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

Huizar v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-17(b)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F. R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

Shouse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(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)). The ALJ erred by failing to consider the 2015 opinions of Dr. Wheeler and Dr. Carstens.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits an ALJ to consider opinions from medical sources who do not qualify as acceptable medical sources and from nonmedical sources.

Vangile v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2017-07-13(a)(2), (f)(1)

A claimant can submit medical opinions from doctors or “other acceptable medical sources” to support his case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (2016). An ALJ may also consider the opinions of medical sources who do not qualify as medical sources, or those of nonmedical sources. Id. § 1527(f)(1). ... Thus, even though Wu was not a doctor, the ALJ could still consider Wu’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion submitted into evidence.

Ross v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-28(c)

The request did not relieve the ALJ of the obligation to follow the agency’s own regulations, which require the evaluation of “every medical opinion” submitted into evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to consider examination, treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing medical opinions, and to explain the weight assigned.

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

Evidence considered by the Commissioner in making a disability determination may include medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). ... “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.” ... While “the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors[,]” ... “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” ... However, “the ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding.” ... Thus, “[i]f an ALJ has shown good cause to reject the opinion of a treating or examining physician, the ALJ may then properly rely on the opinion of a non-examining medical source if it is consistent with the objective evidence of record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating an acceptable medical source's opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors that validate or contradict the opinion.

Holmes v. Colvin · filed 2018-07-19(c)

When evaluating the opinion of an acceptable medical source, the regulations require the ALJ to consider: (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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here it is clear that the ALJ’s single sentence according “limited” weight to both state agency consultants failed to take into account several of the factors required by the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions in the context of the record as a whole, and the regulation permits reliance on a non-examining physician as part of the medical evidence when formulating the RFC.

Benckeser v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-19(b)

An ALJ is required to consider medical opinions in the context of the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... Further, the ALJ may rely on a non-examining physician as part of the medical evidence in formulating an RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 (explaining the ALJ must consider a number of factors when assessing medical opinions including those of state agency consultants).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source using the same factors listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6).

Sanford III v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-09-12(f)(1)

Mr. Otis is plainly not an acceptable medical source, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a) & 416.902(a). While that precludes his opinions from receiving controlling weight, it does not merit their summary dismissal. Rather, it obligated the ALJ to evaluate them pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1) & 416.927(f)(1). Those regulations, in turn, required the ALJ to “consider [Mr. Otis’s] opinions using the same factors as listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6) in . . . section[s 404.1527 and 416.927].”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion in the claimant's file, including a treating source's opinion about residual functional capacity.

Swain v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-10-29(c)

Given the ALJ’s obligation to evaluate every opinion in Swain’s case file, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c), his failure to address Dr. Skoczek’s opinions on Swain’s RFC merits a remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization.

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

The Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to employ when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. 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 as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(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), 416.927(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). ... The ALJ properly considered the medical opinions and his formulation of the RFC is supported by substantial evidence. ... For instance, the ALJ applied the correct legal standard in considering and evaluating the opinion of State agency consultant Dr. Thomas Bixler, M.D. (Tr. 18, 123-25, 137-40). ... The ALJ stated he considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. ... Substantial evidence supports these findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the relationship with the claimant, familiarity with the claimant’s medical history, and whether the opinion is supported by the record.

Cobb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-09

The ALJ must evaluate all medical opinions, accounting for factors such as the relationship with the claimant, familiarity with the claimant’s medical history, and whether the opinion is supported by the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, regardless of its source, but does not require assigning the opinion specific weight.

Boss v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-19(c)

Although the ALJ did not assign specific weight to the opinion, the Court concludes the ALJ sufficiently evaluated the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(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 an ALJ to give greater weight to examining and treating-source opinions, give controlling weight to a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion, and consider specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

BEACH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-11-21(c)

The amount of weight accorded to medical opinions is well-established. Generally, the ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined the claimant than to a non-examining source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). In addition, the ALJ generally will give more weight to opinions from a treating physician, “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.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). The opinion of a treating physician need not be viewed uncritically, however. Rather, only when an ALJ finds that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [of] record,” must he give that opinion controlling weight. Id. Unless a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider all relevant factors that tend to support or contradict any medical opinions of record, including the patient/physician relationship; the supportability of the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the specialization of the provider at issue. Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). “[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ generally] will give to that opinion.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Brancaccio v. Saul · filed 2019-12-23(c)

