20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

A treating physician’s opinion generally receives controlling weight, but conflicting substantial evidence permits the ALJ to give it less weight.

Wright v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-06(d)(2)

Usually a treating physician’s opinion deserves controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2006). However, the treating physician’s opinion does not get controlling weight when “other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion.”

An examiner who sees a claimant only once is not a treating physician whose opinion receives special weight, particularly when other medical evidence contradicts it.

Wainwright v. Comr. of Soc. Security · filed 2007-03-09(d)(2)

Since he examined Wainwright only once, Dr. Beaty was not a treating physician and his opinion was not entitled to any special weight, particularly since it was contradicted by the other medical evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive controlling or greater weight, but an unclear opinion about the claimant’s ability to work does not establish a functional limitation.

Roberson v. Michael J. Astrue, 1 Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2007-04-02(d)(2)

Though a treating doctor’s opinion may sometimes be controlling, and is often given more weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians, Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), one difficulty here is that Dr. Ilivicky’s opinion is unclear. Although he diagnosed Ms. Roberson with bipolar disorder and his office records refer to various symptoms over the years, as we have already said, we think that the evidence available at the time of the hearing did not clearly state Dr. Ilivicky’s opinion of Ms. Roberson’s ability to function in the workplace for a period of at least twelve months.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive limited weight when it is inconsistent with the medical record and conclusory.

Samons v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-13(d)(2)

Because of conflicts in the evidence and medical records reflecting long periods during which Ms. Samons had few, if any, seizures, as well as the conclusory nature of the opinion, we conclude that the ALJ did not err by refusing to give significant weight to Dr. Hollis’s opinion that Ms. Samons could not work.

A treating physician’s opinion reflects a longitudinal view of the claimant’s impairments, and an assessment by a non-examining expert who reviewed only part of the record may be insufficient to outweigh it.

Cortes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-11-28(d)(2)

The problematic reliance upon the non-examining expert’s opinion is compounded further by the fact that it was the only medical assessment relied upon to trump an opinion by the treating physician, Dr. Jacobson.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when it lacks medical support and conflicts with the physician’s earlier assessments.

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-15(d)(2)

I find that the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Pokorny’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight is proper, in light of the relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks medical support and conflicts with the record, provided the ALJ gives sufficient reasons.

Anthony v. Comm Social Security · filed 2008-02-22(d)(1)-(6)

Because the VA hospital reports undermine Dr. Pecar’s opinion that Anthony could not work in any capacity, and because Dr. Pecar was the only physician to suggest that Anthony was “totally disabled,” the ALJ provided sufficient reasons for discounting Dr. Pecar’s testimony and determining that, based on the medical record as a whole, Anthony retained the residual functional capacity to perform a limited range of light work.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion that is not controlling.

Gonzalez v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-28(d)(2)-(6)

Regulations further specify the factors an ALJ must consider in deciding how much weight to accord a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion. ... Moreover, the ALJ failed to consider all of the necessary factors before moving from a conclusion that Dr. Gorra’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight to a conclusion that his opinion was not entitled to any significant weight.

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when inconsistencies in the physician’s medical records provide good reasons to discount it.

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

The inconsistencies within Dr. Butler’s medical records alone, as set forth above, provide appropriate reasons for the ALJ to discount her opinion.

Treating physicians’ opinions supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence should receive controlling weight.

Muntz v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-17(d)

The opinions of plaintiffs treating physicians with respect to those aspects of his condition, which were supported by objective medical evidence and in many cases corroborated by the opinions of examining physicians, should have been afforded controlling weight.

Section 404.1527(f) permits the Commissioner to reject a treating physician’s opinion when contrary medical opinions are supported by record evidence.

Netter v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-02(f)

Where, as here, a treating specialist and state-employed physicians are in agreement that an individual is not disabled, and where this conclusion is supported by record evidence, the Commissioner may reject the contrary opinion of one treating physician.

A treating physician’s opinion about a claimant’s ability to work is evidence, but it does not bind the ALJ’s disability determination.

Prokopick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-04-04(e)(1), (e)(3)

While a treating physician’s opinion is certainly evidence of a patient’s ability to work, it is neither conclusive nor binding on the ALJ.

