20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(d) allows the weight of a medical opinion to reflect the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, and consistency with other medical opinions.

Perez v. Chater · filed 1997-05-02(d)

In fact, there is no record of plaintiffs having seen Dr. Kahn since September 12, 1990, for treatment of any kind, significantly undermining plaintiffs contention that his September 1994 report merits substantial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors and explain the decision.

S t . Onge v. SSA · filed 1997-08-20(d)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is required to apply a number of factors and explain the reasons for his decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1997).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of the regulatory factors in deciding how much weight to give it.

Amidon v. Apfel · filed 1998-04-20(d)(2)

There is no indication that the ALJ took the second step required by the regulations and assigned some extra weight to the physician’s opinion, giving consideration to the five factors noted in the regulations and in Schaal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when medically supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Creech v. Apfel · filed 1998-06-29(d)(2)

In the record in order for the ALJ to give it controlling weight, the opinion must be well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and must not be inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. ... The ALJ correctly noted that Dr. Zemank-iewiez’s findings were inconsistent with his own examination reports as well as with Dr. Everhart’s findings, which was based in part on objective testing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must consider the treatment relationship when weighing a treating physician’s opinion and may decline to give it controlling weight when supported contrary evidence exists.

Masters v. Astrue · filed 2011-08-19(d)(2)

Under the circumstances of this case, the ALJ’s refusal to give Dr. Prinz’s opinion controlling weight was not error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

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

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 record. ... The ALJ appropriately found that the functional limitations had “little or no support in the medical record” and furthermore were likely based on Ms. Lopez’s subjective complaints rather than objective findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tenhove v. Colvin · filed 2013-02-26(c)

However, assuming that this “disclaimer” allowed the ALJ to give the report less than controlling weight, he failed to discuss any of the other regulatory factors in deciding what (lesser) weight the report did deserve.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion against factors including its support in the medical evidence and consistency with the record when the opinion does not receive controlling weight.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2013-03-19(c)(2)

The ALJ gave Dr. Osorio’s opinion little weight because Dr. Osorio concluded Plaintiff was limited to less than sedentary work but that opinion was.not supported by objective medical findings or Dr. Osorio’s own treatment records. (Tr. 15). Based on the medical evidence set forth in detail above, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion and she did not err in assigning little weight to Dr. Osorio’s extremely limited — and wholly unsupported — opinion regarding Plaintiffs functioning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ may give it less weight for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Rodola v. Saul · filed 2020-11-06(d)(2)

The ALJ rejected Dr. Shwachman’s opinion for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to evaluate it using the specified regulatory factors and explain the assigned weight.

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

The treating physician doctrine requires opinions from treating physicians to be given controlling weight when the opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Even when a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine how much weight to assign to the opinion by applying specific factors set forth in the governing regulations. ... Having assigned the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ was then required to assess that opinion as he would any medical opinion evidence. ... But there is no indication in the decision that the ALJ considered the length of the treatment relationship with Dr. Manning, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and the source’s specialization, while generally giving more weight to examining and well-supported treating-source opinions.

Trent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)

In general, an ALJ must accord more weight to the medical opinion of an examining soutce than to that of a nonexamining source. Testamark v. Berryhill, 736 F. App’x 395, 387 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1) and Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 268 (4th Cir. 2017)). ... If an AL] does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, the ALJ must consider a non-exclusive list of factors to determine the weight to be given all the medical opinions of record, including (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the source’s opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record; and (5) specialization of the source. Testamark, 736 F. App’x at 398.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons and consideration of regulatory factors when lesser weight is assigned.

Rivera-Capeles v. Saul · filed 2019-09-24(c)(2)

Under the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s application, the ALJ must give a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments “controlling weight” if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in . . . [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); SSR 96–2p. If an ALJ gives the treating source’s opinion lesser weight, the ALJ must articulate “good reasons” for doing so. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). In such a case, “the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion” in determining the weight to give the medical opinion. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs the ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(c)(3)

This Court finds that the ALJ properly assigned this opinion less than controlling weight. Under agency regulations, “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Where, as here, the record does not support a doctor’s limitation, the ALJ is not required to give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to treating physicians' opinions, requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give medical opinions, and requires good reasons for declining to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight.

Reed, Joseph v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-09-26(d)

Generally, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician are “give[n] more weight” because he or she is “likely to be the medical professional[] 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, such as consultative examinations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2011). Even where a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, a number of factors must be considered by the ALJ to determine how much weight to give different medical opinions, including “[l]ength of treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; “[n]ature and extent of the treating relationship”; supportability; consistency; specialization; and “[o]ther factors . . . which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (2011). For these reasons, “[a]n ALJ who does not give controlling weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician must offer ‘good reasons’ for declining to do so.” Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to give good reasons and weigh the opinion using the regulatory factors, rather than rejecting it without that procedural analysis.

Powell v. Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)

Here, the ALJ gave partial weight to Dr. Martone’s opinion based on an erroneous reading of Dr. Martone’s note and failed to consider any of the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... But even assuming the opinion is not supported by other substantial evidence in the record, it does not necessarily follow that the opinion should be rejected as a whole; such opinions are still awarded considerable deference and must be weighed according to the appropriate factors. ... Because the ALJ did not provide good reasons for giving Dr. Martone’s opinion less than controlling weight and did not follow the appropriate procedural requirements, remand is warranted, regardless of whether the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions under the regulation and give good reasons for assigning a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

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

First, regarding the weight the ALJ assigned to Dr. Bruemmer’s opinion, the Court finds no basis to reject the magistrate judge’s conclusions that the ALJ complied with the pertinent Social Security Rulings and Regulations, see Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180 (Sec. Sec. Admin. July 2, 1996); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); that she gave good reasons for giving Dr. Bruemmer’s opinion less than controlling weight; and that such reasons were supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned to each opinion, and give particularized reasons for that weight.

