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).

When deciding the weight of a treating physician's opinion, an ALJ must indicate that the regulatory factors were considered, even though the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Guzman v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-20(c)(2)-(6)

Although an ALJ need not explicitly go through the list of regulatory factors, there must be some indication that he considered each in his analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from conclusory or contradicted opinions.

Urena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-15(c)(2)

The ALJ correctly noted that neither assessment “provide[s] a function-by-function assessment of the claimant’s retained abilities,” and that both were “conclusory.” R. 335. Given their conclusory nature, neither opinion was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). In addition, the ALJ correctly noted that both opinions are contradicted by substantial evidence in the record, R. 335, and accordingly need not be given controlling weight, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see Veino, 312 F.3d at 588. The ALJ pointed to substantial evidence in the record that contradicted the treating sources’ conclusions, including Ms. Urena’s own acknowledgment that she was able to work in quiet spaces, take buses when not crowded, cook, and perform housework. R. 352-57.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, but permits little or no weight for a conclusory or unsupported opinion after good cause is shown.

McCauley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-04(c)(2)

In fact, when a treating physician's opinion regarding the nature and severity of an impairment is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give that opinion controlling weight. ... Particularly after comparing the approach employed by Dr. Blackburn with that employed by Dr. Friedberg, this Court finds that the ALJ properly gave Dr. Blackburn’s opinions little weight since there is substantial evidence in the record that Dr. Blackburn’s opinions were conclusory and not objectively corroborated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor if the decision shows that the factors were considered.

Taylor v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-11(c)

If an ALJ gives a treating physician's opinion lesser 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.” ... An ALJ does not need to “explicitly weigh each factor” so long as the ALJ’s decision makes clear that those factors were considered. ... The ALJ’s discussion of Dr. Yamini’s opinion indicates that she considered its supportability and consistency with the record, which are factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3) and (4). Taylor is incorrect that the ALJ was required to discuss each of the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when it is unsupported by acceptable clinical or laboratory techniques or inconsistent with substantial record evidence; § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of six weighting factors, but not explicit discussion of each when good reasons are given.

Prentiss v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-06-18(c)(2)

The applicable regulations permit the ALJ to give lesser weight, i.e., something less than “controlling weight,” to a treating physician’s opinion regarding a claimant’s impairment if at least one of two conditions is met. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). Specifically, if the opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” then the ALJ is not required to give it “controlling weight.” Id. And in deciding what lesser weight to give such an opinion, the ALJ is required to consider, but need not “explicitly discuss,” the six factors mentioned above. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c); Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258. As long as the “ALJ provided good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the treating sources’ opinions,” then “[n]othing more [was] required.” Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and to explain the weight assigned with good reasons.

Dianne D. v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-19(c)(2)

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. ... The ALJ’s decision must articulate the weight given, providing “good reasons” for the determination. ... The regulations confirm that, “[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Michael D. v. Saul · filed 2019-06-20(d)(2)

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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.

Boles v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-23(d)(2)

Accordingly, an ALJ “must offer ‘good reasons’ for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.” Campbell, 627 F.3d at 306 (quoting 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2)). ... In sum, because the ALJ failed to offer “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician, the Court remands for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing discussion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion only when it is well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with the record.

Benton v. Berryhill · filed 2019-05-23(c)(2)

But only a treating physician’s opinion may be afforded controlling weight, and then only if the opinion is both well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with the remainder of the record. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight and requires controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, while requiring good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hawkins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-08(c)(2)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, when the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. Id. “However, [a]n 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.” Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Given Dr. Afzal’s treatment notes, (Tr. 347-99, 409-417, 423-456), I find the ALJ could rightly discount the Dr. Afzal’s medical source statement. (Tr. 418-21.) The ALJ is correct that the treatment notes wholly fail to support a conclusion that Plaintiff is capable of performing less than sedentary work. Accordingly, the ALJ had fair reasons to discount Dr. Afzal’s conclusions and could properly discount his Medical Source Statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to a treating physician’s opinion, but an ALJ may discount it when it is inconsistent with other medical evidence and the ALJ explains the reason.

UNGEMACH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-07-11(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinions are typically entitled to “great weight,” but an ALJ may reduce his reliance upon a treating physician’s opinions if those opinions are inconsistent with other medical evidence, and if he explains his reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-physician opinion controlling weight and, if it is not controlling, weigh it using specified factors including consistency with the record.

Gonzales v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-15(c)(2), (c)(4)

Should the ALJ decide not to give the treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient relationship, the frequency of evaluations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Inconsistency between a physician’s opinion and objective medical findings constitutes a “specific and legitimate reason” for rejecting the contradicted opinion of a treating physician. See Valentine v. Comm’r, 574 F.3d 685, 692–93 (9th Cir. 2009); Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the ALJ’s rejection of a treating physician’s opinion because the medical records were inconsistent with the limitations set forth in that physician’s opinion constituted a “specific and legitimate reason” for discrediting that opinion); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ] will give to that medical opinion.”); SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at * 4 (S.S.A. Aug. 9, 2006).

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 techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Bruce v. Saul · filed 2019-07-17(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.’” ... “First, there is substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Campo’s opinion is inconsistent with HCMC records. ... For these reasons, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Campo’s opinion.

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 in the record.

Buckles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-19(d)(2)

“[I]f a treating physician’s opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it will be given controlling weight.’” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (brackets omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Watson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-17(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating medical opinion under the listed factors and give a sound explanation when rejecting it.

Sullivan, Sr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-25(c)(2)

On remand, the ALJ is instructed to consider the treating medical opinions in the manner described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and to provide a “sound explanation” if he or she rejects a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when the evidence and medical showings support doing so, but permits discounting it when the ALJ offers good reason.

Cannon v. Saul · filed 2019-07-26(d)(2)

While it is true the ALJ should give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician where the evidence and medical showings support her doing so, the ALJ can discount the treating physician’s opinion where she “offer[s] good reason.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). Here, the ALJ furnishes good reason (see supra paragraph).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight after considering the opinion’s supportability and consistency.

Murphy v. Social Security Commissioner · filed 2019-07-22(c)(2)

The ALJ is not required to explain how she considered each of these factors but must nonetheless give “good reasons” for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported and consistent treating-physician opinion and consideration of specified weighing factors, while subsection (d) reserves ultimate disability determinations to the Commissioner.