Section 404.1527 permits an administrative law judge to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when the physician has seen the claimant too infrequently to obtain a longitudinal picture of the impairment or the opinion conflicts with treatment notes or other evidence.

Duren v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-01(d)(2)

These were good reasons to discount Schmidt’s opinion. When a treating source has not seen a person frequently enough to have obtained a “longitudinal picture” of her impairment, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(h), or provides an opinion inconsistent with his treatment notes or other evidence in the record, § 404.1527(d)(4), the administrative law judge may give the opinion less weight.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ must determine its weight and explain why that weight is appropriate.

Ellington v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-06(d)(2)

However, the Court finds that the ALJ committed legal error in not describing how much weight he did accord to Handago’s opinion once he determined that it was not controlling or why he determined that particular weight was appropriate.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it using the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and other factors.

Compton v. Astrue · filed 2009-09-02(d)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the opinion based on the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, medical evidence supporting the opinion, consistency with the record as a whole, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence.

Brown v. Astrue · filed 2009-09-02(d)(2)

Further, even if Dr. Harold’s testimony was deemed that of a “treating physician,” it would only be given “controlling weight” if it was well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and was ... not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... As the court below concluded, an opinion based on such a relatively fleeting relationship should not be accorded the “controlling weight” of a “treating physician” testimony under the law. Therefore, Dr. Harold’s testimony was of limited probative value here.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight unless it lacks support from medically acceptable diagnostic techniques or conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record.

Masher v. Astrue · filed 2009-12-07(d)(2)

For that reason, we have consistently held that the ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a treating physician unless that opinion is not supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [or] is ... inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in ... [the] record.” ... On this record, we are not persuaded that the ALJ gave sufficient deference to the opinion of Dr. Togut.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when supported by medical findings and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ may give it less weight with sufficient reasons.

Diaz v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-02(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by the medical findings and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... However, the ALJ sufficiently articulated his reasons for giving Dr. Grunsten’s opinion less weight.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when medical findings support it and it is consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ may deny that weight when the record supports the decision and the ALJ explains the reasons.

Bragg v. Astrue · filed 2010-02-22(d)(2)

Because the ALJ relied upon objective medical evidence and clearly and comprehensively explained his rationale, the ALJ did not improperly deny controlling weight to Dr. Zabiega’s opinions.

A treating physician’s opinion controls unless it lacks support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques or conflicts with other substantial evidence.

Hargrove v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-31(d)

In sum, Plaintiffs treating physicians’ assessments were set forth in proper terms and supported by the medical evidence in the record. The ALJ’s rejection of Plaintiffs treating physicians’ assessments was not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is medically supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; an unsupported, conclusory opinion may be discounted.

Smith v. Astrue · filed 2010-06-11(d)(2)

Indeed, the hearing officer is bound to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... In short, it is clear that Dr. Trevisan’s assessment of Smith’s condition was unsupported by objective medical evidence and entirely conclusory. Therefore, under applicable First Circuit precedent, the hearing officer was free to attach whatever weight he saw fit to Dr. Trevisan’s opinion.

When a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted, the ALJ must weigh it using factors that include the length and nature of the treatment relationship and the opinion’s consistency with the record.

Aranda v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2010-11-30(d)(2)(i)-(ii)

When a treating physician's opinion is contradicted by other evidence, the ALJ must assess its persuasiveness in light of specified factors, including the 'length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination;' the 'nature and extent of the treatment relationship;' and the treating opinion's consistency 'with the record as a whole.' Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. y 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii)). Here, the ALJ failed to apply these factors, which heavily favor Dr. Sucµow's opinion.

An ALJ must give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion; an unexplained inconsistency with the physician’s earlier evaluation can provide such a reason.

Alesia v. Astrue · filed 2011-05-24(d)(2)

An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. ... As for Dr. Beck’s July 2007 report, the ALJ provided ample reasons for disregarding it. Foremost was the report’s unexplained inconsistency with Dr. Beck’s other evaluation from only three months before.

An ALJ may not discount a treating physician’s opinion as inconsistent with an underdeveloped medical record.

Brown v. Astrue · filed 2012-07-26(d)(2)

The decision to discount Dr. Dang’s opinion because it was allegedly inconsistent with an underdeveloped record was error.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion and explain the weight assigned.

Walker v. Astrue · filed 2012-08-03(d)(2)

The ALJ must then articulate his reasons for assigning the weight that he does to both treating and nontreating physicians’ opinions. ... I find that the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Tomaino’s opinion entitled only to limited weight took account of the necessary factors, and was not erroneous.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Miocic v. Astrue · filed 2012-09-05(d)(2)

Given the longevity and frequency of the treatment relationship (two factors the ALJ was required to consider but did not) the ALJ improperly concluded that Dr. Everakes’s opinion had no probative value where the record reflects a long term treating relationship and consistent treatment for lupus, fibromyalgia, and related symptoms which pre-date the date last insured.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Meyerpeter v. Astrue · filed 2012-10-05(d)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion 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.

A treating physician’s opinion may be discounted when it conflicts with other medical assessments and the record supports the weight the ALJ assigned it.

Ocasio v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-15(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.” ... This Court finds this evidence to have sufficient probative force to support' the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Kuthuru’s opinion and to sustain the ALJ’s findings regarding Plaintiffs RFC.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its weight using the regulatory factors.

Kilpatrick v. Astrue · filed 2012-11-21(d)(2)-(6)

When an ALJ decides not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must decide what weight to give it, using all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) and 416.927(d)(2)-(6), as they were numbered prior to the revisions enacted in March of 2012.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive little weight when contemporaneous treatment notes and other medical evidence contradict it.

Goodale v. Astrue · filed 2012-12-13(d)(2)

This Court finds the ALJ’s assessment supported by substantial evidence and consistent with applicable law. This “check box” assessment was clearly contradicted by the contemporaneous treatment notes, including Dr. Blair’s own notes, and by the balance of the medical evidence.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to reject a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Olmeda v. Astrue · filed 2014-04-15(c)

The opinion of such a treating physician can be rejected if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the listed factors in deciding what weight to assign it.

Reynolds Ex Rel. Reynolds v. Colvin · filed 2014-06-20(c)(1)–(6)

If the ALJ chooses not to afford such an opinion controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the ... following factors in deciding what weight to assign it: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship, including its length, nature and extent; (3) supportability with medical evidence; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization of the examiner; and (6) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

A pain specialist may be qualified to give an opinion about psychological factors contributing to a patient’s pain, even if the specialist is not a psychiatrist.

Gomez v. Colvin · filed 2014-11-07(c)(2)(i), (ii)

The ALJ discounted this because Dr. Patel was not a psychiatrist (R. 29), but as a pain specialist working in a pain center, it seems that it is something he’d be qualified to comment on.

A treating physician’s well-supported opinion receives controlling weight when it is consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Osborne v. Colvin · filed 2015-03-06(d)(2)

The ALJ gives weight to the findings of two non-examining mental health practitioners that both conclude that Mr. Osborne will continue to improve and that he is capable of working, but does not consider the opinions, fully supported by the record, of the SSA’s own consulting examiner and the claimant’s treating mental health practitioner.

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion very limited weight after considering the required factors and giving good reasons supported by the medical record.

Wright v. Colvin · filed 2015-04-15(c)(2)

In the quoted paragraph, the ALJ addresses all of the factors identified by the Second Circuit as necessary to discuss when determining not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s report. ... Even if Dr. Lubin were Plaintiffs treating physician, the ALJ nonetheless provided good reasons to give only “very limited weight” to Dr. Lubin’s unsupported testimony.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires proper weight for a treating physician’s opinion in light of the treatment relationship.

Farthing v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-05-08(d)(2)

The Commissioner’s regulations establish a hierarchy of acceptable medical source opinions. The hierarchy begins at the top with treating physicians or psychologists. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2). ... Accordingly, the ALJ failed to afford proper weight to Plaintiffs treating physician and instead relied upon the opinion of a one-time examining physician from 2010.

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when it conflicts with the physician’s treatment notes and the ALJ gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Camille v. Colvin · filed 2015-05-19(c)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in considering the inconsistencies in Dr. Dawood’s treatment notes and opinions in assigning Dr. Dawood’s opinions less weight.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not receive controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors in deciding its weight.

Wilson v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-02(c)(2)-(6)

Further, the regulations specify that when controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s opinion (because it is not “well-supported” by other medical evidence), the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the weight to be given such an opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence that supports the treating physician’s report; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when it is internally inconsistent and conflicts with consulting physicians’ opinions.

Botelho v. Colvin · filed 2015-12-18(c)(2)

Because Dr. Ber-mas’ records are internally inconsistent and in conflict with the consulting physicians’ opinions, it is clear that the ALJ’s decision to afford those records less weight is supported by substantial evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive limited weight when it is conclusory and inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records.

Fernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-03-25(c)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ had good cause not to give the doctor’s opinion substantial weight, as his opinion was conclusory and inconsistent with his own medical records.

A physician assistant’s opinion based on supervised treatment receives treating physician weight when the treating physician also signs the report.

Argeris v. Colvin · filed 2016-07-18(c)(2)

Therefore, when Ms. Gumpert completed the questionnaire at issue (which was also signed by Dr. Moultrie), the medical opinions contained within were those of both Ms. Gumpert and Dr. Moultrie. ... Accordingly, the ALJ erred in discounting the weight given the opinions contained in the questionnaire for being just those of Ms. Gumpert.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires substantial or considerable weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless good cause supports discounting it.

Baez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-07-27(c)(2)

As a treating physician, Dr. Chin’s opinions were entitled to substantial or considerable weight unless the ALJ had good cause for discounting them.

Section 404.1527 requires an Administrative Law Judge to weigh a treating physician’s opinion under its factors even when the opinion does not receive controlling weight.

Payne v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-19(c)

Instead, the Administrative Law Judge must treat the opinion with deference and weigh it using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and § 416.927.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Cochrane v. Berryhill · filed 2017-05-18(c)(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.

Section 404.1527(c) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when medical findings support it and it is consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Padour v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-14(c)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is: “(1) supported by medical findings; and (2) consistent with substantial evidence in the record.”

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to address the regulatory factors when deciding how much weight to give it.

Price v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-22(c)

Given that the ALJ did not give Dr. Sabharwal's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ was required to address the six factors outlined above in determining how much weight to give to Dr. Sabharwal's opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits limited weight for a treating physician’s opinion when the ALJ gives reasons supported by inconsistencies with the physician’s treatment notes.

London v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-10-16(c)(2)

The ALJ ultimately assigned Dr. Hurley's opinion "limited weight." (Id. at 23). In making this determination, the ALJ explained that "[t]o the extent ... the assessment prevents working [it] is inconsistent with Dr. Hurley's treatment notes, that indicated no overt concern, ongoing conservative treatment medication management and counseling therapy, and many unremarkable status findings." (Id. ). The Court finds no error in this conclusion by the ALJ.

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

Helms v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-23(c)(2)

In making disability determinations, the Regulations require ALJs to consider all medical opinions of record, regardless of their source. ... In conclusion, the ALJ failed to cite good reasons, supported by citations to the record evidence, for rejecting the opinions of the Plaintiff's treating physician. As such, the ALJ's conclusion regarding the weight of Dr. Marquand's medical opinions was not supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when the ALJ gives specific, clear reasons grounded in the medical record.

Peterson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-01(c)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the Commissioner will evaluate every medical opinion received and will accord greater weight to the opinion of treating medical sources because treating physicians are best able to provide "a detailed, longitudinal picture" of a claimant's alleged disability. ... The court finds that the ALJ provided specific, clear reasons for the weight given to Dr. Thomas's medical opinion.

A treating physician's opinion may receive little weight when its assessed limitations lack evidentiary support and are inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Hastrich v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-03-26(c)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ's conclusion that the evidence in support of Dr. Vigna's severe limitations was lacking, as well as that such severe limitations were inconsistent with the record as a whole, is supported by substantial evidence.

For claims governed by the former medical opinion rules, treating physicians' opinions receive the greatest deference; an ALJ must weigh them using the medical record as a whole.