Burdge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)-(5)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). While “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion,” Oldham, 660 F.2d at 1084 (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir.1987)); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005); Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider its listed factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion and to give specific reasons for the weight assigned.

Meredith v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30

The court agrees. The ALJ failed to discuss any of the factors forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and the determination is otherwise vague regarding the reasons for discounting Dr. Lemmer’s opinion and giving it little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating physician opinion that is consistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Stone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01

A treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... Additionally, “the Commissioner ‘will always give good reasons’” for the weight given to a treating source opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Gill v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-08(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported and record-consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires weighing it by factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Herrera v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-16(c)(2)-(6)

The Ninth Circuit has recently reaffirmed that “[t]he medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician 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.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (second alteration in original). ... 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires consideration of a treating physician’s examining relationship, treatment relationship, and specialization, while § 404.1527(d)(2) denies controlling weight to an unsupported or inconsistent treating-source opinion and does not require remand when omitted factors could not change the weighing.

O'DONNELL v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-10-21(c)(2) and (d)(2)

O’Donnell argues the ALJ erred by not addressing each of the regulatory factors when discussing Dr. Shipon’s opinion. Pl. Br. at 8-9. The ALJ addressed the opinion’s supportability and consistency, but never explicitly noted that Dr. Shipon had personally examined O’Donnell, maintained a treating relationship, and was a specialist in cardiology. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). The regulatory factors the ALJ failed to address, however, would not have weighed in favor of Dr. Shipon’s opinion over the other doctors’ opinions because they also examined O’Donnell, maintained a treating relationship with her, and were accredited in relevant specialties. R. at 1285, 1518. Dr. Shipon’s opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment is not entitled to controlling weight where it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Thus, the ALJ was required to address and weigh the conflicting evidence provided by the other physicians. Id. His failure to specifically list the factors that would not have helped him do so fails to justify remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a pre-March 2017 treating physician’s opinion to apply the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency, and to give controlling weight when the opinion is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence.

Whyte v. Saul · filed 2019-10-25(c)

For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. ... If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion ... Because of these errors, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s decision to afford less than controlling weight to Dr. Khatri’s opinion. On remand, the ALJ shall reevaluate the weight given to Dr. Khatri’s opinion in light of the record evidence and the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors, including treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, when determining the weight of a treating physician's medical opinion.

Kennedy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-30(c)(2)-(6)

Based on the record, the ALJ properly considered the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 to discount Dr. Jimenez’ opinion on the grounds that the opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole, Dr. Jimenez was not a specialist, and Plaintiff's overall conservative treatment regimen, imaging evidence, and testimony did not support the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to weigh other medical opinions using factors such as treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-06(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). ... Even if a treater’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be evaluated under the regulatory factors; a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion receives controlling weight, while other treating-source opinions remain entitled to deference and must be weighed with those factors.

Low v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-11-07(c)(2)-(6)

Such opinions may not be ignored and, unless a treating source opinion is given controlling weight, all medical opinions will be evaluated by the Commissioner in accordance with factors contained in the regulations. Id. § 404.1527(c); SSR 96-5p, West’s Soc. Sec. Reporting Serv., Rulings 123-24 (Supp. 2019). ... “If [the Commissioner] find[s] that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) [(1)] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [(2)] is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [claimant’s] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527(c)(2); see also, SSR 96-2p, West=s Soc. Sec. Reporting Serv., Rulings 111-15 (Supp. 2019) (“Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions”). ... If the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the inquiry does not end. Id. A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527.” Id. ... After considering the factors, the ALJ must give reasons in the decision for the weight he gives the treating source opinion. Id. 350 F.3d at 1301. “Finally, if the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must then give ‘specific, legitimate reasons’ for doing so.” Id. (citing Miller v. Chater, 99 F.3d 972, 976 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir. 1987)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions based on the treatment relationship and provider’s knowledge, supporting evidence and explanation, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Ross v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-25(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(5)

The ALJ generally grants more weight to a medical opinion the longer a medical provider has treated a claimant and the more knowledge that the provider has about a claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (ii). The ALJ assigns more weight to a provider’s opinion based on the amount of “relevant evidence” provided to support it, as well as the strength of her explanation. Id. § 404.1527(c)(3). The ALJ also assigns more weight when the medical opinion is consistent with the record and when the provider is a specialist in the area. Id. § 404.1527(c)(4), (5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence; if not controlling, the opinion’s weight depends on relevant factors, and subsection (c)(3) gives more weight to opinions supported by relevant evidence and a better explanation.

Fox v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-17(c)(2), (c)(3)

Because Dr. Flatt represents a treating physician, the doctrine known as the “treating physician rule” applies to the Court’s analysis. Pursuant to this rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Finally, the Court notes that Dr. Flatt’s MSS fails to offer any support for the severe restrictions he ascribes to Plaintiff, which is a crucial feature of any medical opinion that is weighed favorably. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion ... the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives treating-source opinions more weight because they provide a detailed longitudinal perspective, but the opinions are not automatically controlling and may be discounted for better supporting evidence or inconsistency.