Sedlak v. Saul · filed 2019-08-08(c)(2), (d)

An ALJ will give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence. Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 2013); House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... An ALJ should weigh treating-physician opinions using factors such as the nature and extent of treatment; the degree to which relevant evidence supports the physician’s opinion; consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; whether the physician is a specialist in the area in which the opinion is based; and other factors that support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... The ALJ properly explained his reason for rejecting Dr. Hoeft’s opinions about total disability and Sedlak’s inability to work because such findings are reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d); Stormo v. Barnhart, 377 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2004) (“treating physicians’ opinions are not medical opinions that should be credited when they simply state that a claimant can not be gainfully employed, because they are merely opinions on the application of the statute, a task assigned solely to the discretion of the [Commissioner]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

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 and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons and consideration of specified factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

RICHMOND JR. v. SAUL · filed 2019-08-12(c)(2)

Based on the filing date of Walter’s application, the treating physician rule applies. ... In Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)6), the Seventh Circuit held that a “treating doctor’s opinion receives controlling weight if it is ‘well-supported’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.” ... “An ALJ must offer ‘good reasons’ for discounting the opinion of a treating physician.” ... “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.” ... However, so long as the ALJ “minimally articulates” her reasoning for discounting a treating source opinion, the Court must uphold the determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

Reinert v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2019-08-13(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits controlling weight for a well-supported treating-physician opinion consistent with the record, but supports less weight when the opinion lacks supporting evidence, conflicts with the record, or addresses an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Castleman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-08-14(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (d)

The ALJ may give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if the opinion is both well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (2018) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [will be given] that opinion”). ... An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with the record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (c)(4); ... Further, as the ALJ explained, Dr. Joshi’s conclusory opinion was essentially an RFC statement, and the RFC finding is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. (R. 25). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and the regulations require consideration of specified treatment and opinion factors when controlling weight is denied.

Hammons v. Saul · filed 2019-08-21(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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). “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.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ridgell v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-21(c)

The ALJ’s decision indicates consideration of all the pertinent factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) as he noted specifically that Dr. Davis was Plaintiff’s treating physician, discussed treatment records over several months following Plaintiff’s MVA, and discussed the inconsistencies he noted in the opinions. Accordingly, the court finds that the ALJ did not err in properly applying the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion to determine its weight using factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant information.

Montoya v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-14(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, she must still determine what weight to give it according to the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant; whether the physician’s opinions were sufficiently supported; how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue; and other factors, such as the amount of understanding of the disability programs and their evidentiary requirements or the extent to which an acceptable medical source is familiar with other information in the claimant’s case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ assigning weight to a medical opinion to consider and explicitly address the regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Heaver v. Saul · filed 2019-08-16(c)

The ALJ must “consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion”—examining relationship, treatment relationship (length and nature of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, along with nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (emphasis added). ... Failing to address the checklist factors at step two is error and by itself warrants a remand. ... Reviewing courts require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor in the checklist so that the court does not have to guess as to whether the factors were considered. ... On remand, the ALJ must discuss each factor in the checklist in relation to her decision regarding how much weight to give to Dr. Krpan’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, Section 404.1527 requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors in determining its weight.

Klingbeil v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(c)(2)

When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the following factors will be examined to determine the weight to give the opinion: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires ALJs to weigh treating-physician opinions based on their support from objective medical evidence and consistency with the record as a whole.

Debaker v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2019-08-27(c)

Social Security regulations require administrative law judges to credit treating physician opinions to the extent they are supported by objective medical evidence and are consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When competing medical evidence exists, an ALJ need not consider the factors in § 404.1527(c)(2) before declining to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight.

Warren v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-27(c)(2)

The Court concludes that the ALJ showed good cause for giving Dr. Waggoner’s opinion concerning her manipulative limitations “little weight,” and, because there was competing medical evidence, the ALJ was not required to consider the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

BOWENS v. SAUL · filed 2019-09-03(d)(2)

The treating-physician rule in effect at the time of Claimant’s application, 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2), “directs the administrative law judge to 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.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source medical opinions, but does not require controlling weight and permits less weight when the opinion is unsupported or other good reasons exist.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(c)(2)

The disability determination process generally gives “more weight to medical opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). However, the ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians. Barrientos v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 820 F.2d 1, 2–3 (1st Cir. 1987); Rivera-Tufino v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 731 F. Supp. 2d 210, 216 (D.P.R. 2010). Rather, the ALJ can give less weight to a treating physician’s opinion if he has good reason to do so. Pagán-Figueroa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 623 F. Supp. 2d 206, 210–11 (D.P.R. 2009) (citing Carrasco v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F. Supp. 2d 17, 25 (D.P.R. 2007)). Specifically, the ALJ may disregard the treating physician’s opinion when it is “not supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory techniques, or [is] otherwise unsupported by the evidence.” Sánchez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 270 F. Supp. 2d 218, 221–22 (D.P.R. 2003) (citing Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994)). This remains true regardless of whether the source of the evidence is a non-treating doctor. Keating v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 848 F.2d 271, 275 n.1 (1st Cir. 1988) (citing Lizotte v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 654 F.2d 127, 130 (1st Cir. 1981)). It follows that “an ALJ must give ‘good reasons’ for the weight accorded to a treating source’s opinion.” Polanco–Quiñones v. Astrue, 477 Fed. Appx. 745, 746 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (emphasis in original).

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 in the record, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Coston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-11(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the 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.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but must “comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion”.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Carpenter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(c)(2)

When an ALJ discredits the opinion of a treating physician, the regulations direct the ALJ to “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given a] treating source's opinion”. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2); Snell, 177 F.3d at 134.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to assess treating-source opinions using the specified treatment, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Maracle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-12(c)(2)-(6)

The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is consistent with the other substantial evidence. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2nd Cir. 2004) (per curiam); 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). When an ALJ discredits the opinion of a treating physician, the regulations direct the ALJ to “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given a] treating source's opinion”. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2); Snell, 177 F.3d at 134. The ALJ first must consider: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence that supports the treating physician's report; (4) how consistent the treating physician's opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other significant factors. Halloran, 362 F.3d 28, 32; see also 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine the weight of a treating physician's opinion by analyzing specified factors when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Knight v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-12

Even if a treating physician’s opinions are not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless determine the proper weight to give them by analyzing the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives the Commissioner final responsibility for deciding disability and does not make a medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled controlling.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2012-09-28(d)(1)-(2)

The Code of Federal Regulations requires the use of independent medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2)-(b). The Code states that although the Commissioner will consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as the claimant’s functional capacity and whether the claimant has an enumerated impairment, “the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.” Id. at § 404.1527(d)(2). Because the ALJ has the sole responsibility of making the determination whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of a disability,“[a] statement by a medical source [he is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the ALJ] will determine that [he is] disabled.” Id. at (d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats medical-source opinions about an impairment’s nature and severity as evidence, while reserving the final severity determination to the Commissioner.

Woodbury v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-30

Insofar as Way’s report might be read to find that Woodbury suffered a severe impairment, the court notes determining the severity of an impairment is the exclusive province of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 ("We use medical sources ... to provide evidence, including opinions, on the nature and severity of your impairment(s).”). Thus, if Way’s purported finding was entitled to any consideration, it was only as evidence of a severe impairment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) provides that the Commissioner, not a physician, determines whether a claimant is disabled, so a physician’s conclusion that the claimant is disabled or unable to work need not be credited.

Starr v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-21(d)(1)

The Commissioner is responsible for determining whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability and need not credit a physician’s conclusion that the claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions even when they predate the claimant's alleged disability onset date.

Davidson v. Colvin · filed 2015-09-30(c)(2)

Given the language of § 404.1527(c)(2), and considering the number of circuits that have so found, this Court agrees that medical opinions may not be ignored just because they predate the disability onset date.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider every medical opinion in the record, and opinions predating the alleged disability onset are not categorically irrelevant, particularly when the disability did not have a traumatic onset.

Dennis v. O'Malley · filed 2024-04-05(b), (c)

Still, an ALJ is required to “consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive.”); Id. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). ... In sum, “medical opinions are not per se irrelevant merely because they predate the disability onset date, particularly where the nature of the disability does not involve a traumatic onset.” ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in considering the medical evidence from prior to the amended onset date.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, including one predating the alleged onset date, and explain why the opinion is rejected or assigned limited value.

Graham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-20(c)

While medical opinions that predate the alleged onset of disability have limited relevance, Carmickle v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir.2008), the “[t]he ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir.2008); Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir.1996) (ALJ errs completely ignoring medical evidence); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the ALJ must evaluate all relevant medical opinion evidence rather than simply state the evidence was not assessed based upon the date the evidence was generated. The date the evidence is not self-effecting as to its relevance or weight. Rather the ALJ must weigh the evidence and provide some rationale to reject it or find it has limited value.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider every medical opinion in the record, including opinions predating the alleged disability onset date even if they are of limited relevance.

Brown · filed 2026-03-31(b), (c)

Though Dr. Brown’s assessment occurred prior to the alleged onset date, it must still be considered. While medical opinions predating an alleged onset date may be of limited relevance, the ALJ must still consider all medical evidence. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes a medical source’s familiarity with the other information in the case record a relevant factor in deciding how much weight to give the source’s medical opinion.

Beacock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(c)(6)

Furthermore, the ALJ did not err in considering the extent to which Dr. Tesar and Mr. Swan were familiar with the longitudinal record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T]he extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record [is a] relevant factor[] that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”). The ALJ accurately noted that Dr. Tesar and Mr. Swan were less familiar with the record before the ALJ than the State agency doctors, and this is a legitimate reason to give less weight to their opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) requires an ALJ, when weighing a medical opinion, to consider how familiar the source was with other information in the record.

Kinder v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-23(c)(6)

When a state agency physician has not reviewed a “substantial portion of the relevant medical evidence,” it is error to give “great weight” to the opinion of the state agency physician. See, e.g. Herron v. Astrue, 407 Fed.Appx. 139, 141 (9th Cir. 2010); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion, the ALJ will consider the extent to which the person rendering the opinion was familiar with the other information in the record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes a medical source's familiarity with the other information in the claimant's case record relevant when weighing the source's medical opinion.

Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(c)(6)

The extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. ... As Dr. Genthe lacked any records and did not have knowledge of Dr. Cline’s finding of malingering the month prior, this was a specific and legitimate reason to reject the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an adjudicator to consider a medical-opinion source’s familiarity with the claimant’s longitudinal treatment record when weighing the opinion.

Patton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-15(c)(6)

But the ALJ correctly noted that the other opinions, written by examining or non-examining sources, were rendered without access to the longitudinal treatment record (AR 1438), and this is a specific, legitimate reason to discount those opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits consideration of a medical source’s familiarity with the claimant’s record, and lack of access to most of that record can make the source’s opinion less probative.

Melton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-13(c)(6)

That may be true, but the ALJ nonetheless properly considered whether Dr. Widlan was familiar with Plaintiff’s record and did not err in finding that his lack of access to most of the record rendered his opinion less probative. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) allows an ALJ to consider how familiar a medical-opinion provider is with the claimant’s entire record.

Schuman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(c)(6)

This may be true as to Drs. Diamonti and Mashburn, but the regulations also permit an ALJ to consider the degree to which a provider is familiar with a claimant’s entire record, when assessing a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes a medical source's familiarity with the other information in the claimant's case record relevant to the weight given to the source's medical opinion.

Robles v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-10(c)(6)

Moreover, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider a medical source’s knowledge of Social Security disability programs and familiarity with the claimant’s record when weighing the source’s opinion.

Valdes-Ocasio v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-22(c)(6)

The ALJ properly gave weight to Dr. Harding’s opinion as the state-agency consultative examiner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T]he amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has . . . and the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record are relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”); id. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (“State agency medical or psychological consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes a medical source’s familiarity with the other information in the claimant’s case record relevant to the weight assigned to the source’s opinion.

Priser v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-11(c)(6)

Additionally, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6). ... Dr. Opara’s supported his diagnoses and medical source statement with a review of medical records, including imaging, as well as his own history and physical exam, and the ALJ’s finding his opinion was due less weight because it was internally inconsistent is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may give a medical opinion more weight when its source is more familiar with the claimant’s case record.

Rule v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-05-13(c)(6)

That Dr. Lace was more familiar with Plaintiff’s longitudinal case record was a legitimate and specific reason to give more weight to Dr. Lace’s opinion than to Dr. Gomes’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may give a medical opinion more weight when its source is more familiar with the claimant’s case record.

O'Meara v. Saul · filed 2020-08-07(c)(6)

That Dr. Anderson was more familiar with Plaintiff’s longitudinal case record was a legitimate and specific reason supported by substantial evidence to give more weight to Dr. Anderson’s opinion than to Dr. Vaughn’s and Dr. Gibson’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on the examining relationship, supportability, and consistency, and permits consideration of opinions from non-examining sources.

Womeldorf v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-29(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (e)

The former is an acceptable medical source,2 but the latter is not.3 The ALJ determined that Dr. General’s opinion, which was based upon his examination and testing of Womeldorf, as well as the medical record, was entitled to great weight,4 whereas Letellier’s opinion was actually in conflict with her own treatment notes, which severely undercut its value.5 Those determinations were supported by substantial evidence, and must, therefore, be upheld.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh factors including the treatment or examining relationship and whether a medical opinion is supported by and consistent with medical signs and laboratory findings.

Scheurer v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-06(c)

An ALJ must weigh certain factors in. evaluating both treating and non-treating source statements, including the nature, length, and extent of the treating or examining relationship, as well as whether the medical opinion is supported by, and consistent with, medical signs and laboratory findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the regulatory factors, giving more weight to an examining physician than to a non-examining physician.

Burns v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-15

The Regulations provide that an ALJ must analyze and weigh all the evidence of record, taking into account the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927(c)(2)-(6). These factors include: (1) Length of the treatment relationship and frequency of evaluation, (2) Nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) Supportability, (4) Consistency, (5) Specialization, and (6) various other factors. Under §§ 404.1527(c)(1) and 416.927(c)(1), more weight is given to a physician who examines a claimant than to a non-examining physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion a claimant submits regardless of source and to explain the weight given to opinions from treating, nontreating, and nonexamining sources.

Muniz v. SSA · filed 2017-09-15(c), (e)(2)(ii)

Under the social security regulations the ALJ must evaluate “every medical opinion” that a claimant submits, “[r]egardless of its source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Accordingly, an ALJ “must explain in the decision the weight given to . . . any opinions from treating sources, nontreating sources, and other nonexamining sources . . . .” § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii). Ordinarily, therefore, an ALJ's failure to consider a medical opinion in the record is legal error that requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering the examining relationship, supporting medical evidence and explanation, and consistency with the record as a whole.

Jacks v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2017-05-23(c)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including whether the doctor has examined- the claimant, the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion, and how consistent the doctor’s “opinion is with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to analyze and weigh all record evidence using the listed factors when evaluating medical opinions.

Thompson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-15(c)(2)-(6)

The Regulations provide that an ALJ must analyze and weigh all the evidence of record, taking into account the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider the opinions of non-examining state-agency medical and psychological consultants because they are highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

Bryant v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-27(f)(2)(i)

An ALJ is also “required to consider the opinions of non-examining state agency medical and psychological consultants because they ‘are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.’” Milner v. Barnhart, 275 Fed. Appx. 947, 948 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider and weigh all medical evidence under its prescribed framework and permits reliance on a state agency physician's opinion as medical opinion evidence when appropriate.

Hughes v. SSA · filed 2018-02-08(e)

Instead, all medical evidence must be considered and weighed under the process provided in § 404.1527 and § 416.927. When appropriate, an ALJ may rely on the opinion of a state agency physician as medical opinion evidence. §§ 404.1527(e) & 416.927(e); SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2 (July 2, 1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 governs how an ALJ evaluates a medical source’s opinion, including the applicable regulatory factors.

Maynard v SSA · filed 2018-02-13

Rather than re-analyzing the ALJ’s paragraph on Dr. Oteri’s letter to determine whether the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Oteri’s opinion on Maynard’s capacity for performing work-related activities, the court simply notes that on remand, the ALJ should evaluate Dr. Oteri’s May 2013 letter in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization when deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Quarles v. Colvin · filed 2018-02-14(c)

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.” ... “[T]he ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” ... Contrary to Quarles’s assertions, the undersigned finds that the ALJ stated the weight given to Dr. Blanton’s opinion and the reasons therefor with sufficient “particularity,” and that substantial evidence supports those reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the adjudicator to weigh medical opinions using specified factors, including professional credentials and consistency with the record.

Perry v. Commissioner of SSA · filed 2018-02-16

The ALJ did not rely solely on Dr. Blackwell’s opinion, and pursuant to the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, he accorded it weight because of Dr. Blackwell’s professional credentials and the fact that his assessment was consistent with much of the evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate the opinion using the regulatory factors.

Ortiz v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-22(c)

Moreover, even if the ALJ had a valid, albeit unexpressed, basis for refusing to give Dr. Green’s opinions controlling weight, she was still required to assess the doctor’s opinions in accordance with the regulatory factors. See Moss, 555 F.3d at 561; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the regulation’s relevant factors when deciding what weight to give them.

Thompson · filed 2018-03-07(c)

Thus, upon thorough review of the ALJ’s decision and the record, the court concludes that the ALJ applied the relevant factors in evaluating the opinion evidence, and finds that Thompson has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ’s evaluation of this opinion evidence is unsupported by substantial evidence or based on an incorrect application of the law. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... The decision reflects that the ALJ weighed the opinions of the state agency physicians and reasonably afforded them some evidentiary weight based on the physicians’ statements and the record in this matter.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to consider the opinions of non-examining state-agency medical and psychological consultants as expert evidence in evaluating a disability claim.

Nicholas v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-08(f)(2)(i)

An ALJ is also “required to consider the opinions of non-examining state agency medical and psychological consultants because they ‘are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.’” Milner v. Barnhart, 275 Fed. Appx. 947, 948 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i)). “The ALJ may rely on opinions of non-examining sources when they do not conflict with those of examining sources.” Id. (citing Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584-85 (11th Cir. 1991)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, including examination, treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, for both examining and non-examining physicians.

Cryar v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-08(c)

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

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

In weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the treating source, and other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating medical source opinion if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1132 (8th Cir. 2015). The opinion may be given “limited weight if it provides conclusory statements only, or is inconsistent with the record.” Id. (citation omitted). The ALJ “may discount or even disregard the opinion . . . 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.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, Dr. Findley opined that Colbert had numerous serious limitations that would cause him to be off task more than 15 percent of a work day, preclude him from completing a normal work day or week without interruptions from his psychological symptoms, and/or be unable to accept instructions or respond appropriately to criticism. R. at 695-98. The ALJ gave Dr. Findley’s opinion partial weight because of noted inconsistencies between her conclusions and her own treatment notes. See Blackburn v. Colvin, 761 F.3d 853, 860 (8th Cir. 2014) (“Even a treating source does not receive controlling weight if the source’s opinions are inconsistent . . . .”); see also Reece v. Colvin, 834 F.3d 904, 909-10 (8th Cir. 2016) (holding that the ALJ gave sufficient reasons for discounting treating physician’s opinion, including that it was “inconsistent with . . . his own treatment notes”). For example, Dr. Findley’s opinion that Colbert would have an extreme limitation in his ability to sustain an ordinary routine without special supervision contradicts her April 13, 2015, report that Colbert was feeling “pretty good” and was alert and oriented. R. at 38, 624, 696. The ALJ also noted that generally, Dr. Findley’s treatment of Colbert was conservative without escalating modalities. R. at 38. Dr. Findley noted on numerous occasions that Colbert was alert and oriented. R. at 624, 626, 628, 636, 644, 646, 648. Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give partial weight to Dr. Findley’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source and weigh it using the regulation's listed factors.

Shegog v. Colvin · filed 2018-04-20(c)

An ALJ must weigh every medical opinion, regardless of its source, and is not permitted to summarily dismiss an opinion simply because it did not come from an “acceptable medical source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to discuss a chiropractor's treatment records when evaluating the chiropractor's opinion.

Saffaie v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-01(f)(1)

With regard to Holmes, the ALJ erred in failing to discuss Holmes’s treatment records as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the adjudicator to consider and address relevant medical opinions when assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Glenn Huber, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-04(c)

Huber is correct that the ALJ violated § 404.1527(c) by not considering the consultative examiner’s opinion that he had trouble standing and walking. ... He is correct that here too the ALJ violated § 404.1527(c) by not addressing this statement, and therefore we cannot be confident that the RFC accounts for all of Huber’s limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions than to examining- or non-examining-source opinions and gives more weight to opinions supported by relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Zayas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(c)(1)-(3)

Title II’s implementing regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant but who review the claimant’s file (non-examining physicians). Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a non-examining physician’s. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202. ... ALJs may properly discount medical opinions when the doctor does not explain the basis for his or her limitations or when the opinion is inadequately supported by clinical findings. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957; Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements from acceptable medical sources reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature, severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, residual abilities, or restrictions as medical opinions subject to the regulation’s weighing rules.

Thompson v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(a)(1), (b), (c)

The ALJ’s decision is consistent with the regulations, because Dr. Staehling’s statement is not a “medical opinion” for the purposes of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) or (c). The regulation defines “medical opinions” as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). While certainly Dr. Staehling may have relied on medical opinions to reach the conclusion that Thompson would have trouble finding work, that conclusion itself is not a medical opinion. Additionally, it is found in the section of the medical record entitled “History of Present Illness” and appears to be based not upon the physician’s examination but on Thompson’s subjective reports. It is therefore not entitled to any weight under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) or (c), and the ALJ did not err in discounting it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a) limits treating-source status to acceptable medical sources, so a nurse practitioner cannot be treated as a treating source whose opinion may receive controlling weight.

Conroy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(a)

Contrary to the Plaintiff’s contention (Doc. 17 at 17-18), the ALJ was under no obligation to deem NP Davis a “treating source” whose opinions may be entitled to controlling weight under the Regulations. As explained above, nurse practitioners cannot be considered “treating sources” because they are not “acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a), 416.927(a); Medina v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 636 F. App’x 490, 493 (11th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the opinions of treating, examining, and State Agency physicians when evaluating medical opinions.

Wilhelm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(c), (e)

The regulations state that an ALJ must consider the opinions of treating, examining, and State Agency physicians. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), (e), 416.927(c), (e); Lester, 81 F.3d at 830.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the regulatory factors and give a reasoned explanation for the weight assigned, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor.

Strangis, Bernice v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-09-30(c)

On this basis, plaintiff faults the ALJ for not weighing the “checklist of factors” that 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) provides for evaluating the weight due medical opinions, 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.” ... As the Commissioner points out, however, the ALJ need not “explicitly weigh” every factor. ... Here, other than noting that Jacobs is not a “programmatically acceptable medical source,” the ALJ apparently only considered whether her opinion was consistent and, with respect to that factor, limited his analysis to Jacobs’ treatment notes from that day. ... While there may be valid reasons for not placing more than “partial weight” on Jacobs’ opinion and specifically rejecting her opinion that Strangis could not work more than part-time, the ALJ’s opinion lacks sufficient reasoning to form a logical bridge.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) distinguishes treating, examining, and nonexamining medical sources and guides the relative weight assigned to their opinions.

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

Three types of physicians may offer opinions in Social Security cases: those who treated the plaintiff, those who examined but did not treat the plaintiff, and those who did neither. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than an examining physician’s opinion, which is generally entitled to more weight than a nonexamining physician’s opinion. See Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the adjudicator to consider all listed factors when deciding the weight of a medical opinion unless the treating source's opinion receives controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2).

DeVries v. Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)

The ALJ failed, in the first instance, to address all the factors she was required to consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and § 416.927(c). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Unless we give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”) (emphasis added); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c) (same). Although the ALJ’s decision indicates that she considered some of the required factors, it is not clear that she considered all of them, or if she did, how and to what extent those factors led to her decision to give Dr. Gorton’s and Ms. Philips’s opinions little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and relevant evidence, explain the weight assigned to each medical opinion, and consider listed factors including the examining relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Keplar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(b), (c)

In evaluating an individual’s disability claim, an ALJ “must consider all medical opinions in a claimant’s case record, together with other relevant evidence.” ... If a doctor’s statement rises to the level of a “medical opinion,” an ALJ must “state with particularity” the weight given to that opinion and the reasons therefor. ... In rendering this determination, the ALJ must consider: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s area of specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). While the ALJ is required to consider each of these factors, he need not explicitly address them in his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires adjudicators to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Bischoff v. SSA · filed 2019-09-30(c)

The Social Security Administration looks at certain factors in considering the weight they give to any medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The six factors used in determining the weight of a medical opinion are examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. Id. When determining how much weight to assign the opinion of a non-treating source, there needs to be an examination of the factors provided in the regulations, such as how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole. See Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider six factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require a separate step-by-step discussion of each factor if the decision shows that all six were considered.

Miller v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-30(c)(1)-(6)

An adequate 1527 analysis refers to the proper balancing test to be used when analyzing the treating source opinion to decide whether a person is disabled. C.F.R. § 404.1527. There is no requirement that the ALJ discuss all six factors under the rule, however, it must be clear that all six factors were at least be considered. The six required factors an ALJ must consider when weighing medical opinions are: (1) whether the medical professional examined the claimant; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length of time and the nature and extent of the relationship; (3) supporting medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the medical opinion with the entire record; (5) medical specializations; and (6) other relevant factors. C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). But there is no need for “a step-by-step analysis of each factor.” Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 785 (6th Cir. 2017). ... The Court finds that the ALJ considered the length and nature of Dr. Kloska’s treatment notes by discussing the doctor’s treatment history and agrees with the Magistrate Judge, that the ALJ considered all the other factors (Dr. Kloska’s examination, Miller’s relationship with Dr. Kloska, relevant supporting evidence, the consistency of Dr. Kloska’s opinion with the overall record, and the medical specialties of Drs. Scharf and Naumann). Miller’s fifth objection is overruled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate and assign weight to medical opinions, which are statements from acceptable medical sources reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment and its effects.

Britt v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(a)(1), (c)

However, the ALJ is required to assign weight to medical opinions, not medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Medical opinions are defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [plaintiff’s] impairment(s), including [plaintiff’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [plaintiff] can still do despite impairment(s), and [plaintiff’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence and weigh them using factors including examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations; the same factors apply when evaluating an opinion from a nonacceptable medical source.

O'Connell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(a), (b), (c), (f)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers medical opinions “together with the rest of the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). The ALJ considers the following factors to determine the weight to assign any opinion assessing a claimant’s RFC: (1) whether the source has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (3) the extent to which the relevant evidence, “particularly medical signs and laboratory findings,” supports the opinion; (4) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is related to the source’s area of specialty; and (6) other factors “which tend to support or contradict the opinion.” ... The ALJ noted that as a licensed social worker, Therapist Ogea is not an acceptable medical source under the regulations (but an ALJ must still evaluate nonacceptable source’s opinions using the same factors as an acceptable medical source’s opinions). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 404.1527(a), (f), 416.902(a), 416.927(a), (f). ... The ALJ could discount Therapist Ogea’s opinion based on inconsistency with the treatment records and O’Connell’s activities of daily living. The ALJ did not err in assigning Therapist Ogea’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and explain the rationale for the weight assigned to it so that the decision can receive meaningful judicial review.

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

When determining an individual’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all the evidence of the record and, regardless of its source, “evaluate every medical opinion . . . receive[d].” Burnett, 220 F.3d at, 121 (citations omitted; 20. C.F.R §§ 404.1527(c), 404.1545(a)(3); see also SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374182 at *2 (“RFC is assessed by adjudicators at each level of the administrative review process based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including information about the individual's symptoms and any ‘medical source statements’ . . . ”).) ... It is the duty of the ALJ to explain the rationale for the weight afforded to each medical opinion, as this allows for meaningful judicial review. Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999). ... Here, the ALJ considered and weighed six (6) medical opinions of record. In assessing Dr. Levin’s opinion, the ALJ found that it was inconsistent with the benign findings reported by independent examining physicians, largely related to the period post-dating the lapse of plaintiff’s insured status, and was completed after his treating relationship with the plaintiff had ended. Accordingly, as articulated in the R&R, the ALJ sufficiently explained his reasons for affording limited weight to the assessment of Dr. Levin.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the ALJ to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, support, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization when evaluating medical opinions.

Earp v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-26(d)

“In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ considers many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether the opinion is amply supported, whether the opinion is consistent with the record and the doctor’s specialization.” Kelly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 401 F. App’x 403, 407 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) & 416.927(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the SSA to evaluate every medical opinion and directs the weighing of opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency, specialization, and supportability.

Larsen v. Saul · filed 2019-10-07(c)

“Regardless of its source, [the SSA] will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s].” ... Factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion include: (1) the examining or treatment relationship; (2) the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the physician’s area of specialization; (4) the supportability of the physician’s opinion through relevant evidence; and (5) other relevant factors, such as the physician’s degree of familiarity with the SSA’s disability process and with other information in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider the medical opinion's treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and the doctor's specialization, giving greater weight to opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Sutterfield v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-10-25(c), (c)(4)

The ALJ should consider, among other things, the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and doctor, the length of the treatment, the supportability and consistency of the evidence, and the specialization of the doctor. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). More weight is generally given to opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole. Id. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Therefore, the court finds that the ALJ had substantial evidence for her determination that Dr. Wiatrak’s opinion should be given little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate how much evidence a non-examining source considered when assessing that source's opinion.

James Elsey, II v. Saul · filed 2019-10-28(c)(3)

The regulations require that an ALJ evaluate the degree to which a non-examining source considers the evidence, not that a failure to consider all evidence requires the source to be discounted. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an administrative law judge to evaluate every medical opinion.

Linton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-28(c)

An ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (emphasis added); it “is not proper for the ALJ to simply pick and choose . . . only such evidence that supports [their] determination, without affording consideration to evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims.” Sutherland v. Barnhart, 322 F. Supp. 2d 282, 289 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally favors examining-source opinions, and section 404.1527(c)(3) directs the ALJ to weigh an opinion according to its supporting evidence and explanation and its consideration of pertinent evidence.

Dantzler v. Colvin · filed 2019-10-28(c)(1), (c)(3)

Regarding the evaluation of opinion evidence, regulations provide that more weight is generally given to an examining source than to a non-examining source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1). They also provide that [tlhe more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, 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. Furthermore, because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions. We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Importantly, an ALJ must analyze all probative evidence and set out the reasons for his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s statement reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, or physical or mental restrictions.

DeLeon v. Saul · filed 2019-10-31(a)(1)

impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”60 Here, the ALJ reasonably considered the joint finding as to Plaintiff’s “borderline” general cognitive ability and ability to sustain attention, concentration, and mental control to be a medical opinion. ... The ALJ’s decision to discount the “borderline” opinion because it was inconsistent with the record, including largely normal mental status findings and the inconsistent examining opinion of Dr. Billings, who found that Plaintiff could work so long as she did not have any public contacts, is a reasonable weighing of the joint opinion. Plaintiff failed to establish error in this regard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-05(c)

An ALJ’s failure to address medical source opinions in her determination is not harmless error. Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). Here, the ALJ failed to provide Dr. Burdge’s opinion any consideration, and gave no reasons for doing so. This was harmful error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions, explain the rationale for deciding whom to credit, and consider consistency when evaluating those opinions.

HEDGLIN v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-11-05

In accordance with the Regulations, the ALJ is charged with the responsibility of weighing all of the medical opinion evidence in determining whom to credit and he must explain his rationale for doing so. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). ... Consistency is a valid reason for crediting or discrediting evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§416.927, 404.1527 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating physicians' opinions more weight than examining physicians' opinions, and examining physicians' opinions more weight than non-examining physicians' opinions; an ALJ may consider the explanation and consistency of an opinion when weighing it and may discount an opinion from an other source for germane reasons.

Choate v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-06(c)(3)-(4), (f)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a non-examining physician’s. ... An ALJ may appropriately consider the amount of explanation a medical source provides for a stated opinion, and that opinion’s consistency with the source’s records and the record as a whole. ... The consistency of an opinion with the record as a whole is a specific and legitimate factor for the ALJ to consider. ... An ALJ may discount a non-acceptable medical source’s opinion by providing reasons “germane” to each witness for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, and specialization.

Poling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-06(c), (d), (f)

The ALJ’s analysis did not, however, consider any of the enumerated factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Such an omission contravenes the explicit instructions of the Commissioner’s own regulations and rulings, which require the ALJ to weigh the opinions of non-treating physicians under the delineated factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), (f); Social Security Ruling 96-6p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 3, at *5. This error alone merits reversal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)'s opinion-weighing factors apply to opinions from 'other sources' in the same manner as they apply to opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Anglemyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-08(d)

However, even if the opinion is not a treating opinion, but rather an opinion written by an “other source,” the opinion must still be discussed and analyzed properly. The same factors from 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d) apply to “other sources” in the same way they apply to acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions with the other relevant evidence and to evaluate every opinion when determining disability.

Tomaszewski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-08(b), (c)

According to the regulations, an ALJ “will always consider the medical opinions in [a claimant’s] case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence” in determining whether a claimant is disabled, and “will evaluate every medical opinion” received. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), (c), 416.927(b), (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) directs an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion using the listed examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Millan v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-12(c)(1)-(6)

When evaluating and weighing Mr. Lorence’s opinion, the ALJ properly focused on the relevant factors listed in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416(c)(1)-(6). Applying the factors to the evidence cited gave the ALJ “good reasons” to give Mr. Lorence’s opinion partial weight. SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions with the other relevant evidence and to evaluate every opinion when determining disability.

Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-13(b), (c)

The ALJ did not address Mr. Uslan’s opinion. “The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti, 533 F.3d 1035 at 1041; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) and (c). However, the ALJ “need not discuss all evidence presented.” Vincent, 739 F.3d 1393 at 1394-1395. The ALJ “may not reject ‘significant probative evidence’ without explanation.” Flores, 49 F.3d 562 at 570-571 (quoting Vincent, 739 F.2d at 1395). The “ALJ’s written decision must state reasons for disregarding [such] evidence.” Flores, 49 F.3d at 571. Here, Mr. Uslan offered significant, probative evidence of Plaintiff’s limitations in his opinion. The ALJ failed to mention Mr. Uslan’s opinion at all. Accordingly, the ALJ did not meet his burden of providing germane reasons for rejecting Mr. Uslan’s opinion. Thus, the ALJ erred, and had he properly considered Mr. Uslan’s opinion, the ultimate disability determination may have changed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including examination and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradictory factors; a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Magness v. Saul · filed 2019-11-14(c)

All medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, but is not inherently entitled to it. ... A treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating sources more weight than examining and nonexamining sources and requires the ALJ to consider the regulatory factors that matter to the decision, but not expressly discuss every factor.

Gloege, Christopher v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-11-14(c)

Regulations in effect when Gloege filed his application for benefits provided that, if all other considerations were equal, treating sources should receive the greatest weight, followed by examining sources, then followed by nonexamining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ should explain any deviations from this hierarchy. Id. ... But the ALJ wasn’t required to expressly weigh each factor so long as he considered those that were important to the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an adjudicator to give more weight to a medical opinion that is supported by relevant evidence and better explained.

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

True as that may be, the ALJ is nonetheless permitted to consider the degree of support a medical opinion has from objective medical evidence, which in this case, were Dr. Holland’s treatment notes as neither he, nor Plaintiff, cited to any other evidence for the basis of his conclusions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, 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 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical-source opinion, consider the listed factors including examination or treatment, and explain the weight assigned when the opinion may affect the outcome.

KOCHERT v. SAUL · filed 2019-11-20(c), (f)(2)

The ALJ must evaluate every opinion she receives from a medical source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1)(b). The ALJ’s assessment must explicitly consider all of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including whether the medical professional has examined or treated the claimant. Id.; see also Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (remanding where the ALJ “said nothing regarding this required checklist of factors”). The ALJ must explain the weight given to these medical opinions, “or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a non-treating source opinion for supportability and does not give special significance to administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner, such as whether a claimant is disabled.

McConnell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-11-21(c), (d)(1)

Here, the ALJ’s assignment of some weight to portions of Dr. Bibby’s opinion, and little weight to the assessed social and adaption limitations, is supported by substantial evidence, as the ALJ appropriately detailed how the opinion was inconsistent with the longitudinal record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (directing that an ALJ evaluates a non-treating source opinion by considering the supportability of the opinion). ... Opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as whether a claimant is “disabled,” are not considered medical opinions “because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). Thus, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, regardless of the opinion’s source, “will not be given any special significance . . . .” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a medical opinion, but the ALJ need not expressly discuss each factor individually if the record shows consideration of the opinion’s consistency with and support in the evidence.

Collings v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-11-25(c)

While an ALJ is required to consider the § 404.1527(c) factors, the ALJ is not required to make an express statement that he considered all of the factors nor take each factor one-by-one, instead the record must reflect that the ALJ considered whether the opinion was consistent with and supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider relevant opinion-weighing factors and explain the weight given so a claimant or subsequent reviewer can follow the reasoning.

Byrem v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-25(f)(1), (c), (f)(2)

The ALJ also should consider the same factors, if relevant, to evaluate the opinions of both non-acceptable and acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... The ALJ “should explain the weight given to opinions from [medical] sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ's] reasoning.” Id. § 404.1527(f)(2). ... Furthermore, the ALJ never stated that she gave little weight to PA-C Kenney’s opinions because they conflicted with Dr. Whitehead’s. In fact, she never specified the portion of the record with which PA-C Kenney’s opinions were inconsistent.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) directs the adjudicator to explain the weight given to opinions from other sources or otherwise make the reasoning traceable when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Northwick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-26(f)(2)

A nurse practitioner is not an “acceptable medical source,” but can provide a medical opinion as to the severity of a claimant’s impairments and how they affect a claimant’s ability to work. ... An ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment, including its symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Amparo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-02(a)(2)

Under the applicable regulations, medical opinions are “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite your impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Considering this, Dr. Raju’s notes contain medical opinions. This argument is inapposite, however, as I find the ALJ properly considered them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, including a treating physician’s opinion, and consider relevant factors in determining its weight.

Hawkins v. Saul · filed 2019-12-03(c)

“[T]he ALJ was required to ‘evaluate every medical opinion’ presented to him, ‘[r]egardless of its source.’” Brown, 873 F.3d at 271 (internal quotation marks omitted). This is particularly true where, as here, the opinion originates from Hawkins’ treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (discussing relevant factors in determining weight to be given medical opinions); Brown, 873 F.3d at 255-56 (discussing treating source rule). And because the symptoms and limitations endorsed by Dr. Ezeigbo were, in certain material respects, more severe than those found by the ALJ, we cannot conclude that the ALJ’s failure to discuss Dr. Ezeigbo’s opinion was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating consulting and nonexamining medical opinions to consider the regulation's relevant factors.

Miller v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-12-03(c)

The ALJ must “evaluate” these opinions, and in doing so, must consider the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c), the same factors used to analyze the opinion of a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and the physician’s specialization.

Reynolds v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-06(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Pang’s opinion because the ALJ failed to consider the factors such as the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, and specialization of the physician (20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, which may sometimes outweigh opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-10(f)

An ALJ must consider all opinions, including those from non-acceptable medical sources, which may in some cases even outweigh the opinions of acceptable medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). ... The fact that Ms. Gaebler was a non-acceptable medical source was not a germane reason to discount her opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and adequately explain the reasoning supporting the findings on which the decision rests.

Gorton v. Social Security · filed 2019-12-12(c)

Nevertheless, administrative law judges are required to evaluate every medical opinion they receive, and among their legal obligations is “the duty to adequately explain [their] reasoning in making the findings on which [their] ultimate decision rests.” Klemens v. Berryhill, 703 F. App'x 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits the ALJ to give appropriate weight to medical opinions, but a physician's opinion does not bind the ALJ on the ultimate disability or residual-functional-capacity determination.

SCOTT v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-12-13(e)(1)

Determining a claimant’s RFC is an administrative task to be performed by the ALJ. See Chandler v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011). As the Chandler court explained: The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 404.1546(c). Although treating and examining physician opinions often deserve more weight than the opinions of doctors who review records, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), “[t]he law is clear ... that the opinion of a treating physician does not bind the ALJ on the issue of functional capacity.” 667 F.3d at 361 (quoting Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 197 n.2 (3d Cir. 2011)). Thus, an ALJ is not bound by the specific functional ratings set by a physician in a medical source form.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a physician's report controlling weight to examine the specified factors when weighing the medical opinion.

Yarrusso v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-02(c)

Additionally, the ALJ failed to address the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) in discrediting Dr. Javed’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require consideration of all medical opinions, including examining-provider opinions, while making provider-visit frequency a relevant factor in assigning weight but not enough by itself to reject an opinion after one examination.

Perez v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-12-17(b), (c)

The number of visits a claimant had with a particular provider is a relevant factor in assigning weight to an opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, the fact that an evaluator examined Plaintiff one time is not a legally sufficient basis for rejecting the opinion. The regulations direct that all opinions, including the opinions of examining providers, should be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment, including its symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Cordeiro v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-20(a)(1)

First, the Commissioner argues that Dr. Wold’s opinion is not a “medical opinion” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The Court disagrees. According to the regulations, “[m]edical opinions are statements ... . . . that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” Id. § 404.1527(a)(1) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including examination, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization; greater consistency supports greater weight under subsection (c)(4).

Maggart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-23(c), (c)(4)

An ALJ considers several factors when evaluating the opinion of a non-treating medical source, including whether the source examined the claimant, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record, and the specialization of the medical source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... However, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight an ALJ will give to that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Sabahi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-27(c)(4)

Given the inconsistency of Dr. Grinberg’s opinion with the record as a whole, the Court finds it is a legitimate reason to reject the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (inconsistency with the record is a specific and appropriate reason for discounting a medical opinion); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c) (when evaluating opinions, ALJ appropriately considers supportability, consistency with evidence in the record, and factors that tend to support or undermine the opinion, among other things).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider regulatory factors including the opinion's supportability and consistency with the record.

Snyder v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-27(c)

Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ “failed to evaluate any of the factors set out in the regulations” when rejecting the opinions of Drs. Moore and Bailey. (ECF No. 14:6). But the Court disagrees, as the ALJ clearly relied on: (1) the degree to which the opinions were supported by relevant evidence (the x-ray evidence) and (2) the consistency between the opinions and the record as a whole (the April 26, 2016 office visit).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, which may sometimes outweigh opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Harty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-30(f)

An ALJ must consider all opinions, including those from non-acceptable medical sources, which may in some cases even outweigh the opinions of acceptable medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be weighed using all listed regulatory factors when a treating-source opinion is not given controlling weight.

Damian v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-12-31(c)

If a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the medical opinions will be weighed using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source and to consider relevant opinions under the applicable evaluation rules.

Frost v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-07(c), (f)

An ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing medical opinions, an ALJ may consider the duration of the treatment relationship and the number of patient visits.

Hinds v. Saul · filed 2020-01-09(c)(2)(ii)

An ALJ may consider treatment duration and the number of patient visits when weighing medical opinions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 637 (7th Cir. 2013), and Hinds has not explained why the ALJ’s determination here was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, and to give specific reasons for the weight assigned.

Washington v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-10(c)

Plaintiff is correct that, for an examining physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... The ALJ’s finding that the record supports Dr. Goldstein’s opinion that the Plaintiff could perform light work activities during the relevant time period considers the relevant regulatory factors and is a “good” reason for assigning the opinion “significant weight.” Likewise, the ALJ’s finding that Dr. D’Arcy’s opinion was “markedly inconsistent with the medical evidence” is a “good” reason for according the opinion “very little weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to discount an examining physician’s opinion after considering the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialty, and other supporting or detracting factors.

Gutierrez v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2020-01-13(c)

An ALJ may dismiss or discount an examining physician’s medical opinion after evaluating the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and § 416.927(c). Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 2012). Those factors include the nature, extent, frequency, and length of the treatment relationship; the supportability of the medical opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; whether the opinion relates to the physician’s specialty; and other factors that tend to support or detract from the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed regulatory factors.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-14(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source medical opinion to first decide whether it merits controlling weight and, if not, weigh it under the regulatory factors while giving specific reasons for the assigned weight.

Sanchez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-15(c)(2)–(6)

When presented with a treating medical source opinion, as here, the ALJ first must determine whether the opinion is entitled to “controlling weight,” and if not, “treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in § 404.1527.” ... While an ALJ is not required to discuss each factor, she “must give good reasons . . . for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, reasons that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reason for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mayfield v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-13(c)

Medical opinions must be weighed using the factors set forth in the pertinent regulations, i.e., (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship, (3) supportability,15 (4) consistency,16 (5) specialization, and (6) other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to opinions from examining sources and to specialists addressing issues within their specialty.

Pope v. Saul · filed 2020-01-22(c)(1), (c)(5)

While Dr. Womontree’s opinion included limitations, she never examined Claimant and is considered a reviewing mental health opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). (“Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.”) Here, the ALJ gave Dr. Prescott’s opinion only partial weight with no logical bridge built to demonstrate why Dr. Prescott’s opinion was afforded such weight. ... In addition, Dr. Prescott is a mental health specialist, and the internal medicine examination focused on the physical aspects of Claimant’s health. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(S) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”) ... The ALJ chose to accept Dr. Pochyly’s opinion on Claimant’s mental health over Dr. Prescott’s opinion without any consideration of their differing specialties as required by the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-23(c)

In assigning weight, the ALJ considers whether the source examined the claimant; the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship (if any); the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; the source’s specialization; and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675. If the ALJ discredits a controverted opinion of a treating or examining source, the ALJ must provide “specific and legitimate” reasons supported by substantial evidence. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012. An ALJ satisfies the “substantial evidence” requirement by providing a “detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating [her] interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Id. An ALJ may reject an opinion that is brief, conclusory, and unsupported by objective medical findings. Burrell v. Colvin, 775 F.3d 1133, 1140 (9th Cir. 2014); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, 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 requires an ALJ to apply the regulatory factors when evaluating medical opinions.

Schunke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-23

The ALJ is reminded that she must apply the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement from an acceptable medical source reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including what the claimant can still do and the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions.

Underhill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-24(a)(1)

With respect to ALJ Adams’ first reason for discounting Dr. Rezvani’s opinion, Social Security regulations define medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... However, given that Dr. Rezvani did not provide an assessment of Plaintiff’s functional limitations, it is questionable whether the results of his examination qualify as a “medical opinion” under Social Security regulations. Even if Dr. Rezvani’s evaluation did qualify as a medical opinion, the fact that it does not contain an assessment of Plaintiff’s functional limitations makes it far less useful to the ALJ in reaching a disability determination. Thus, the Court cannot say that ALJ Adams erred in assigning little weight to Dr. Rezvani’s evaluation on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, and whether the opinion is supported by and consistent with the record.

Moten v. Saul · filed 2020-01-27(c)

The rules governing an ALJ’s evaluation of a treating source’s opinion require the ALJ to consider the length of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, the doctor’s specialization, and whether the opinion is supported by and consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir.2009). ... Here, the ALJ skipped over the required factors governing the weighing of medical opinions and gave reasons for discounting Dr. Bongard’s opinion that failed to provide a “logical bridge” between the record and her conclusion. Absent from the ALJ’s decision to discard Dr. Bongard’s opinions is any discussion of the length and frequency of his treating relationship with Plaintiff, his specialization in psychiatry, and his knowledge of Plaintiff’s impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions by source, generally giving more weight to treating than examining and examining than nonexamining opinions, while considering consistency, explanation, the treatment relationship, and specialty.

Ekarius Donte Mills v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-28(c)

Three types of physicians may offer opinions in Social Security cases: those who treated the plaintiff, those who examined but did not treat the plaintiff, and those who did neither. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than an examining physician’s opinion, which is generally entitled to more weight than a nonexamining physician’s. ... The weight accorded to a physician’s opinion depends on whether it is consistent with the record and accompanied by adequate explanation, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and the doctor’s specialty, among other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions under the regulatory factors, but does not require an explicit discussion of every factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Goettel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-14(c)

Further, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ properly evaluated Ms. Murphy’s opinions. (Dkt. No. 9 at 16-18.) Where an ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulations is clear, she is not required to explicitly go through each and every factor of the regulation. Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App'x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (plaintiff challenged ALJ’s failure to review explicitly each factor provided for in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), the Court held that “no such slavish recitation of each and every factor [was required] where the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation [was] clear”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-10(d)

An ALJ should consider “all medical opinions received regarding the claimant.” See Spielberg v. Barnhart, 367 F. Supp. 2d 276, 281 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)8). When evaluating medical opinions, regardless of their source, the ALJ should consider the following factors: (1) the frequency of examination and length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the physician’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (5) whatever other factors tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ evaluating an opinion from an “other source” to consider treatment length, consistency, supportability, and relevant medical specialty or expertise.

Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-10(c)

To evaluate other source opinions, an ALJ may apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the adjudicator to consider factors such as examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization when assigning weight to an acceptable medical opinion.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11(c)

When reviewing acceptable medical opinions, the regulations outline several factors that are considered when determining what weight to assign to the opinions, including examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider factors including the source's treating or examining relationship, support for the opinion, and consistency with the record when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Hyde v. Saul · filed 2020-02-11(c)

In deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors including, e.g., the treating or examining relationship of the opinion’s source and the claimant; how well the opinion is supported; and how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider factors including examination, treatment, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Drinka, Donald v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-02-12(c)

Moreover, even if the court were to construe Dr. Puckett’s conclusion as a medical opinion, the ALJ properly assessed it pursuant to the regulations. Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the following factors are to be considered in evaluating a medical opinion: (1) whether the doctor examined the claimant; (2) whether the doctor treated the claimant; (3) whether the doctor presented evidence to support his opinion; (4) whether the doctor’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether the doctor is a specialist; and (6) other factors.