give the opinion, such as the length of treatment, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating physician.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give less weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks medical support, conflicts with other substantial evidence, or addresses an issue outside the physician’s specialty.

Law v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-10(d)(3), (d)(5)

However, in the present case, the ALJ rejected the treating psychiatrist’s diagnosis not because it was conclusory, but because it was not supported by medically acceptable evidence as the psychiatrist had never physically examined or treated Law for physical impairments, was provided by a physician who did not specialize in or regularly treat any physical impairments, and was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give reasons grounded in the record for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Janezich v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-22(d)(2)

Instead, the ALJ must point to evidence in the record that justifies a departure from a treating physician’s opinion with respect to equivalency and must solicit additional evidence where the record is unclear.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialty in deciding its weight.

Sweeney v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-18(d)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider various “factors” to determine how much weight to give the opinion, such as: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical and laboratory findings; (4) the physician’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist.