20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining or treatment relationship, the evidence supporting the opinion, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

STRICKLAND v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-02-10(c)

In evaluating medical opinions, an ALJ considers numerous factors, including whether the doctor examined or treated the claimant, ... the evidence the doctor presents to support his opinion, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-02-13(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.

A medical opinion from a co-signing acceptable medical source must be evaluated under the regulation's medical-opinion criteria even when the source is not a treating source.

Connolly v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-18(c)

Here, the February 2016 opinion was cosigned by Dr. McCleary, who is a psychologist, and thus an acceptable medical source under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a)(2), even if she is not a treating source. Given that Dr. McCleary signed the February 2016 Opinion, it is not clear why it should not also be considered her opinion, and thus evaluated as a medical opinion from an acceptable medical source under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, including opinions from examining physicians and psychologists.

Montijo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-19(c)

An ALJ must consider the opinions of examining physicians and psychologists. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”); Lester, 81 F.3d at 830.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency, and source specialization.

Hennon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-19(c)

First, although Plaintiff objects to Dr. Viscomi being labeled a “mere primary physician” (Tr. 21), this statement speaks to one of the required regulatory factors – the specialization of the treating source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“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.”). Moreover, in the same sentence, the ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Viscomi’s “ongoing, established relationship” (Tr. 21) with Plaintiff weighed initially in favor of his opinion, again addressing a required regulatory factor. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) (factors of length and nature of treatment relationship).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 bars controlling weight for an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source and directs the adjudicator to weigh it using the examining or treating relationship, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

Aldrich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(a)(2), (c), (f)(1)-(2), (c)(1)-(c)(6)

Further, despite her ongoing treatment relationship with Plaintiff, Ms. Johnson’s opinion cannot be given controlling weight for the same reason. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) and (c). The applicable regulations do, however, direct that Ms. Johnson’s opinion be weighed based on whether there is an examining or treating relationship, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, whether she is a specialist, and other factors that tend to support or contradict her opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) and (2) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) through (c)(6)). When an opinion is inconsistent with the medical source’s own treatment records the Administrative Law Judge is not required to credit that opinion. See Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 1993); Villarreal v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 818 F.2d 461, 463 (6th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes treating, examining, and non-examining medical opinions and does not give opinions from other sources the same deference as opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Hopkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-24(c)(1)-(2), (f)

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). ... “Other sources” for opinions—such as nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, therapists, teachers, social workers, chiropractors, and other nonmedical sources—are not entitled to the same deference as acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as a statement from an acceptable medical source judging the nature and severity of an impairment and the claimant’s remaining abilities and restrictions.

Elrod v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-02-24

A medical opinion is a “statement[] 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. Her treating physicians did not provide a medical opinion defined by the regulations, so this argument is meritless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical-opinion evidence, decide which opinions to credit, and explain the rationale for that decision.

VETTERLY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-24

In accordance with the Regulations, an 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the physician’s examination and treatment relationship, the opinion’s support and consistency, the physician’s specialization, and other relevant factors.

Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-25(c)(1)–(6)

In evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ considers: (1) whether the physician examined the claimant; (2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; (3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the physician’s specialization; and (6) “other factors,” such as “the amount of understanding [a physician has] of [the Commissioner’s] disability programs and their evidentiary requirements.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits a medical opinion to receive significant weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Lumpkin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-25(d)(2)

However, Psychologist Rafael Mora de Jesus, Ph.D. did not review any medical records in forming his opinion and his evaluation is not supported by the objective medical evidence of record. Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (“A medical opinion may be given significant weight only if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’ 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as statements reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment, including what a person can still do despite the impairment and the person’s physical or mental restrictions.

Cuyson v. Saul · filed 2020-02-26(a)(2)

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not err in determining that a questionnaire completed by Cuyson’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Cecile Soliven, was not a Medical Source Statement or a medical opinion. The questionnaire did not express Dr. Soliven’s judgment as to the severity of Cuyson’s impairments or what he could do despite his impairments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (2012) (defining “medical opinions” as statements that “reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including . . . what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record.

Reiff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-21(b)-(c)

Nonetheless, the ALJ is required to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization, while an opinion that a claimant can or cannot work is a dispositive issue reserved to the ALJ and receives no special significance.

McCain v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-02-28(c), (d)(1), (d)(3)

“The ALJ may consider many factors when weighing medical evidence, including the claimant’s relationship with the examining or treating physician, whether a medical opinion is well supported, whether a medical opinion is consistent with the claimant’s records, and a doctor’s specialization.” ... An opinion as to whether a claimant is able to work is not a medical opinion, even if offered by a treating source, but rather a dispositive finding for the ALJ to make. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1); Kelly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 401 F. App’x 403, 407 (11th Cir. 2010). It is entitled to no special significance. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1) and (3), 416.927(d)(1) and (3); Kelly, 401 F. App’x at 407.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements reflecting judgments about a claimant’s impairments or limitations as medical opinions that the ALJ must evaluate and assign weight to, although an omission may be harmless when the opinion was considered and caused no prejudice.

Hunter v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-02(a)(1), (c), (c)(2)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” ... Dr. Martinez did not assign function by function limitations in the MSE (i.e., Dr. Martinez did not explicitly opine that Plaintiff had mild, moderate, marked, or extreme limitations in certain areas of mental functioning). However, because Dr. Martinez did provide judgments regarding Plaintiff’s mental limitations, the Court considers the MSE to be medical opinion evidence. ... Here, the ALJ erred by failing to assign explicit weight to Dr. Martinez’s opinion. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ’s failure to assign a specific weight to the MSE was harmless error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, and by a better explanation.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-03(c)(3)

“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the Commissioner] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). In addition, “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight [the Commissioner] will give that medical opinion.” Id. Here, Dr. Bitza’s opinion consists of brief comments on a check-box form, and he provided no clinical or laboratory findings to support his opinion other than to write “pain L knee.” (AR 342).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires adjudicators to evaluate medical opinions using specified factors and generally give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Theetge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(a)(2), (c), (c)(2)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, nature, and extent of the 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence); ... As an initial matter, the Court must determine whether Dr. Elmore was a treating source, as opposed to a non-examining source as the Commissioner suggests. A treating source is a physician, psychologist, or other acceptable medical source who provides medical treatment or evaluation to the claimant and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). ... Accordingly, Dr. Elmore is not a treating source, but is a non-examining source whose opinion is not entitled to any special deference.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require a formulaic discussion of every factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the rule are clear.