Masters v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-04-09(c)(2)

Under the regulations then in effect, the opinions of treaters are entitled to the greatest deference because they "are likely to be ... most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant's] 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[.]" 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Treater Kim's uncontroverted opinion -- limiting Plaintiff to occasional fingering and handling -- is entitled to deferential, if not controlling, weight.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give little weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Blisko v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-05-02(c)

Ultimately, the ALJ properly afforded "little weight" to Dr. Bronfin's "check-off" form opinions because they were inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ who gives it less weight must adequately explain why.

Perkins v. Beryhill · filed 2019-05-07(c)(2)

When a claimant submits opinions from her "treating" physician, the SSA gives those opinions "controlling weight" if it finds that they are "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques" and are "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... First, the ALJ failed to explain sufficiently his reasons for declining to accord Dr. Broadnax's opinion controlling weight. Because of this failure, his decision violates the Circuit's treating physician rule.

An ALJ’s reasons for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight must be supported by substantial evidence.

Jimenez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-24(d)(2)

Because the reasons offered by the ALJ are not supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ erred in giving only “little weight” to Dr. Bennett’s opinions.

Treating physicians’ opinions generally receive more weight than opinions from physicians who do not treat the claimant.

Correia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-15(c)(1)-(2)

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.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight for good cause, including when the opinion is conclusory and lacks supporting evidence.

Goodwill v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

The conclusory nature provides good cause for the ALJ to give the opinions contained in them minimal weight.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the listed factors and adequately explain the weight assigned.

Andrich v. Saul · filed 2020-04-28(c)(2)-(6)

When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, she must then evaluate the opinion by ... following the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... We find that the ALJ sufficiently articulated her reasons for declining to give Dr. Sadowski’s opinion controlling weight, and that she adequately supported her reasons for granting that opinion minimal weight.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when it conflicts with the physician’s earlier records and lacks support from later examinations.

Kirby v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-09(c)

Considering this evidence, the ALJ reasonably afforded little weight to Dr. Barnett’s June 2015 and October 2015 opinions. As the ALJ noted, those opinions were inconsistent with Dr. Barnett’s earlier records, which reflected normal mental status examinations and an assessment that Claimant could return to work. Further, there was no evidentiary basis for a change in opinion because the record did not show that Dr. Barnett saw Claimant after April 2015. Thus, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Barnett’s opinions.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion that does not receive controlling weight.

Nutt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(c)

An ALJ must consider the following factors to determine the weight to afford a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment ... relationship; (3) the evidence with which the physician supports his opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the physician is a specialist in the area in which he is rendering an opinion; and (6) other factors that support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider all the listed factors in deciding how much weight it deserves.

Forbes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-31(c)(2)

However, the ALJ erred by failing to consider ... all the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 factors in determining the level of deference afforded those opinions.

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when the ALJ gives good reasons supported by the evidence.

Newland v. Saul · filed 2020-08-19(c)

Thus, the Court must determine whether the ALJ gave good reasons for the little weight he afforded Dr. Cole’s opinion. ... All of this evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion to give Dr. Cole’s opinion little weight.

When no treating or examining physician's opinion contradicts a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ must consider each Section 404.1527(c) factor before rejecting it.

Weaver v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ rejected Plaintiff's treating physician's opinions without an existing controverting treating or examining opinion. Therefore, pursuant to Newton, the ALJ was required to consider each of the Section 404.1527(c) factors prior to rejecting Dr. Simpson’s opinions.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Wigginton v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) provides a list of factors that the ALJ should consider in determining whether to give a treating physician controlling weight, including: (1) the “length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship”; (3) the “relevant evidence” the medical source presented to support the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the medical source; and (6) any other factors that “tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to adequately explain a decision to discount it.

Simon v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-09(c)(2)

In our view, however, the ALJ’s decision did not adequately explain how any of these pieces of evidence were inconsistent with Dr. Turner’s opinions or otherwise constituted good cause to disregard her conclusions.

Section 404.1527 allows an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when the ALJ shows good cause.

Folk v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-01-26

Here, the ALJ has shown good cause for assigning little weight to the medical source statement completed by Dr. Jamil.

For applications governed by this subsection, an ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when specific, reasonable grounds establish good cause.

Greter Alvarez Martin v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-11(c)(2)

Thus, the ALJ articulated a specific, reasonable justification that established “good cause” for giving the treating physician’s opinions less than controlling weight.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts an uncontroverted treating physician’s opinion to consider all six factors; addressing only supportability and consistency is insufficient.

Birdwell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-21(c)

Although the Commissioner identifies two of the six Section 404.1527(c) factors addressed in the ALJ’s decision (consistency and supportability), the ALJ’s decision must reflect consideration of all the factors, not just some of them.

An ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-07(c)(2)

If the ALJ chooses to discount a treating physician’s opinion, he “must clearly articulate the reasons” for doing so.

Section 404.1527(c) allows an ALJ to consider the scope of a treating physician’s relationship with the claimant when weighing the physician’s opinion.

McGuire v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-17(c)

The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of treating physician Dr. Montoya as lacking explanation, inconsistent with other portions of the medical record, and limited by the scope of the treatment relationship.

An ALJ must evaluate a treating physician’s opinion under the treating physician rule; remand is appropriate when the record does not show that evaluation.

Borgos-Hansen v. Colvin · filed 2015-06-17(d)(2)

Since Dr. Memet is a treating physician, the ALJ is required to evaluate her opinions in a manner consistent with the Second Circuit’s implementation of the treating physician rule, and I am not satisfied by the present record that he has done so.

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

Marinello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-04-02(c)(2)

Based on the foregoing assessment, the Court finds that the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Packer’s opinion because “[Dr. Packer] issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (internal citations omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only if clinical findings support it and it is consistent with other substantial evidence.

Loeb v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-16(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight under the regulations unless it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic findings and consistent with other substantial evidence. ... Considering this authority against the instant record, the court finds that the ALJ did not err in considering the opinions from Dr. Desai or Dr. Tucker.

Section 404.1527(c) allows an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when substantial evidence contradicts it.

Miller v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-30(c)

The contradiction between Dr. Kamara’s report and the other medical evidence and opinions in the record is, by itself a sufficient basis for discrediting her report or giving it little weight.

A treating physician’s opinion cannot be rejected for ambiguity without an effort to clarify it.

Perez v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-30(d)(2)

Ambiguity is not “good cause” to reject the treating physician’s opinions without some effort by the ALJ to clarify the ambiguity.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when supported by acceptable medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ may give it less weight for articulated good cause.

Bryant v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-22(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. ... We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s articulation of good cause for discrediting Dr. Timberlake’s opinion that Bryant was “completely disabled,” as well as his opinion regarding Bryant’s limitations.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for declining to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight.

Barrett v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-14(d)(2)

Here, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not provide sufficient reasons for declining to afford controlling weight to Dr. Dowling's opinions under the treating physician rule.

An ALJ may give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when the decision shows consideration of the relevant factors without mechanically listing each one.

Bowles v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-12(c)(2)

The court is satisfied that the ALJ considered each of the six factors listed in Burch in discounting Dr. Aziz’s opinion on Claimant’s hearing loss.

When weighing a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must consider the frequency and duration of treatment; overlooking or misstating that history can require remand.

Hill v. Colvin · filed 2018-05-24(c)(2)(i),(ii)

The failure to address the frequency of Dr. Abiona’s treatment, and the significant understatement of the frequency of Dr. Macias’ treatment, are significant errors.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ must give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Clark v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-25(c)(2)

Therefore, this Court concludes that the ALJ did not err in finding that Morley’s opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and provided good reason for discounting Morley’s opinion.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when it lacks objective medical support or conflicts with other substantial medical evidence.

Burgos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-29(c)(2)

The ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Boffa’s May 2015 opinion based on his failure to support it with objective medical evidence.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating physicians’ opinions greater weight, but an opinion may receive less weight when it does not address the relevant disability period.

Wells v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-05(c)(2)

Thus, the ALJ did not err in refusing to give Dr. Amdur’s June 2012 opinion “controlling or great weight” based on the time period it addressed.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to give good reasons after considering factors including the treatment relationship, specialty, supportability, and consistency.

McCary v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-22(c)

The ALJ has provided sufficient reasons here, after implicitly considering the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to explain that choice with evidence from the record.

Grace v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-11(c)(2)

However, the ALJ did not offer any specific or even a category of evidence in the record that he found contradicted Dr. Scott’s 2018 opinion.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to weigh medical opinions using factors including their support and consistency with the record.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-24(c)

Where the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is to weigh all medical opinions by considering the examining or treating relationship with the individual, the evidence the physician presents to support his or her opinion, the consistency of the physician’s opinion with the record as a whole, the physician’s specialty, and other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

A treating physician’s opinion may receive less than controlling weight when the ALJ gives specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting it.

(SS) Cervantes Castaneda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(c)(2)–(6)

In conclusion, the Court finds that the reasons given by the ALJ for rejecting the medical source statement of Dr. Tripodis are sufficiently specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion does not automatically receive controlling weight; an ALJ may give it less weight for good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Doyle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-22(c)(2)

While Dr. Nagel was appropriately identified as a treating physician and his opinion was subject to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)11 (presumably the “treating physician rule” that Doyle refers to), that does not mean his opinion must be given controlling weight.

An ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must give reasons supported by the record for discounting it.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2019-08-23(c)(2)

On remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate Dr. Hasan’s opinions in light of the relevant evidence in the record. If the ALJ decides that Dr. Hasan’s opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, he shall give “good reasons” supported by the record for discounting them.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion and give greater weight to treating sources, while considering the opinion’s support and consistency with the record.

Rivers v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-26(c)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the Commissioner will evaluate every medical opinion received and will accord greater weight to the opinion of treating medical sources because treating physicians are best able to provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s alleged disability. ... After a thorough review of the record and consideration of the Parties’ arguments, the Court concludes the Magistrate Judge did not err in finding that the ALJ’s decision comports with the applicable legal standard and is supported by substantial evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive limited weight when it conflicts with the physician’s treatment notes and the ALJ gives reasoned justification.

Tint v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-26

The ALJ identifies significant disparities in the questionnaire responses of these treating physicians and their treatment notes and provides carefully reasoned justifications for according limited weight to the opinions of Dr. Myers and Dr. Rogers. ... The Magistrate Judge provides a comprehensive review of the medical record, the opinions of the treating physicians, and the ALJ’s decision and recommends the Commissioner’s decision be affirmed, finding that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and applies appropriately the standards of the Treating Physician Rule, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... This Court has made its own review of the administrative record in this matter and finds the ALJ’s decision in accord with controlling legal standards and supported by substantial evidence.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive little weight when it is inconsistent with the physician’s treatment records and unsupported by other medical evidence.

Allen v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-04(c)

The ALJ articulated specific, valid reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Odi’s check-list opinion. The record shows that the opinion from Dr. Odi is inconsistent with his own treatment letters and is not supported by other medical evidence in the record.

A treating physician’s opinion may receive less weight when it conflicts with objective medical evidence and the physician’s own treatment notes, if the ALJ gives good reasons.

Wicks v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-19(d)(2)

In the instant case, the ALJ sufficiently explained his reasons for giving Dr. Mattingly’s mental limitations in the MMSS partial weight as inconsistencies between the objective medical evidence and his own treatment notes and mental status examinations.

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

Benjamin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)

Because treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s medical opinion is to be afforded 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. ... Based on the foregoing, the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Florete’s 2010 letter is supported by substantial evidence.

An ALJ need not provide a detailed analysis of the medical opinion factors when an examining physician’s opinion conflicts with a treating physician’s opinion.

Talamantes v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(c)

The ALJ was not required to include a detailed analysis of the factors set forth in 20 CFR. § 404.1527(c) when giving Dr. Castro’s opinions little weight because the record contained the opinions of Dr. Eleje who had examined Plaintiff and opined that Plaintiff did not have any limitations.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by accepted medical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence; conflicting treatment records can justify giving it little weight.

Sebeck-Marquez v. Colvin · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

A treating physician’s medical opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments 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] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Although Dr. Tang provided statements in 2013 and 2014 asserting that Plaintiff was disabled from July–December of 2012, (Admin. Record 311, 352, 354–358), the ALJ properly acted within its discretion to give the statements little weight because contemporaneous treatment records do not support the severity of Dr. Tang’s claims about Plaintiff’s condition.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must assess the weight it deserves.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-19(c)(2)

Although the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Sedas’ opinion was scant, the Court finds she adequately evaluated the opinion at the second step of the treating physician analysis.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion may receive little weight when the ALJ gives specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting it.

Medina v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-25(c)(2)

In light of the ALJ’s specific findings, as well as the record as a whole, the Court finds that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to attribute little weight to the conclusions of Dr. Arenas.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with the record.

Riesberg v. Saul · filed 2019-11-26(c)(2)

The ALJ should have afforded controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Evans and at least substantial weight to the opinion of Dr. Fitzgibbons.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for declining to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.

HALL v. SAUL · filed 2019-12-09(c)(2)

Because the ALJ gave satisfactory reasons for not assigning controlling weight to Dr. Brown’s opinion, the ALJ satisfied his obligations.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to address every piece of evidence when explaining the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion.

Gose v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-16(c)(2)

Plaintiff cites to a 2016 MRI which the ALJ did not discuss when addressing Dr. Shin’s 2016 assessment, Mem. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. 9, however, there is no requirement that the ALJ address every piece of evidence in the record when articulating the weight to afford a treating physician’s opinion.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ weighs it using factors including the treatment relationship, support in the record, consistency, and specialization.

Snyder v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-17(c)(2)-(6)

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

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when it is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Conway v. Saul · filed 2020-01-10(c)(2)

When evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ must consider several factors, including the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the degree to which relevant evidence supports the physician’s opinion; the consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; any specialty the physician has in the area of the opinion; and any other factors that might support or contradict the physician’s opinion. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ appropriately gave little weight to the opinion.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with other substantial evidence, or give good reasons for discounting it.

Kruk v. Saul · filed 2020-07-24(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires the ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion 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(c)(2) (for claims filed before March 27, 2017). ... The grounds provided by the ALJ for rejecting Dr. Kolavo’s opinions that Nancy needs to change positions every 30 minutes and cannot sit for six hours in an eight-hour workday do not constitute good reasons.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when it conflicts with substantial evidence in the record.

Sherman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-10(c)(2)

I find that substantial evidence does, in fact, support the ALJ’s consideration of Plaintiff’s treating physicians—Dr. DiSimone and Dr. Manning.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight if it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Mills v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-14(c)(2)

His opinion is thus entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Court therefore finds that the ALJ did not err in concluding that Dr. Jackson’s opinion was inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to explain the weight assigned and consider the length and frequency of the treatment relationship.

Jacobs v. Saul · filed 2020-08-27(c)(2)

It was of course appropriate for the ALJ to consider whether there was evidentiary support for Dr. Amin’s opinion, but the ALJ did not explain whether she considered the remaining factors, including the length and frequency of the treatment relationship.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the treating physician factors before discounting a treating physician’s opinion when no reliable evidence from a treating or examining physician contradicts it.

Feltman v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-31(c)(2)

The Court first concludes that it was error for the ALJ to give little weight to Dr. Hughes’s opinions without explicitly considering the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion that does not receive controlling weight.

Espinoza v. O'Malley · filed 2020-09-09(c)

Although it is clear the ALJ did not give Dr. Eliason’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ largely failed to address the six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 for determining the level of deference to provide a treating source opinion.

An ALJ must articulate good cause, supported by substantial evidence, for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than substantial weight.

Stemm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)

And, while an ALJ may in certain circumstances credit a non-examining doctor’s opinion over that of a treating doctor, the ALJ must first articulate good cause for discounting the treating physician’s opinion, which the ALJ did not do here.

An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion despite not explicitly addressing every Burgess factor when substantial contrary evidence supplies good reasons for the weight assigned.

Oconnor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-05(c)(2)

The ALJ’s analysis does not explicitly address all of the Burgess factors. In particular, the ALJ did not consider the frequency, length, nature, and extent of Plaintiff's treatment with Dr. Amin. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s analysis cited substantial contrary evidence in giving no weight to the opinion of Dr. Amin.