Enos v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-30(c)(2)

According to the regulations, the opinions of treating medical sources are given more weight because they are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairments and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... A treating physician’s opinion, however, “does not automatically control or obviate the need to evaluate the record as a whole.” ... Rather, “an ALJ may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Giuffra’s opinions is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole and this matter will be remanded for further consideration.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using relevant factors, including consistency and specialization.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-06(c)

The court also agrees with the Report the ALJ failed to weigh Dr. Nelson’s opinion with the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). ... Further, the ALJ did not appear to consider Dr. Nelson’s specialty as a neurosurgeon, one uniquely qualified to offer an opinion on the effect of Plaintiff’s spinal impairment on her functional abilities, as required in the regulations. ... As the ALJ did not provide an evaluation of the consistency of Dr. Nelson’s opinion with other doctors’ treatment records and opinions, or discuss Dr. Nelson’s specialty as a neurosurgeon and how that affected the analysis of his opinion, the court agrees with the Report’s recommendation of remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating source’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion to receive controlling weight and requires the adjudicator to consider specified factors when assigning it less weight.

Abel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-15(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, “[t]reating source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... If an ALJ decides to give a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must give “good reasons” for the weight he assigns to the opinion. ... In deciding the weight to be given, the ALJ must consider factors such as (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the 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 specialization of the source, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Without a more thorough explanation by the ALJ as to how the state agency reviewing physicians’ opinions, which predated some significant medical history, were entitled to the greatest weight even though their opinions were not based on more detailed or comprehensive information than was available to Abel’s treating sources, the Court is unable to assess whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, reversal and remand is necessary for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every factor when the decision shows that the ALJ considered many relevant factors, including the treatment relationship, consistency, and supportability.

Overton v. Social Security Adm. Office of Disability · filed 2020-01-21(c)

Claimant also contends that the ALJ failed to properly analyze Dr. Kranzler’s opinion because he did not specifically address each factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The Court acknowledges that the ALJ in this case did not explicitly weigh each factor in discussing Dr. Kranzler’s opinion. The ALJ’s decision, however, makes clear that he was aware of and considered many of those factors, including Dr. Kranzler’s treatment relationship with Claimant, the consistency of his opinion with the record as a whole, and the supportability of his opinion. (R. 22). See Elder, 529 F.3d at 415-16 (affirming denial of benefits when the ALJ discussed only two of the relevant § 404.1527 factors).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to perform a detailed analysis of a treating physician's opinion under the listed regulatory criteria before assigning it little weight.

Hemmingson v. Saul · filed 2020-01-13(d)(2)

The ALJ also erred by failing to perform a detailed analysis of Dr. Patel-Mehta’s opinion under the criteria in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) before deciding to give it little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ that gives greater weight to other evidence to explain why it gives that evidence greater weight than the records from treating clinicians.

Gough v. Saul · filed 2020-01-13(d)(2)

If the ALJ put greater weight on other evidence in the record, the ALJ was required to explain why he gave that evidence more weight than the records from treating clinicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 sets the framework for weighing medical opinions, generally favoring examining over non-examining, treating over non-treating, and specialist opinions, while recognizing that a treating physician's opinion may be discounted for good cause with clearly articulated reasons.

Ramazetti v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-28(c), (d)(2)

The method for weighing medical opinions under the Social Security Act is set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Relevant here, the opinions of examining physicians are generally given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1-5). A court must give a treating physician’s opinions substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). Good cause for disregarding such opinions “exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). ... This rule – the “treating physician rule” – reflects the regulations, which recognize that treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most likely to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of . . . medical impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Winschel instructs that with good cause, an ALJ may disregard a treating physician’s opinion but “must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so.” 631 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 at 1240 n.8). Additionally, the ALJ must state the weight given to different medical opinions and why. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

O'Konski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-31(c)(2) and (d)(2)

If the ALJ decides that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, she must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, she must “explicitly consider” such factors as: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95–96 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons … for the weight [she gives the] treating source's [medical] opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 503–504 (2d Cir. 1998).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions under the treating-source factors, give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, explain the weight assigned with good reasons, and give no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Beckert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03

The ALJ must consider all medical opinions that she receives in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Medical opinions are defined to mean “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [a claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [a claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [a claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). When a treating physician’s opinion is submitted, the ALJ generally gives deference to it “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals 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 filings alone . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406 (internal quotations omitted). If the treating physician’s opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The undersigned finds no error with the ALJ’s consideration and weighing of Dr. Brandemihl’s opinions. The ALJ articulated the weight she afforded each opinion and properly declined to afford them controlling weight. ... A treating physician’s opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as a determination of disability, “are not medical opinions” (20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)) and are therefore not entitled to any particular weight. See Turner, 381 Fed. App’x at 492–93.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to give good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and to explain that weight clearly.

Bolter v. Saul · filed 2020-02-04(c)(2)

The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. The ALJ must give reasons “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p. An ALJ can reject a treating physician’s opinion only for reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003). Bolter’s treating nurse practitioner, APNP Whorley, opined that Bolter required the use of a cane or other assistive device while engaging in occasional standing or walking. (Tr. 1132, 1136.) The ALJ gave Whorley’s opinion little weight because she was not a specialist, completed a checklist-style questionnaire that allegedly did not provide thorough explanations, and her progress notes “mostly revealed good function including an easy normal gait, normal station, and full range of motion in the extremities.” (Tr. 605 (citing Exs. 25F/16, 39, 41–44; 28F/3; 38F/6, 16).) None of these reasons justifies the ALJ’s rejection of Whorley’s opinion. Although Whorley was a primary care provider and not a specialist, it is unclear why a specialist would have been needed to identify Bolter’s medical need for an assistive device in these circumstances; Whorley had a long-term treating relationship with Bolter and had observed her to have an abnormal gait on examination, including when using canes to ambulate. (Tr. 1009, 1296.) While Whorley’s questionnaires do check a box indicating Bolter’s need for a cane, it is unclear why a more thorough explanation was needed; Whorley wrote on the questionnaire that Bolter had objectively identified degenerative changes and neuropathy, suffered chronic pain and neuropathy/nerve damage, and experienced weakness of the bilateral lower extremities. (Tr. 1131–33, 1135–37.) As for Whorley’s notes indicating “normal gait, normal station, and a full range of motion in the extremities,” this language is suspicious for the reasons indicated above. On remand, the ALJ must appropriately evaluate Whorley’s statements.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the adjudicator to consider the listed factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

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

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an applicant’s impairments is given “controlling weight” when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If an ALJ does not afford controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the judge must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, whether the treating source specializes in the area, and any other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ by the parties. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The ALJ must also provide “good reasons” for the weight ultimately assigned to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ is not required to state expressly how he considered each piece of evidence. Nonetheless, he is required “to provide ‘good reasons’ for his decision to give each treating source’s opinion the weight he did and these reasons ‘must be sufficiently specific to make [it] clear to any subsequent reviewer.’” Kelley v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 4323820, at *11 (D. Mass. Sep. 10, 2018) (citation omitted); see also Heckler, 638 F. Supp. at 385-86 (“Failure to provide an adequate basis for the reviewing court to determine whether the administrative decision is based on substantial evidence requires a remand to the ALJ for further explanation.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the circumstances, the Court concludes that remand is warranted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and to provide clear reasons when declining to do so.

Dawes v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-02-06(c)(2)

The ALJ therefore failed to provide good reasons for discounting Jackson’s opinion that Dawes can only stand and walk for less than one hour total each during an eight-hour workday. This failure amounts to a violation of the treating physician rule, see Gentry, 741 F.3d at 728 (holding that ALJ’s analysis “violate[d] the treating source rule because the reasons for discrediting [the treating source’s] opinion are not supported by the record”), and warrants remand regardless of whether the ALJ’s denial of benefits may be justified by other evidence in the record, see Miller, 811 F.3d at 833. ... Finally, the ALJ’s analysis does not meet the goals of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) because it “leaves this Court without a clear understanding of why the ALJ” discredited Jackson’s opinion. Cole, 661 F.3d at 940. ... Because Dawes is entitled to this procedural protection, the ALJ’s error was not harmless and her case should be remanded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Edwards v. Saul · filed 2020-02-11(d)(2)

Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine whether a treating-source opinion warrants controlling weight and, even when it does not, explain the evidence and factors supporting the weight assigned.

Archuleta v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-12(c)(2)

A treating source opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... However, an implicit rejection is not enough; the regulations require, and Ms. Archuleta deserves, that the ALJ make his reasoning explicit. ... Even if the ALJ did not accord Dr. Lofley’s opinion with controlling weight, he still should have discussed this and other evidence when considering the requisite factors at the second step of the treating source inquiry. ... The regulations required the ALJ to explain why he rejected it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Farley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the amount of weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion when it is not given controlling weight.

Stumpf v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-24(d)(2)

The regulations as well as courts require the ALJ “give good reasons for the amount of weight given to a treating physician’s opinion.” Fargnoli, 247 F.3d 42-44; see also 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion can be rejected by the ALJ based on contradictory medical evidence. See Frankenfield, 861 F.2d at 408. Further, if the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must provide his reasons for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well supported and not inconsistent with the record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Gebhart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-26(c)(2)

Two related rules govern how an ALJ is required to analyze a treating physician’s opinion. ... The first is the “treating physician rule.” Id. The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App’x 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Closely associated is “the good reasons rule,” which requires an ALJ always to give “good reasons . . . for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source opinion.” Dixon, 2016 WL 860695, at *4 (quoting Blakely, 581 F.3d at 406 (alterations in original)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In order to meet the “good reasons” standard, the ALJ’s determination “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Cole, 661 F.3d at 937. ... As explained below, the ALJ provided good reasons, consistent with the Regulations, for assigning little weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while permitting reduced weight for good cause such as lack of support, contrary evidence, or inconsistency with the physician's own records.

Velez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-27(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than substantial or considerable weight, where: (1) the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; (2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or (3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of the treating relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, but failing to expressly address every factor is harmless when the record supplies good reasons for assigning a treating physician's opinion little weight.

Nunez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-28(c)(2)-(3)

Although the ALJ did not expressly consider the frequency of treatment with Dr. Plasencia, any specific treatment or diagnostic techniques that she employed, or whether she had any expertise, the ALJ did not discount her opinion based on these factors; instead the ALJ considered the totality of the treatment record and her treatment notes in evaluating her opinion. [R. 34]. Despite the failure to expressly address the Burgess factors, the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed because Dr. Plasencia’s opinion was inconsistent with the record as whole, especially considering contrary neurocognitive findings and her own examination and history notes. See Halloran, 362 F.3d at 28 (“the opinion of the treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where, as here, the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.”). Therefore, the ALJ did not err in affording Dr. Plasencia’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Youssef v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-11(d)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

(SS) Shields v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)-(6)

Moreover, when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the weight given to a medical opinion to account for the source's examining and treating relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Ritter v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-17(d)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the opinion is weighed using the factors in subsections (c)(2)-(6).

Mahoney v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-18(c)(2)-(6)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)

The ALJ must identify the specific evidence in the record that supports a finding that a treating physician’s opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record and apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)—length of the treatment relationship, frequency of the examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the medical source, consistency of the medical opinion, specialization of the treating physician, and other important factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight than a consulting physician’s opinion, but a contrary opinion may prevail when the treating opinion has been properly discounted.

Bledsoe v. Saul · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

Although a treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than a consulting physician’s opinion, see Wilson v. Heckler, 734 F.2d 513, 518 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), “[t]he opinions of state agency physicians” can outweigh the contrary opinion of a treating physician if “that opinion has been properly discounted,” Cooper v. Astrue, No. 8:06-CV-1863-T-27TGW, 2008 WL 649244, *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Ferreira v. Saul · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)–(6)

Although the ALJ cited Plaintiff’s activities and pursuit of employment as bases for discrediting the opinion, he did not address “factors such as the length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, or the supportability of the opinion.” Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)). This alone constitutes legal error. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to comprehensively explain the weight assigned.

Jefferson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

If the ALJ decides that these opinions do not merit controlling weight, he must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the agency to give good reasons in its determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Holder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(d)(2)

Moreover, “[t]he ALJ must comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129–30 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that the agency “will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant's] treating source's opinion” (emphasis added)). ... Again, given that Dr. Reed is a treating physician, the A.L.J. was required to give “good reasons” for assigning her opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using specified factors.

Mixon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-26(c)

If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). The ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it is unsupported or inconsistent with other evidence, i.e., when the treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, but the ALJ must nevertheless assign a weight to the medical opinion based on the (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record a whole; (5) specialization of the physician; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons when discounting it.

Hamilton v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but he must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons” for doing so. ... The ALJ here failed to give good reasons for discounting the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Rajendran, who opined on May 5, 2017 that Plaintiff would retain “no useful ability to function” in any area of mental or social functioning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence; otherwise, the adjudicator weighs it using the listed factors.

Garcia v. Social Security · filed 2020-03-27(c)

The opinion of a treating physician should 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] case record.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (for claims filed prior to March 27, 2017). ... If the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, then he must consider the following factors to determine what weight to give the opinion: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Sinan’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Huskey v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-27(c)(2)

When evaluating claims filed before March 27, 2017, the Commissioner gives “controlling weight” to “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)” if that opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, we give more weight to medical opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.”). Furthermore, the Commission “will always give good reasons” in its final decision for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion. Jd. ... The Court finds that the ALJ was supported by substantial evidence when he gave little weight to Dr. Pozzi’s internally inconsistent findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider the length of a provider’s treatment relationship with a claimant when determining the weight assigned to the provider’s medical opinion.

De Nunez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-06(c)

Indeed, the length of a provider’s treatment relationship with a claimant is a valid consideration in determining the weight to give to the provider’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Nevertheless, Dr. Cheng’s entire treatment history with Plaintiff reveals that his opinions were not made prematurely. He had three visits with Plaintiff before making the assessments. (R. at 368, 371, 464.) Moreover, another doctor at the same location saw Plaintiff before Dr. Cheng completed the assessments. (R. at 374.) And Dr. Cheng referred Plaintiff for imaging studies before completing the assessments. (R. at 380–81.) Finally, Dr. Cheng has a long treatment history with Plaintiff, which document similar impairments, symptoms, and limitations across many years. (R. at 368, 371, 464, 648, 656, 660, 1393, 1407, 1434, 1448, 1469, 1475, 1510, 1535, 1552.) Accordingly, Dr. Cheng established a sufficient treatment relationship with Plaintiff to reach his conclusions, so it was error for the ALJ to reject his opinions on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

BARTMAS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-03-05(c)(2)

For claims such as Bartmas’s that were filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion should be given “controlling weight” provided that the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, while section 404.1527(e) reserves residual functional capacity and other specified issues to the Commissioner and withholds special significance from opinions on those issues.

Montgomery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(d)(2), (e)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Nevertheless, the Commissioner reserves the power to decide certain issues, such as a claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Although the ALJ will consider opinions of treating physicians “on the nature and severity of your impairment(s),” opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are generally not entitled to special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e); Bass v. McMahon, 499 F.3d 506, 511 (6th Cir. 2007). ... In short, substantial record evidence, including Dr. Carr’s treatment records, supports the reasons the ALJ gave for discounting Dr. Carr’s opinions. Although Plaintiff points to contrary evidence in the record, this Court must defer to the ALJ’s well supported determination even if there is evidence that might support a contrary conclusion. Blakley, 581 F. 3d at 406; Longworth, 402 F.3d at 595; Schmiedebusch v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 535 F. App’x. 637 649 (6th Cir. 2013) (“The ALJ retains a ‘zone of choice’ in deciding whether to credit conflicting evidence.”)) The undersigned thus finds that the ALJ did not commit reversible error when discounting Dr. Carr’s opinion even if other evidence might have supported a contrary conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while permitting reduced weight when the opinion is inadequately supported or inconsistent.

Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-16(c)(2)

ALJs must “give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.’ ” Hofslien v. Barnhart, 439 F.3d 375, 376 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). They must therefore provide “good reasons” before discounting a treating physician’s opinion. Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2011). ... Here, the ALJ did not give Dr. Turner’s 2018 opinion controlling weight because it was “inconsistent with the objective medical evidence, particularly his physical exam findings . . . .” (Tr. at 1663–64). ... In short, the ALJ minimally articulated good reasons for discrediting Dr. Turner’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned, but does not require the ALJ to cite each factor specifically if the decision explains whether and why the opinion was discounted.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-23(c), (d)(2)

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly weighed Dr. Early’s opinion because the ALJ did not address the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. Although the ALJ neither cited the regulations nor addressed all of the non-controlling factors set forth therein, “the ALJ is not required to cite specifically to the regulations and need only clarify whether he discounted the opinion and why.” Dames v. Berryhill, No. 2:16-CV-80 NCC, 2018 WL 1455862, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 23, 2018). See also Grable v. Colvin, 770 F.3d 1196, 1201–02 (8th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted) (“An ALJ need only clarify whether it discount[ed] [a treating physician's] findings, and, if it did so, why.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion.

TEADA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-04-23

Under the regulations applicable to Teada’s application, the ALJ was required to “always give good reasons . . . for the weight give[n] [to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to assess the opinion's support and consistency, consider specified treatment-related factors, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Swiatlowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-29(c)(2)

Specifically, at step two the ALJ must consider the following factors: "(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist." ... The ALJ must provide "good reasons" regarding the weight assigned to a treating physician’s medical opinion at both steps. Id. at 96. (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir.2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2))).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions because they provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s impairment and a unique perspective on the medical evidence.

Camacho v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-30(c)(2)

Generally, more weight is given to the opinions of treating physicians because they "are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant's] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions than to opinions from non-treating physicians.

Eaton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-30(c)(2)

The opinions of treating physicians are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion significant weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Knarr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-04(d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to significant weight but only when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... By finding Plaintiff capable of sitting for two hours at a time and standing for 60 minutes at a time, Dr. Bernold establishes that Plaintiff is capable of performing light work. As such, the ALJ’s determination to afford significant weight to Dr. Bernold’s finding on Plaintiff's ability to stand and walk supports the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff is capable of performing light work. Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ erred by affording significant weight to Dr. Bernold’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s ability to sit and stand is therefore without merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who gives a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight to determine the weight assigned using specified factors and ensure the record reflects that consideration.

Carpenter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-14(c)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ affords less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still determine the weight it should be afforded. Id. at 376. In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of the opinion, (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the treating source, and (6) other relevant factors. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). While the ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each of these factors, the record must nevertheless reflect that the ALJ considered those factors relevant to his assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) permits an adjudicator to consider the frequency of examination when weighing a treating physician’s opinion.

Woodmass v. Berryhill · filed 2017-08-29(c)(2)(i)

And, although treating Woodmass every six months may suggest familiarity with her condition, this relatively infrequent treatment also contradicted the seriousness of Woodmass’s symptoms. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (examination frequency is relevant factor).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give treating-source opinions appropriate weight based on their supportability and consistency with the record, while recognizing that the ultimate disability determination belongs to the Commissioner.

Gloria v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-27

The ALJ is specifically charged with the duty of evaluating medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Generally, the opinions of a treating source will be given .more weight. See ,id. § 404.1527(c)(2). To receive controlling weight, a treating physician’s opinion must be “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and must not be “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2), (3). However, the ALJ is not required to accept treating source opinions uncritically and may decline to assign significant weight to. such an opinion when it conflicts with the record. See Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429. The ALJ may “reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence.” Id. If not given controlling weight, the treating physician’s opinion will be evaluated pursuant to the applicable regulatory factors, including the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the'- record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Notably, the determination of disability under the Act, which is a legal determination, is ultimately for the Commissioner, not a medical source, to make.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight unless the ALJ makes specific contrary findings, and the rule is not implicated absent a conflict in the medical evidence.

Barlow v. Nancy Berryhill, Acting Cmsnr · filed 2017-11-07(c)(2)

Although a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” unless the ALJ makes specific contrary findings, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2014 1); Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455–56 (5th Cir. 2000), that rule is not implicated absent “a conflict in the medical evidence,” Carry v. Heckler, 750 F.2d 479, 484 (5th Cir. 1985). The ALJ found no conflict here: he explicitly considered the April 2014 diagnoses and found them “consistent with” the other medical evidence regarding Barlow’s ability to work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

James v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2017-12-07(d)(2)

Social Security Regulations and case law state that a treating physician's opinion will be granted “controlling weight,” provided it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” See SSR 96-2p; Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2000)(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). An ALJ is required to give good reasons for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation. See Prosch, 201 F.3d at1013 (citing 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2), and SSR 96-2p).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors and explain the weight assigned.

Byndum v. Colvin · filed 2017-12-15(c)(2)

The opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The treating physician is familiar with the claimant’s condition and progression of his impairments and may bring a “unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” Id. If a treating physician opinion is not afforded controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight to give it in accordance with several factors and must provide “sound explanation” of this determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Jelinek, 662 F.3d at 811. The factors include the length, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, explanations of the opinions, the types of tests performed, and the consistency of physician’s opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ gives a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the applicable regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, consistency, supporting explanation, and specialization.

Gerstner v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-05(c)

Fifth, even if there were sound reasons for refusing to give Dr. Callaghan’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ still erred by assigning his opinions little weight without considering relevant regulatory factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source medical opinion that is not given controlling weight to remain entitled to deference and to be weighed using all of the regulation's factors.

Arevalo v. Berryhill · filed 2018-01-30

Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. In many cases, a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rusin v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-26(d)(2)

Generally, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment 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] case record.’” ... “The ALJ did not err in declining to afford Dr. Letourneau’s opinion controlling weight because his opinion is inconsistent with his treatment notes and diagnostic observations, the other medical opinion evidence, and Rusin’s reported activities of daily living.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Adams v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2018-02-26

Additionally, there is insufficient evidence that the ALJ applied the factors contained in §§ 404.1527, 416.927 when he assigned little weight to Dr. Sullivan’s assessment. ... The ALJ must give good reasons for whatever weight he gives the treating physicians opinion. Holstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 720 (8th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial record evidence and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Webb v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-05(c)(2)

The Commissioner will give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source as to the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment if (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... In evaluating a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ must "always give good reasons" supporting her decision regarding the weight afforded that opinion. ... The ALJ simply did not identify Dr. O'Toole's opinion and give "good reasons" why that opinion was not given controlling weight. Accordingly, the court finds this issue merits remand as well.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned and any rejection.

Manning · filed 2018-03-22(c)

Under these regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is entitled to “controlling weight” where it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. Further, the ALJ is required to provide an explanation in the decision for what weight is given a treating source’s opinion and, if rejected, why it was rejected. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician's well-supported and consistent opinion to receive controlling weight, requires good reasons for the weight assigned, and permits discounting the opinion when better evidence supports other assessments or the treating physician's opinions are inconsistent.

Harris v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2017-12-21(d)(2)

Social Security Regulations and case law state that a treating physician's opinion will be granted “controlling weight,” provided it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” See SSR 96-2p; Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir. 2000)(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). An ALJ is required to give good reasons for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation. See Prosch, 201 F.3d at1013 (citing 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2), and SSR 96-2p). An ALJ may disregard the opinion of a treating physician only where other medical assessments “are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence,” or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Linehan v. Berryhill · filed 2017-12-27(c)(2)

An ALJ must "always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the claimant's] treating source's medical opinion."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Trevizo v. Berryhill · filed 2017-07-10(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hargress v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2018-02-27(c)(2)

The ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical evidence, including whether an opinion is well-supported and consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). A treating physician’s medical opinion must be given “substantial or considerable weight” unless “good cause” is shown to give it less weight. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). “With good cause, an ALJ may disregard a treating physician’s opinion, but he must clearly articulate [the] reasons for doing so.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original). Good cause exists when “the (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and, if not, to consider the regulatory factors; failure to do so may be harmless when the opinion is vague, conclusory, and unsupported.

Hane v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-21(c)(2)

The ALJ was required to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it [was] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... Given the vague and conclusory nature of Dr. Munn’s opinion, the ALJ’s failure to assess it in accordance with the regulatory factors was harmless error. ... Because assessing this opinion in accordance with the regulatory factors would not have made it more substantial or relevant, the ALJ’s failure to do so is not a basis for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) entitles a treating physician's opinion to controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must give good reasons and determine its specific weight using the regulatory factors.

Leach v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-25(c)(2)

Under regulations applicable in Leach's case, a treating physician's opinion is entitled to "controlling weight" if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010). If an ALJ decides not to give the treating physician controlling weight, he "must offer good reasons for declining to do so." Larson, 615 F.3d at 749 (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Once an ALJ finds that a treating physician's opinion does not deserve controlling weight, he must decide what specific weight to give the opinion. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 252 (7th Cir. 2016). In so doing, the ALJ should consider length and nature of the treatment, the frequency of examination, whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to evaluate it using the regulatory factors.

Francis v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-02(c)

Even if it were, the ALJ was still required to, but did not, evaluate Dr. Benson’s opinion in accordance with the regulatory factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Moss, 555 F.3d at 561. Had he done so, the fact that Dr. Benson is a psychiatrist, who treated plaintiff for a year, and whose opinion about plaintiff’s limitations is supported by her medical records may have persuaded the ALJ to give the doctor’s opinion more weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating-source opinion, but does not require the ALJ to expressly state how each evaluation factor was considered.

Viveiros v. Colvin · filed 2018-06-20(c)(2)

“However, the regulations do not require the ALJ to list these factors or ‘to expressly state how each factor was considered,’ as long as the ALJ ‘provide[s] good reasons for the weight given to a treating source opinion.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lewis v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-27(c)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion if the opinion is both "well-supported" and "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must also "offer good reasons for discounting" the opinion of a treating physician. Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted); Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. And even if a treater's opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740; Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician's specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician's opinion. See Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to give good reasons for discounting it and assess its value using specified factors.

Renteria v. Colvin · filed 2018-07-27(c)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion if the opinion is both "well-supported" and "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must also "offer good reasons for discounting" the opinion of a treating physician. Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted); Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. And even if a treater's opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740; Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician's specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician's opinion. See Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an adjudicator weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the length of the treatment relationship and the nature and extent of the treatment.

Arterberry v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-02(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii)

In deciding how much weight to give a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider how “long[] [the] treating source has treated [the claimant]” and whether it was “long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). “Very infrequent” medical visits support discounting a treating physician’s opinion. See Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268, 1275-76 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted). ... The nature and extent of the treatment provided are legitimate grounds for assessing the weight of a treating physician’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight unless the ALJ provides good reasons for assigning it lesser weight.

Walker v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-15(c)(2)

As the treating physician, Dr. Goudy's opinion was entitled (under the regulations in effect at the time) to controlling weight unless the ALJ set forth "good reasons" for assigning it lesser weight. ... The reasons set forth by the ALJ are not supported by substantial evidence, as they too discount, if not overlook, express conclusions Dr. Goudy made about Walker's condition from August 2012 forward. ... The ALJ needed to offer a good reason for disregarding this opinion, coming as it did from Walker's treating physician in August 2012.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with the record controlling weight and requires the ALJ to evaluate a non-controlling opinion under specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Lemieux v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-29(c)(2), (c)

The opinions of treating physicians "are ordinarily accorded deference in Social Security disability proceedings." ... A treating source opinion that is well-supported by objective evidence and not inconsistent with the record is accorded "controlling weight." ... "If not 'controlling,' the treating opinion must still be evaluated against six criteria in order to fulfill the mandate that the ALJ 'always give good reasons' when determining the weight a treating opinion deserves." ... An ALJ is nonetheless "entitled to resolve conflicts in the record, and may reject the opinion of the treating physician so long as an explanation is provided and the contrary finding is supported by substantial evidence."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, medical support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Morris v. Berryhill · filed 2018-06-28(d)(2)

If an ALJ opts not to afford controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must consider: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the extent of the treatment relationship; (3) medical support for the opinion: (4) consistency; and (5) the physician's specialization, along with any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to provide good reasons when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Dugan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-08-08(c)(2)

Therefore, “if the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s conditions is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record,’ then it will be accorded controlling weight.” Id. (quoting Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” as to the weight given instead. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions from treating sources to be weighed using the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Rice v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-17(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), medical opinions from treating sources are weighed using several factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, such as the (i) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination and the (ii) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for rejecting a treating doctor’s opinion as controlling and to evaluate its remaining value using the listed factors.

Smith v. Colvin · filed 2018-09-28(c)(2), (d)(2)

To that end, “An ALJ may not reject such an opinion without ‘good reasons.’” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010)). ... Even if there were sound reasons for the ALJ to refuse to give Dr. Haag’s evaluation controlling weight, she was still obligated to determine what value it did have. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The regulations required her to go on and “consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the type of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (citing § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and otherwise consider specified treatment-relationship and opinion factors.

D'Aversa v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-14(c)(2)

With respect to a treating physician in particular, an ALJ is required to give the opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If an ALJ chooses not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, “the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... The ALJ also rejected the opinion of Dr. Bitar, Plaintiff’s treating physician, without considering factors required by the regulations, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion. ... This analysis is not sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a well-supported treating physician's opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight.

Stacy D. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-02-01(d)(2)

While a treating physician's opinion is not binding on the Commissioner, it must be given controlling weight when it is well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Byrne v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-08(c)(2)

The ALJ’s conclusory reasons for declining to assign “controlling weight” and instead assigning “less weight” to four opinions from three treating sources falls well short of satisfying the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Moreover, the ALJ did not appear to consider the statutory factors and provide “good reasons” for assigning “less weight” to each of these opinions. This failure contravenes the regulations and requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tillman v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-11(c)(2)

The regulations require that the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Upon review of the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ gave good reasons for giving “little weight” to Dr. Petry’s opinion and that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the ALJ’s decision that Plaintiff was not disabled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to determine the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion and always give good reasons for that weight; failure to do so requires remand.

Vue v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-03-20(c)(2)

Accordingly, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case to permit the ALJ an opportunity to determine what weight to give to Dr. Ward’s opinions, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... When such an opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight to afford the opinion based on factors enumerated in the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must “always give good reasons . . . for the weight [she] give[s] [a] treating source’s medical opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, but does not require automatic acceptance of the opinion.

Narvaez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(c)(2)

Narvaez next alleges that the ALJ erred by discounting the opinion of her treating physician, Dr. Wortman. She contends that the ALJ was required to give Dr. Wortman’s opinion “controlling weight” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The ALJ, however, “is not ‘obligated automatically to accept [a treating physician's] conclusions.” ... Instead, the ALJ must only “give good reasons in [his or her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he or she gives the] treating source's opinion.” ... Here, the ALJ explained in detail his decision to award Dr. Wortman’s opinion little weight. After stating that those opinions were “not supported by and inconsistent with the evidence as a whole,” the ALJ cited numerous pieces of evidence that refuted Dr. Wortman’s conclusions. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in using his discretion to discount Dr. Wortman’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the listed relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors, give good reasons for the assigned weight, and consider consistency with the record as a whole.

Graham v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(c)(2), (c)(4)

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the opinion is weighed based on a number of factors, including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, opinion’s supportability, opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the provider, and any other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 2003). The ALJ is required to “give good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Cline, 771 F.3d at 1103.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider factors including the treatment relationship, specialty, testing, and consistency with the medical evidence.

Montalto v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-28(c)(2)

Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff's argument, the ALJ considered the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) when deciding to give Dr. Hagan’s opinion no weight. Specifically, the ALJ’s opinion discussed the frequency of Plaintiff's treatment with Dr. Hagan (and notes that, in fact, Plaintiff did not have appointments with the doctor very often), mentioned that Dr. Hagan also treated Plaintiff's depression (that is, she was not an orthopedic specialist), and used specific examples in the record to explain why she found Dr. Hagan’s opinion inconsistent with the evidence. Dr. Hagan did not administer any medical tests, and there is no evidence that she reviewed the x-rays Plaintiff had of his back and hip.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight given to or rejection of a treating physician's opinion.

Mayer v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-05(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion should not ordinarily be disregarded and is entitled to substantial weight. Singh v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). The regulations require the ALJ to give reasons for giving weight to or rejecting the statements of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by medically acceptable laboratory and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Woyda v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-10(d)(2)

“A treating physician’s opinion is generally given controlling weight, but is not inherently entitled to it. An ALJ may elect under certain circumstances not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. For a treating physician’s opinion to have controlling weight, it must be supported by medically acceptable laboratory and diagnostic techniques and it must not be ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... Based on a careful review of the record, the Court concludes that the ALJ gave appropriate weight to the opinion of Dr. O’Neill, as his opinion that Plaintiff is limited to a sedentary RFC, and opining that Plaintiff could not be on his feet for more than two hours per eight-hour workday or occasionally lift 20 pounds, is not supported by the objective medical record or Plaintiff’s reported activities.