Mace v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-03(c)

The Second Circuit has long recognized the ‘treating physician rule’ set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion using the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, and gives no significant weight to a medical source’s conclusion on the ultimate issue of disability because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Bourcier v. Saul · filed 2020-02-28(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c), (d)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ considers several factors in determining what weight it will be given. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. Those factors include the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination” and the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii)). Additional factors relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of any medical opinion, not limited to that of a treating physician, include: (1) the supportability of the opinion; (2) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the specialization of the treating or examining source; and (4) any other factors that are brought to the ALJ’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. ... Moreover, Dr. Huddleston’s conclusory statement that Plaintiff was unable to work was not entitled to significant weight because the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Rhodus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-06(d)(1)-(d)(6)

In weighing differing medical opinion evidence, an ALJ considers the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). These factors include: “(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion, with respect to relevant evidence such as medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician rendering the opinion; and (6) any other factor raised by the applicant.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Pierson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-06(c)

In doing so, the ALJ must assess the opinion under a series of factors which include: (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. at 1331-1332 (internal quotation marks omitted); , 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... In support of his decision to give no weight to Dr. Wigdor’s opinion, the ALJ considered the proper factors. First, the ALJ considered the length and frequency as well as the nature and extent of Mr. Pierson’s treatment relationship with Dr. Wigdor by noting that the treatment spanned just five months and the record does not reflect that he saw Plaintiff in a private, one-on-one context. (TR. 49). The ALJ also considered whether Dr. Wigdor’s opinion was supported by relevant evidence, citing the lack of mental status findings regarding Mr. Pierson in Dr. Wigdor’s notes—including the absence of descriptions of “any symptoms and/or limitations relevant to [Plaintiff] or even any complaints that [Plaintiff] might have expressed.” (TR. 49). He also noted that Dr. Wigdor’s significant limitations were internally inconsistent, as he also found that Plaintiff could manage his own benefits. (TR. 49).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh a non-controlling treating physician's opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, support and consistency, and specialization.

Leyva v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-09(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cwiklinski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-09(c)

An ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion he receives, regardless of its source.” Pena v. Chater, 968 F. Supp. 930, 937 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) directs ALJs to consider how familiar a medical source is with the other information in the claimant’s case record when weighing the source’s opinion.

Pribble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(c)(6)

This was a legitimate reason to discount Dr. Bailey’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6) (in weighing medical opinions, ALJs will consider “extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record”); Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1217; Cox v. Astrue, 2012 WL 3862135, at *8 (D. Or. 2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor, so long as the ALJ gives sufficient reasons for the weight assigned.

O'Keefe v. Saul · filed 2020-10-27(d)

Courts have repeatedly found that “[w]hile an ALJ must consider all of the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(d), he need not explicitly address each of the factors.” ... Here, the ALJ explained that he considered the opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR § 404.1527. Tr. 20. Therefore, in reviewing the ALJ’s decision, the Court does not assess whether the ALJ discussed each factor, but rather whether the ALJ articulated sufficient reasons for assigning the opinions little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions under its listed factors, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor when the decision sufficiently explains the evaluation for meaningful judicial review.

Antony v. Saul · filed 2020-01-29(c)

“[A]n ALJ need not explicitly discuss each [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] factor in his decision. . . . Instead, an ALJ need only explain his evaluation of the medical evidence for the district court to meaningfully review whether his reasoning accords with the regulation’s standards.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh non-treating medical opinions using the listed factors, including examination, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Snyder v. Saul · filed 2020-02-03(c)

Instead, the ALJ was required to weigh the non-treating opinions in light of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including whether the source examined the claimant, supportability, consistency, and the doctor’s specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the agency to evaluate every medical opinion using factors including the source relationship, consistency, specialization, supportability, and other relevant considerations.

Gilbert v. Saul · filed 2020-02-04(c)

Factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion include: (1) the examining or treating 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). This section applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider the relevant evidence supporting a medical opinion and its consistency with the record when weighing that opinion.

Cortez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-04(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ explained that she gave little weight to Dr. Washburn’s opinion because it was not supported by objective medical evidence and was not consistent with the longitudinal treatment history discussed earlier in her decision. AR 35. Both lack of supportability and lack of consistency with the record as a whole are valid reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3) (ALJ will consider how much relevant evidence supports a medical opinion as well as the explanation provided for the opinion), (4) (ALJ will consider consistency with the record as a whole), 416.927(c)(3) (same), (4) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be evaluated using the listed regulatory factors, and a treating-source opinion not given controlling weight remains entitled to deference and factor-based weighing.

Slape v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-02-05(c)

Such opinions may not be ignored and, unless a treating source opinion is given controlling weight, all medical opinions will be evaluated by the Commissioner in accordance with factors contained in the regulations. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); ... A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527 and 416.927.” Id. Those factors are: (1) length of treatment relationship and 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly analyze every listed factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Spampinato v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-10(c)

To the extent Plaintiff faults the ALJ for not explicitly analyzing each factor provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), it is well established that “no such slavish recitation of each and every factor” is required “where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear,” as they are here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating-source opinion and give good reasons for the weight assigned, but does not require an express factor-by-factor discussion.

Figueroa v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-03(c)(2)-(6)

While the ALJ did not expressly state how he considered each factor in the decision, the regulations did not require him to do so. To the contrary, the regulations require “only that the decision provide ‘good reasons’ for the weight given to a treating source opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources about the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, residual abilities, and restrictions; subsection (b) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Dalpiaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-09(a)(1), (b)

The Commissioner’s 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(a)(1). Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an administrative law judge to evaluate the extent to which a medical opinion considers all pertinent evidence, including opinions from treating and examining sources.

GRUBBS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-10-11(c)(3)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (an administrative law judge will evaluate the degree to which medical opinions consider all the pertinent evidence, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) permits an ALJ to consider the frequency of examination when evaluating medical opinions.

Moseley v. Saul · filed 2019-10-16(c)(2)(i)

The ALJ did not err in considering “the frequency of examination” in evaluating these medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the SSA to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of the opinion's source.

Johnsamson v. Saul · filed 2019-10-16(c)

“Regardless of its source, [the SSA] will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s].”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) favors medical opinions that are well-supported and consistent with the record as a whole, permitting an ALJ to discount a vague or inconsistent opinion.

Washington, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-16(c)(3)-(4)

She also considered Dr. Anderson’s assessment and found it unpersuasive because it was vague and inconsistent with Washington’s own report of his mental functioning, both of which were proper reasons to discount his opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) (an ALJ will give more weight to an opinion that is well-supported and consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider medical-opinion evidence with other relevant evidence, explain the weight assigned to every medical opinion, and weigh opinions using the listed factors.

Stahlhuth v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-21(b) and (c)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to consider the medical opinion evidence of record together with the other relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given to every medical opinion of record, regardless of its source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), (e)(2)(ii), 416.927(c), (e)(2)(ii). 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 explanations; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of the opinion's source.

Romero v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-05(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) requires the ALJ to weigh all medical opinions, generally favor treating or examining physicians, and consider support, consistency, and the treatment relationship.

Mullen v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-05-22(c)

The ALJ is required to weigh all the medical opinions received, and generally gives more weight to the opinions of treating or examining physicians than to the opinions of physicians that have not treated or examined the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, in weighing medical evidence, the ALJ considers many factors, including whether the opinion is well-supported and consistent with the record, and the length and nature of the relationship between the physician and the claimant. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider specified treatment-relationship, supporting-evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors and explain the weight assigned.

Smith v. Colvin · filed 2018-06-06(c)

In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician's specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must then provide a “sound explanation” for that decision. ... Thus, the ALJ did indeed address the requisite factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion by considering factors including specialization, examination or treatment, evidentiary support, and consistency with the record as a whole.

Belluomini v. Colvin · filed 2018-06-14(c)

The regulations require an ALJ “[to] evaluate every medical opinion” by considering a number of factors, including whether the medical source is a specialist, whether the source examined or treated the claimant, the evidentiary support offered for the medical source’s opinion, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Walker v. Colvin · filed 2018-06-25(c)

In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician's specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires ALJs to consider treating-source opinions, including opinions about a claimant’s ability to work, and to weigh them using factors such as the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Knapp v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-12(c), (e)(1)

The legal question whether a claimant qualifies for benefits is reserved, but when deciding the claimant’s RFC, ALJs must consider a treating physician’s view that the severity of a claimant’s impairments makes her unable to work. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1); Garcia v. Colvin, 741 F.3d 758, 760 (7th Cir. 2013); Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647–48 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Titles II & Xvi: Med. Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to Comm’r, SSR 96-5P, at 5 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996) (explaining that a medical opinion that a claimant is unable to work “must not be disregarded”). While Dr. Kidder’s opinion that Knapp was unable to work was not entitled to controlling weight, it had to be considered. See SSR 96-5P; Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). ... To the extent the ALJ did weigh Dr. Kidder’s opinion, he misapplied the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), which call for considering the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the opinion’s supporting explanation and consistency with other evidence; and any specialty of the physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine the weight of a medical opinion by considering factors including the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, specialization, and other validating or contradictory factors.

Montavon v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-13(c)

Even where an ALJ does not accord controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must determine what weight to give the opinion using the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. When determining what weight to accord a medical opinion, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician's specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors which validate or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a treating-source opinion when it is not well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with substantial evidence, provided the ALJ gives specific, supportable reasons.

Vorce v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-08-14(c)(2)

An ALJ cannot reject the opinion of a “treating source” unless she gives “good reasons” that are “both specific . . . and supportable.” Jenness v. Colvin, 2015 DNH 167, *6 (citations omitted). These “good reasons” are outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). This regulation states that an ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating source if it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques . . . [or] inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the medical source's relationship with the claimant, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Chamberlain v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-08-22(c)

Medical opinions are evaluated based upon the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the extent to which the source provides evidence to support the opinion, the extent the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record, the specialization of the medical source, and other factors including the understanding the source has of the social security system. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to evaluate medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability.

Hoffswell v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-22(c)

The ALJ was required to give controlling weight to Dr. Khaja’s opinion if it “[was] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [was] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... If the ALJ did not give Dr. Khaja’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations required him “to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion” in assessing the doctor’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and requires their evaluation using specified source-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors; an ALJ cannot rely on a state-agency consultant’s opinion based on a significantly incomplete record.

Charles Sumner Scott, IV v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-09-11(a)(1), (c)

“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 impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Medical opinions are evaluated based upon the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the extent to which the source provides evidence to support the opinion, the extent the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record, the specialization of the medical source, and other factors including the understanding the source has of the social security system. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ may rely on the opinions of state agency consultant medical sources based on the same factors used to evaluate other medical opinions. ... Therefore, based on the ALJ’s explanation, the record was significantly incomplete when Dr. Rosenthall did his review and made his assessment in 2013. As a result, the ALJ could not rely on Dr. Rosenthall’s assessment, and substantial evidence is lacking to support the ALJ’s residual functional capacity assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including the source's relationship with the claimant, evidentiary support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

McCarthy v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-10-04(c)

Medical opinions are evaluated based upon the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the extent to which the source provides evidence to support the opinion, the extent the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record, the specialization of the medical source, and other factors including the understanding the source has of the social security system. § 404.1527(c). ... The court agrees that the ALJ erred in dismissing Dr. Duxbury’s opinion based on her specialty. Nevertheless, as the ALJ also noted, Dr. Duxbury’s other medical evidence did not support the severity of mental impairment that she indicated in the Questionnaire. Therefore, despite the error, it was appropriate for the ALJ not to rely on Dr. Duxbury’s opinion as to the severity of mental impairment and to find, instead, that McCarthy did not have a medically determinable severe mental impairment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as examination, treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-11(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) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical-source opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, with an examining source opinion presumptively entitled to more weight than a record-review opinion.

Bryant v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2018-11-23(c)

When evaluating the opinion of any medical source, an ALJ must consider: (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. Goatcher v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir. 1995); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The ALJ must consider “all of the factors set out in” the regulations, mindful that an examining source opinion “is presumptively entitled to more weight than a doctor’s opinion derived from a review of the medical record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Social Security Administration to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of the source.

Ken M. ex rel. Berry M. v. Berryhill · filed 2018-10-31(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)(1)-(6) and (f)(1) require an ALJ to evaluate medical-source opinions using the applicable factors and explain the weight assigned to each opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Montanez v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-26(c)(1)-(6), (f)(1)

In such circumstances, an ALJ must consider opinions by each of these sources using the same factors that are typically used to evaluate the opinions of treating physicians (e.g., physician's area of specialty, whether opinion is supported by objective testing or other evidence of record), and must explain in his decision the weight given to each and the reasons therefor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hewitt v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-25(c), (c)(2)-(c)(6)

In evaluating a claimant’s work-related limitations, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received, regardless of the source. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c). Generally, the ALJ gives more weight to medical opinions from treating sources, “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If the ALJ does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight under section (c), the ALJ applies the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(6) in determining the weight to give the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). These factors include: the nature and extent of the treating relationship; 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 which support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The ALJ will then give good reasons in their notice of determination or decision for the weight given to a treating source's medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ gave two reasons in his decision for the weight given to Dr. Meyerhoff’s opinion: (1) that the opinion, while consistent with the medical evidence of record, did not address all functional limitations of the claimant; and (2) that Dr. Meyerhoff was not able to review the most recent medical evidence. (Id.) These reasons are sufficient to satisfy the ALJ’s obligation to give good reasons for the weight given to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). After review of the record, the Court finds that the ALJ properly assigned little weight to Dr. Meyerhoff’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Wilson v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-30(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.

When a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the opinion must still be evaluated using factors such as the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Touch v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-31(c)(2)

Moreover, as Plaintiff argues in her brief (Dkt. 15), if a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must determine what value the assessment merits (Scott, 647 F.3d at 740), considering a variety of factors, including: (1) the nature and duration of the examining relationship; (2) the length and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which medical evidence supports the opinion; (4) the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the entire record; (5) the physician’s specialization if applicable; and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability of the opinion.

Pazour v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-20(d)(2)

When an ALJ does not give a treating source controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the type, length and nature of the relationship, frequency of examination, specialty, tests performed, and consistency and supportability of the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as a judgment from an acceptable medical source and directs the ALJ to weigh such opinions using factors including the source’s relationship with the claimant, supportability, and consistency.

Gayle A. Bombard v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-03-11(a), (c)

The ALJ analyzes the opinions of state agency consultants, treating sources, and examining sources under the same rubric. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must consider “the examining relationship, treatment relationship (including length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, and nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability of the opinion by evidence in the record, consistency with the medical opinions of other physicians,” along with the doctor’s expertise in the area and any other relevant factors. ... The ALJ addressed Diamond’s assessment in his decision, noting that, as a physician’s assistant, Diamond was not an acceptable medical source and therefore could not offer a medical opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a).2 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) (physician’s assistants not listed among those deemed acceptable medical sources). ... The ALJ was thus within his discretion to give Diamond’s opinion less weight than the opinions of acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received and assign weight to each opinion.

Robinson v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-03-12(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received and assign weight to each opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279-80 (11th Cir. 1987).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including examination, the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, and to apply those factors to examining and nonexamining physicians.

Montgomery v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-27(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 requires an adjudicator evaluating a medical opinion to consider the listed factors, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor when the decision shows the factors were considered.

Lay v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-14(c)

While the ALJ in this case did not explicitly weigh each factor in discussing Dr. Anwar’s opinion, her decision makes clear that she was aware of and considered many of the factors, including Dr. Anwar’s treatment relationship with Phillip, the consistency of his opinion with the record as a whole, the supportability of his opinion, and his specialty in pain management. ... The court may not necessarily agree with the weight the ALJ afforded to Dr. Anwar’s opinion, but its inquiry is limited to whether the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the § 404.1527 factors, see Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of benefits where ALJ discussed only two of the relevant § 404.1527 factors), and built an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider relevant regulatory factors before assigning little weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

White v. Berryhill · filed 2019-04-12(c)

Even if there were sound reasons for refusing to give Dr. Low’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ still erred by assigning her opinions little weight without considering relevant regulatory factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (i.e., length, nature, and extent of treatment relationship; opinion’s consistency with other evidence; explanatory support for the opinion; and any specialty of the treating physician).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, the opinion's support in medical evidence and explanations, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Manuel A. Cruz Machuat v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-02(c)

In deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers, among other things, (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical evidence and explanations; and (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider factors such as the examining and treating relationships, supportability, and consistency, and gives treating opinions greater weight only when they are well-supported and consistent with the record.

Wendorf v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-03(c), (d)

The ALJ examined physician opinions pursuant to factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). This section lists such factors as examining relationship, treating relationship, supportability, and consistency as points of analysis. In allocating weight to opinions, the ALJ referenced each of these factors. (R. at 29.) While treating physician opinions generally receive more weight, this is true only if they are both well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence of the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate specified factors when deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.

Simpler v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-06-18(c)

Social Security regulations provide that, in considering what weight to give any medical opinion, the Commissioner should evaluate: the extent of the examining or treating relationship between the doctor and patient; whether the doctor’s opinion can be supported by medical signs and laboratory findings; whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; the doctor’s specialization; and other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an Administrative Law Judge to evaluate every medical opinion and consider the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when assigning weight.

Sandidge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-21(c)

The regulations require Administrative Law Judges to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In deciding how much weight to accord medical opinions from nontreating and nonexamining sources, Administrative Law Judges considers the examining relationship (or lack thereof), supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors “which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion”.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give it, unless a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight.

Coleman v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-09(c)

“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive. 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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c). ... The undersigned finds that the ALJ articulated specific reasons why Dr. Starkey’s opinion was accorded little weight and substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Copelin v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-15(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional. ... In determining what weight to accord medical opinion, an ALJ must consider: ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... , at 1215, n. 7.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c). ... Thus, the ALJ erred in failing to evaluate and weigh Dr. Perl’s opinion in full, and to explain her reasons for rejecting portions of that opinion while apparently accepting other portions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh a medical source’s opinion based on the source’s relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record.

Hunt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-07-17(c)

The weight the ALJ gives to a medical source’s opinion depends on three factors: (1) the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, (2) the evidence the medical source presents to support his opinion, and (3) the degree of consistency between the medical source’s opinion and the medical evidence in the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)(2). Furthermore, while the ALJ must give the opinion of a treating physician considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary, the ALJ does not owe great weight to the opinion of a consulting physician who examines a claimant only one time. ... Thus, since neither physician is Plaintiff’s treating physician and the evidence provided by both doctors contradicts the medical record as a whole, the overall record provides substantial evidence that the ALJ properly afforded little weight to the consulting physicians’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) and (f) require the ALJ to decide what weight treating and examining doctors’ opinions deserve and explain the reasons for that determination.

McGee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-22(d), (f)

In making that determination, the ALJ must decide which treating and examining doctors’ opinions should receive weight, and explain the reasons for that finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), (f). ... The Court does not find that the ALJ’s decision adequately explains the rationale for discounting Dr. Maya’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s need for an assistive device.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the listed factors, and the reasons for the weight assigned must be sufficiently specific to permit meaningful appellate review.

Gunther v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-17(c)

These factors include: (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. ... Although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor, the reasons stated must be “sufficiently specific” to permit meaningful appellate review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats chiropractors as other sources rather than acceptable medical sources, so an ALJ must consider their opinions but need not give them controlling weight.

Intravia v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-05(d)

A chiropractor is not considered an “acceptable medical source” under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Rather, a chiropractor is an “other source” whose opinion can be evaluated “to show the severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) and how it affects [the claimant’s] ability to function.” ... Thus, the ALJ must consider Dr. DeFrancesco’s opinions, but need not afford them controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion, regardless of its source.

Roe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-06(d)

The regulations also require the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of its source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... Here the ALJ neglected to discuss, evaluate, and weigh a medical opinion from a treating psychologist whose opinion suggests Plaintiff suffers from a more diminished residual functional capacity than the one assigned by the ALJ. The ALJ’s analysis is incomplete. Hence, The Court finds this matter should be remanded to the ALJ for further consideration.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical-source opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion.

Rees v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-06(c)

When evaluating the opinion of any medical source, an ALJ must consider: (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. Kellams v. Berryhill, 696 F. App’x 909, 917 (10th Cir. 2017) (citing Goatcher v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir. 1995); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider an opinion’s consistency with the record when determining the weight to give it.

Durham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-07(c)(4)

As noted above, general consistency with the record is a legitimate factor for an ALJ to consider in weighing the reliability of a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical-opinion evidence when evaluating a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

(SS) Kovalenko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-07(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence when evaluating a disability claim.

(SS) Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-07(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

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, although the ALJ need not expressly discuss each factor; failure to consider any factor independently requires reversal.

Elliott v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-07(c)

The ALJ is required to consider and explain the weight afforded every medical opinion in the record using certain factors, such as the amount of relevant evidence supporting the opinion, the quality of the doctor’s explanation, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the doctor’s familiarity with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). The ALJ need not specifically reference each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Harris v. Colvin, 584 F. App’x 526, 528 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). However, the ALJ’s failure to consider any factor is, on its own, reversible error. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider the quality of a medical opinion's explanation and the source's familiarity with Social Security programs, while a source's statement that a claimant is disabled does not decide disability.

Stevenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(c), (d)(1)

The quality of the explanation provided in a medical opinion is a factor relevant in evaluating the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (2012); ... This is a specific, legitimate reason for giving less weight to the marked and severe limitations assessed by Dr. Marks. ... The regulations provide that the amount of an acceptable source’s knowledge of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements may be considered in evaluating an opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (2012). ... A medical source statement that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” does not require the ALJ to determine the claimant meets the definition of disability. 20 CFR §§ 416.927(d)(1), 404.1527(d)(1) (2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source opinions the greatest weight, gives examining opinions more weight than non-examining opinions, and does not make a treating opinion binding on the ultimate disability determination.

(SS) Twilley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(d)(2)

In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight but it is not binding on the ultimate issue of a disability. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, an examining physician’s opinion is given more weight than the opinion of non-examining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Thus, the courts apply a hierarchy to the opinions offered by physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require an express statement listing every factor.

Witcher v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-09(c)

When analyzing medical opinions and opinions on medical issues, the ALJ must consider various factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the amount of evidence presented by the physician to support the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, whether the opinion was provided by a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty, and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. See Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). However, an “ALJ is not required to make an express statement that she considered all the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c).” Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed based on the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, supportability, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Stallings v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-08-09(c)

These opinions are weighed “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). ... As the Court has already stated, the ALJ is tasked with evaluating the opinion of a consultative examiner based upon, in part, the consistency and supportability of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here, the ALJ properly found that Dr. Blanton’s opinion was in conflict with Plaintiff’s reported daily activities, which the ALJ previously discussed in greater detail in the disability decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require the written decision to discuss each factor expressly.

Vergowven v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-16(c)

ALJs must weigh the medical evidence by considering factors such as (1) the nature of the relationship between the doctor and the patient (e.g., examining, treating, or other), (2) the length and nature of any treating relationship, (3) the degree to which the doctor “presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion,” (4) whether the opinion is consistent with “the record as a whole,” (5) the doctor’s specialization, and (6) “other factors,” such as the doctor’s familiarity with disability benefits programs. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s failure to discuss in his written opinion every § 404.1527 factor’s applicability to Dr. Pickart’s assessment is not legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the case record and state with particularity the weight given to each medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Bruns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-16(b)

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 medical source’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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the listed factors, but does not require expressly discussing each factor when the reasons given are sufficiently specific for meaningful appellate review.

Mulzet v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-16(d)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). In determining what weight to accord any medical opinion, an ALJ must consider: ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(iii). Although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor, the reasons stated must be “sufficiently specific” to permit meaningful appellate review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the factors specified by the Social Security Administration.

Wilson v. Saul · filed 2019-08-19(c)

The ALJ failed to discuss Dr. Hill’s opinion or assign a level of weight to it. The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received according to a list of factors set forth by the Social Security Administration. 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 every medical opinion, consider the relevant weighing factors, and explain the assigned weight and reasons with sufficient specificity.

Horton v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-19(d)

“An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional.” Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 401.1527(d)). ... The ALJ must consider the following factors when evaluating all medical opinions: ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Neither the regulations nor the Court require a factor-by-factor recitation, but the ALJ’s findings must be “sufficiently specific to make clear” the weight assigned to the source opinion and the reasons for that weight. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) entitles a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion to controlling weight and requires the ALJ to weigh the prescribed factors and adequately explain the weight assigned if controlling weight is denied.

DeGrado v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-19(c)(2)

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, “the ALJ must give consideration to all the medical opinions in the record.” ... “A treating-source opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment is entitled to controlling weight provided it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.’” ... If the ALJ declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, he must then determine what weight to give the opinion using the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), and (c)(3) through (c)(6). ... All these factors must be weighed by the ALJ in determining the treating-source opinion’s weight. ... But the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider relevant factors such as the supportability, consistency, and specialization associated with medical opinions, but does not require good-reasons articulation for the weight given to a nontreating source such as a medical expert.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20

Also, unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider certain factors, including weighing the supportability and consistency of the opinions, and the specialization of the physician, when deciding the weight to give that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c) & (e)(2)(iii). ... Therefore, an ALJ need not provide “good reasons” for the weight given to a non-treating source, such as a medical expert, although it is good practice to provide some analysis for the weight given. ... 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 is also codified in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, source specialization, and other relevant factors when determining the opinion’s weight.

Ertel v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-21(c)(2)-(6)

In evaluating a consultative examiner’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the extent to which the opinion is supported by clinical and diagnostic examinations in determining the weight to give the opinion. Revels, 874 F.3d at 654; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). While the ALJ summarized Dr. Raffle’s clinical conclusions, she did not discuss the specific testing –- performed over a three-day period –- or the results of the testing. (AR 35).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the weight given to a medical source's opinion depend on the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations.

Campbell v. Saul · filed 2019-08-22(c)(3)

Moreover, the weight an ALJ should attribute to sources like Dr. Winkler depends “on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Even though Dr. Winkler reviewed Plaintiff’s medical history, she did not explain how she reached her specific conclusions as to how much Plaintiff could lift and how long she could sit and stand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to each medical source opinion when assessing a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Bosse v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-23(e)(2)(ii)

Although an ALJ need not discuss every piece of evidence, the ALJ must discuss the weight assigned to each medical source opinion. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii), 416.927(e)(2)(ii)). Specifically, when assessing a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must explain what weight is assigned to each opinion and why. SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *5 (July 2, 1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires every medical opinion to be evaluated regardless of its source.

Bevilacqua v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-26(d)

Social Security Administration regulations likewise require every medical opinion be evaluated, regardless of its source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Allen v. Saul · filed 2019-08-26(c)(1)-(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(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, explain the weight assigned to treating and non-treating sources, and apply six listed factors when deciding that weight.

Bustamante v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-26(c)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must consider all the medical opinions in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Additionally, the ALJ must discuss the weight assigned to opinions of both treating and non-treating sources. See id.; Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). Further, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) provides six factors that bear on deciding the weight given to any medical opinion: ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Davis v. Berryhill, No. 18-cv-00876-CMA, 2019 WL 158075, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 10, 2019) (quoting Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1301 (10th Cir. 2003)). The ALJ’s consideration of the opinion evidence in this case—including the weight attributed to Dr. Barrett’s opinion—was procedurally proper and supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and determine its weight, considering factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, expertise, and other relevant factors for a non-treating physician.

Caudell v. Saul · filed 2019-08-27(c)

The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record and decide what weight to give each. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In determining what weight to give a medical opinion by a non-treating physician, the ALJ considers the: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record; (5) whether the opining physician is an expert; and (6) any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, evaluate treating-source opinions under the regulatory factors, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Altis v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-27(b)-(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ’s failure to consider and afford weight to Dr. Pratt’s opinion is contrary to the applicable regulation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c) (stating “we will always consider the medical opinions in your case” and “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every opinion medical opinion we receive.”). ... While the ALJ may have properly applied the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when discounting Dr. Pang’s opinion, the ALJ’s use of the phrase “solid nexus” seems incompatible with the regulation’s requirement that the ALJ weigh several factors. Upon remand, the ALJ must provide good reasons, supported by evidence in the record, explaining the weight afforded to Dr. Pang’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion using the listed regulatory factors.

Wieden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-27(c)

Judge Roberts applied the appropriate legal standards in considering whether the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Piburn’s opinion under the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to consider every medical opinion of record when evaluating medical-source opinions.

Ortiviz v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-28(c)

Further, the Commissioner’s regulations require the ALJ to consider every medical opinion of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Hamlin v. Barnhardt, 365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004). The legal error in giving Dr. Wharry’s opinion “no weight” constitutes error per se, thus, the Court rejects out of hand the Commissioner’s argument that any error in this regard is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Fuller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-28(c)

As an initial matter, based on the regulations applicable to Fuller’s application, the ALJ properly and explicitly considered the nature and frequency of each source’s treatment relationship with Fuller as evidenced by the record and each source’s specialty. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Moreover, the decision reflects that the ALJ offered reasonable bases in giving these opinions some or little weight.

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 does not require express application of each factor if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Oaks v. Saul · filed 2019-08-29(c)

Social Security regulations lay out certain factors that an ALJ must consider when evaluating a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). While an ALJ is required to consider these factors, he is not required to “apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion,” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). Rather, an ALJ need only provide “good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the” opinions. Id. (citing prior section 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), which was later renumbered as § 404.1527(c) in 2012). The Court finds that the ALJ provided those requisite good reasons here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and weigh them using relevant factors such as supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, and specialization.

Lewis v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-29(c)

In formulating a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must “give consideration to all the medical opinions in the record.” , 739 F.3d 569, 578 (10th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... I conclude that the ALJ erred in not explicitly evaluating Dr. Ravine’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion with the relevant evidence and weigh it using factors including the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Szefler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-03(b), (c)

An ALJ will consider all medical opinions in conjunction with any other relevant evidence received in order to determine a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive.”); 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). ... These were proper factors for the ALJ to consider in affording great weight to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you.”); §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (opinions supported by relevant evidence and a better explanation will be given more weight); §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”); §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5) (the opinion of a specialist about the issues related to the specialty is generally given more weight than to the opinion of a non-specialist). Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Santa Maria’s opinion in light of the record as a whole and appropriately afforded it great weight to the extent it was consistent with the other substantial evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, but failing to assign a specific weight is harmless unless the claimant shows that the omission affected the outcome.

Klotz v. Saul · filed 2019-09-04(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, the failure to assign a weight to a medical opinion will not result in remand unless Plaintiff demonstrates that it affected the ultimate outcome of her case. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 409 (2009) (“[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency’s determination.” (citations omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) directs an ALJ to consider how familiar a medical source is with the other information in the case record when deciding the weight of the source’s opinion.

Gaffney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c)(6)

The ALJ did not err in noting that Dr. Crampton did not have the benefit of reviewing records when rendering an opinion on Plaintiff’s functioning. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6) (“the 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”). This is a particularly relevant factor here, where Dr. Crampton’s examination was performed less than one month after Plaintiff’s lithium toxicity and the ALJ gave significant weight to another examining psychologist, Katherine Kelly, Ph.D., who reviewed records from before and after Plaintiff’s lithium toxicity. AR at 21, 768-73.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the quality of a doctor's explanation and the support from clinical findings important factors when weighing the doctor's opinion.

Jordan v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-04(c)(3)

The quality of a doctor’s explanation and amount of support it has from clinical findings are important factors in weighing the doctor’s opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight given to each opinion, and consider opinions provided after the date last insured.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c)

The ALJ must also address every medical opinion in the manner prescribed by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and explain the weight afforded to the opinion, including opinions provided after the date last insured.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions with the other relevant evidence, explain the weight assigned to each opinion, and apply listed factors when weighing them.

Rommel v. Saul · filed 2019-09-05(b), (c), (e)(2)(ii)

In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ is required to consider the medical opinion evidence of record together with the other relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given to every medical opinion of record, regardless of its source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), (e)(2)(ii), 416.927(c), (e)(2)(ii). 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 explanations; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Bigica III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-06(c)

In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers many factors including, but not limited to, the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.967(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate it using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Phinizy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-09(c)

The ALJ’s weight finding ignores Plaintiff’s longstanding treatment relationship with Dr. Major in favor of the state agency physicians who never even saw Plaintiff. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, then the ALJ must evaluate any medical opinion according to the requirements set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Thus, in determining what weight to afford Dr. Major’s opinion, the ALJ was required to consider (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of Dr. Major’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion and the record as a whole; (4) whether Dr. Major is a specialist; and (5) other factors that would support or contradict Major’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing medical opinions.

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

In determining the weight attributable to medical opinions, the Commissioner is required to consider the following factors: (1) examining relationship; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but a medical source’s opinion that a claimant is disabled is not controlling because that determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Roberts v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-10(c)(2), (d)

Because the determination about whether a claimant has met the statutory definition of disability is reserved to the Commissioner, a medical source’s opinion that a claimant is disabled is not controlling. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). ... A treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors such as supportability and consistency, generally giving a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Crayton-Jones v. Saul · filed 2019-09-10(c)(2)

When evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ should consider “(1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... A treating source’s opinion on issues of the nature and severity of the impairments will be given controlling weight when well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and when the opinion is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed by considering their supporting evidence, consistency, and explanation, with greater weight given to better-supported and better-explained opinions.

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

Here, the ALJ’s comment on the checklist form implies that Dr. Studer’s opinion was poorly explained. The regulations state that “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Dr. Studer completed a check-the-box form. At question six of the form, he was asked to explain the degree and basis for the restrictions he had opined. Dr. Studer simply stated that Dillon had severe lower back pain, “no repetitive movements, no stooping or squatting or kneeling.” In other words, he simply repeated his opinions regarding Dillon’s restrictions. He did not provide a “basis” for his opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of relevant factors when evaluating a medical opinion and an explanation of the weight assigned to it.

McCall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-10

Instead, Plaintiff merely takes issue with the ALJ not discussing enough of the relevant factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and asserts that “the only justification the ALJ provides for rejecting Dr. Bradford’s opinion is his conclusion that the Plaintiff’s neuropathy symptoms ‘will and have improved with treatment,’” a conclusion he disagrees with. (R. 17, PageID# 885). ... Thus, the court finds that the ALJ sufficiently explained the reasons he assigned Dr. Bradford’s opinion only “some weight,” and that reason—improvement in the severity of Plaintiff’s neuropathy symptoms—is supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Broadbent v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-11(a)(1)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... In this case, Dr. Guarnaccia’s report contains examination observations, but does not translate those examination results into a functional assessment. For example, Dr. Guarnaccia reports on Plaintiff’s strength, gait, and range of motion, but does not opine as to how much Plaintiff could lift or carry, or for how long Plaintiff could sit, stand, and walk in a workday. ... Therefore, in light of the Court’s confidence the ALJ considered Dr. Guarnaccia’s report, and the report’s lack of information regarding Plaintiff’s functional abilities, the Court does not find that the ALJ’s failure to assign the report a specific weight is reversible error in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the weighing of medical opinions under factors including supportability and consistency, permitting less weight to a treating-source opinion when those factors undermine it.

Topalovic v. Saul · filed 2019-09-11(c)

Moreover, the Court also finds the application of the factor test set forth under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) supports the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Farzana’s opinion was entitled to minimal weight. ... Although Dr. Farzana’s opinion might have been afforded more weight pursuant to the first two factors, because she was a treating source who had examined Plaintiff several times, the ALJ was entitled to accord her opinion less weight based upon the remaining factors, particularly the “supportability” and “consistency” factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c)

Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion: the length of ... th e treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... While the ALJ is directed to consider such factors, the ALJ is not required to provide an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” in her decision. See Francis v. Commissioner, No. 09-6263, 2011 WL 915719, at *3 (6th Cir. March 16, 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate treating-source medical opinions using the applicable factors, including support, consistency, treatment relationship, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-12(c)(1)-(6)

Ultimately, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ’s reasons for discounting the opinions of Dr. Umpierre do not withstand scrutiny. The ALJ failed to properly weigh his opinions in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and the Watkins factors, and it is not clear that he followed the two-step process for evaluating treating source opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who gives no medical opinion controlling weight to consider every opinion using the regulatory factors, including examination, treatment history, specialization, diagnostic testing, and consistency with the record.

GREEN v. SAUL · filed 2019-09-16(c)

If the ALJ determines that no medical opinion in the record deserves controlling weight, as happened in this case, the ALJ must consider every opinion in the record according to the relevant regulatory factors, which include whether the physician: examined the claimant; treated the claimant frequently or for an extended period of time; specialized in treating the claimant’s condition; performed appropriate diagnostic tests; or offered opinions consistent with the objective medical evidence and the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh each medical opinion using factors including the source's relationship with the claimant, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

Hand v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-17(c)

The ALJ must consider medical opinions together with relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). In assessing the weight due to be afforded to medical opinions, the ALJ should consider the following factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and doctor; the supportability and consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; the specialization of the doctor; and other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The regulations permit an ALJ to assign weight to a medical opinion based on how “consistent [the] medical opinion is with the record as a whole,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), so the ALJ clearly expressed a legitimate reason for discounting Dr. Iyer’s opinion. And that reason is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to evaluate medical opinions using the regulatory factors and state the weight assigned to each opinion.

Graczyk v. Saul · filed 2019-09-17(c)

The ALJ additionally erred by failing to consider the relevant regulatory factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) and by failing to determine what particular weight Dr. George’s opinion deserved.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) generally calls for giving more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Commo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-18(c)(4)

The ALJ gave “no weight” to parts of these opinions and “limited weight” to other parts, respectively. (AR 571–73.) As the ALJ explained, to the extent that portions of these records contain assessments more severe than those included in the ALJ’s RFC determination, they are not consistent with the record as a whole. (Id.) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives generally greater weight to treating-source opinions than to examining or non-examining opinions and requires the ALJ to consider opinions from other medical professionals on related issues.

(SS) Massey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-18(d)(2), (f)(1)

In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight, but it is not binding on the ultimate issue of a disability. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, an examining physician’s opinion is given more weight than the opinion of non-examining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Finally, an ALJ must consider the opinions of other medical professionals— such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and social workers—who may offer “judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (describing circumstances when opinions from “other sources” may be considered acceptable medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions and explain the weight assigned to each opinion.

McGaster v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-19(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.” Eyre v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App'x 521, 523 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (e), 416.927(c) & (e)). ... “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. ... Upon consideration, the undersigned agrees with McGaster that the ALJ did not provide adequate reasons for partially discounting Dr. White-Spunner’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when evaluating a medical opinion and give good reasons for the weight assigned, but does not require expressly applying each factor.

Howard v. Saul · filed 2019-09-20(c)

The agency’s regulations lay out certain factors that an ALJ must consider when evaluating a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).2 While an ALJ is required to consider these factors, he is not required to “apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). Rather, an ALJ need only provide “good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the” opinions. Id. (citing prior section 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), which was later re-numbered as § 404.1527(c) in 2012). The Court finds that the ALJ provided good reasons to discount Dr. Goldstein’s opinion that Plaintiff’s A1C levels would restrict her to sedentary or light work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, and supportability, while allowing consideration of other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Vallon v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-20(c)

These opinions are weighed “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). “Other factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the opinion’ may be considered in assessing any type of medical opinion.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinion evidence to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, giving more weight to supported and consistent opinions.

Padula v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)

The Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to employ when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). For instance, the more a medical source presents evidence to support an opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight that medical opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh all medical opinion evidence using factors including supportability, consistency, the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and specialization.

Schwartz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)

The ALJ still must weigh all medical opinion evidence pursuant to the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Those factors include supportability, consistency, relationship with the claimant, length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examinations, specialization, and other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires the ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Gillespie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(4)

The Commissioner is correct that the “more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [is given] to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). Yet, the ALJ did not support this conclusion with any examples.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence and weigh them using factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Hayes v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-23(b), (c)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, medical opinions are considered by the ALJ together with the rest of the relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The amount of weight given to a medical opinion is to be governed by a number of factors including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical expert’s opinions, including RFC opinions, as it evaluates other medical opinions.

Dunlavey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-23(d)(2)

The ALJ is required to evaluate an ME’s opinions, including those regarding a claimant’s RFC, just as the ALJ would evaluate other medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives treating-physician opinions the greatest weight and examining-physician opinions more weight than non-examining-physician opinions, although a treating opinion is not binding on the ultimate disability determination.

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

In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight, but it is not binding on the ultimate issue of a disability. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, an examining physician’s opinion is given more weight than the opinion of non-examining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions with the other relevant evidence and, when a statement is a medical opinion, state with particularity the weight given and the reasons for that weight.

Shannon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(a)(2), (b)

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.” McClurkin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 625 F. App’x 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). ... 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.” ... Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s claims to the contrary, the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Hoch’s opinion complied with the applicable regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs ALJs to weigh medical opinions using relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors, while reserving the RFC determination to the Commissioner.

Armstrong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-24(c), (e)

The determination of RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). ... The regulations state that the ALJ, regardless of a medical opinion’s source, will evaluate the opinion based on the following factors: whether there was an examining relationship, whether the opinion was made by a treating source, the length of the treating relationship, the supportability of the opinion’s conclusions, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, any specialization of the opinion source, and other factors raised by Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) allows an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based on how much relevant evidence the source considered and the source's familiarity with the case record, but does not require the source to have reviewed the entire record.

Roundtree v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(c)(6)

The regulations do not require a medical source to have the entire record to render a medical opinion, but the opinions may be evaluated on the degree to which the opinions consider all of the relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In fact, the regulations state that in deciding the proper weight to give medical opinions, one factor to consider is “the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with other relevant evidence and evaluate them based on the source's relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Guay v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2019-09-25(c)

An ALJ is required to consider medical opinions along with all other relevant evidence in a claimant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... Medical opinions are evaluated based upon the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the extent to which the source provides evidence to support the opinion, the extent the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record, the specialization of the medical source, and other factors including the understanding the source has of the social security system. § 404.1527(c); ... The ALJ explained that he considered APRN Odonnell’s opinion about Guay’s limitations in completing a work week, maintaining pace, and maintaining concentration. ... Therefore, the ALJ adequately explained the weight given to APRN Odonnell’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Thieme-Knight v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(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 does not require an ALJ to explicitly recite every regulatory factor when the explanation reflects those factors and provides a sufficient basis for meaningful review.

McGuffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26

However, an ALJ is not required to explicitly recite the regulatory factors if his or her explanation reflects them. Infantado v. Astrue, 263 Fed. App’x. 469, 474 (6th Cir. 2008); see also Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 Fed. App’x 802, 804-05 (6th Cir. 2011). Here, the ALJ’s opinion contained sufficient information to make clear that her reasons for affording little weight to Dr. Wendorff’s opinion was its inconsistency with the record as a whole. Accordingly, the ALJ’s opinion included a sufficient basis for meaningful review and is not deficient for failure to cite each and every regulatory factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received in the claimant's case.

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

Under the law, the ALJ is obligated to “evaluate every medical opinion we receive”. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). An ALJ must consider all pertinent medical evidence in the record regarding a Plaintiff’s impairments and must explain why she relied on certain opinions of record and not on others. Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 135 (2nd Cir. 2000).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) covers GAF scores from acceptable medical sources as medical opinion evidence for consideration, but a GAF score alone cannot determine functioning.

Presley-Carrillo v. Berryhill · filed 2017-07-03(a)(2)

Although GAF scores in isolation are insufficient to determine a patient’s level of functioning, the Social Security Administration has indicated that they should be “considered as medical opinion evidence under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2) when they are from an acceptable medical source.” Soc. Sec. Disab. Claims Handbook § 2:15 n.40 (citing SSA Administrative Message 13066). Here, the ALJ considered the GAF score alongside the remainder of the extensive treatment notes in concluding that Dr. Mateus’s opinion deserved “little weight;” that was not an error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining or treating relationship, support for the opinion, and its consistency with the record as a whole, generally giving more weight to opinions that are more consistent with the record.

Wood v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2018-03-12(c)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinion evidence, including the examining or treating relationship, the extent to which an opinion is supported, and whether the medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “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.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Massimo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-19(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.

Mergenthaler v. Saul · filed 2019-08-26(c)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ considers several factors in determining what weight it will be given. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. Those factors include the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination” and the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii)). Additional factors relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of any medical opinion, not limited to that of a treating physician, include: (1) the supportability of the opinion; (2) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the specialization of the treating or examining source; and (4) any other factors that are brought to the ALJ’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Saltzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-06(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats GAF scores from an acceptable medical source as medical-opinion evidence that an ALJ must consider and explain if rejected.

Ayala v. Saul · filed 2020-03-13(a)(2)

The Social Security Administration has said that GAF scores ‘should be considered as medical opinion evidence under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2) if they come from an acceptable medical source.’ Soc. Sec. Disab. Claims Handbook § 2:15 n.40 (citing AM–13066 REV). ... The argument that the ALJ could have rejected the GAF scores highlights the core issue: Even if the ALJ did reject the GAF scores, she failed to “provid[e] an explanation.” Winston, 755 F. App’x at 398. This constitutes reversible legal error “even if good reasons exist for disregarding the opinion.” Id. The ALJ, not the Court, must consider potential problems and decide what weight to afford Ayala’s GAF scores; and she must provide an explanation for that choice.