We agree with Brancaccio, however, that the ALJ erred in failing to “evaluate every medical opinion” received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a medical opinion by considering the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Lopez v. Saul · filed 2020-01-17(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight – and Claimant did not submit a treating source opinion – “the ALJ must explain the weight given to the consulting physician’s opinion.” Turner v. Berryhill, 244 F.Supp.3d 852, 859 (S.D.Ind. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)). The ALJ does so by considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see also Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 515 (7th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider opinions from medical providers who are not acceptable medical sources and permits giving them less deference only when the ALJ provides germane reasons for doing so.

(SS) Hoffmann v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-22(b), (f)

In addition to considering the medical opinions of doctors, an ALJ must consider the opinions of medical providers who are not within the definition of “acceptable medical sources.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (f). While those providers' opinions are not entitled to the same deference, an ALJ may give less deference to “other sources” only if the ALJ gives reasons germane to each witness for doing so. Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). The same factors used to evaluate the opinions of medical providers who are acceptable medical sources are used to evaluate the opinions of those who are not. Id. (citing § 404.1527(f)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed factors and clearly state the rules applied and weight assigned.

Wyman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-22(d) and (d)(2)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). The ALJ must clearly state the legal rules that he applies and the weight that he accords the evidence considered. ... Moreover, it is clear that the ALJ took into account the required considerations for weighing opinions from consultative sources. The ALJ thoroughly explained his reasoning for affording Dr. Plotz’s opinion “great weight,” and also explained why he found portions of the examining sources’ opinions to be inconsistent with their examination findings, as well as the longitudinal medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, if it does not receive controlling weight, to consider the treating relationship and other listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Wills v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-31(c)(2)

A treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight in cases where that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... If the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, she must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, she must “explicitly consider” factors such as: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source's [medical] opinion.” ... (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the record, explain the weight assigned to each opinion, and resolve conflicts between differing medical-source evidence.

Serage v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-01-29(d)

Under the version of the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ must consider all the medical opinions in the record and discuss the weight assigned to each opinion. The ALJ is also responsible for resolving conflicts between differing evidence from medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using the applicable supportability, consistency, and treatment-relationship considerations and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Devlin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-30(c)(2)

Dr. Schedgick’s opinion constitutes substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s finding, see Berger v. Astrue, 516 F.3d 539, 545 (7th Cir. 2008), and the ALJ provided “good reasons”—namely, consistency with the record—for giving that opinion great weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every listed factor when the decision otherwise shows sufficient consideration of the factors in evaluating a medical opinion.

Matsukado v. Saul · filed 2020-02-27(c)(2)–(6)

Furthermore, Plaintiff asserts that, in accordance with the factors listed in § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), the ALJ should have given more weight to Dr. Kipta’s opinion because he is a specialist in neurology. The ALJ did not specifically identify Dr. Kipta as a specialist, nor explain his decision to not give the opinion extra weight due to Dr. Kipta’s specialty. See Decision, AR at 23. However, the ALJ “considered the opinion evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” Id at 20. Furthermore, “[t]he agency was not required to specifically reference each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).” Harris v. Colvin, 584 F. App’x 526, 527 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014). Similarly, the ALJ here was not required to explicitly discuss each § 404.1527(c) factor. See id. Therefore, sufficient consideration of the § 404.1527(c) factors is evidenced in the ALJ’s decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

CONROY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECUIRTY · filed 2020-03-17(c)(1)-(6)

The opinion of a treating physician need not be viewed uncritically, however. Rather, only when an ALJ finds that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [of] record,” must he give that opinion controlling weight. Id. Unless a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider all relevant factors that tend to support or contradict any medical opinions of record, including the patient/physician relationship; the supportability of the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the specialization of the provider at issue. Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). “[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ generally] will give to that opinion.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to weigh a medical-source opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Scheffert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30

Judge Roberts considered the ALJ’s reasons for the weight he assigned to Hoffman’s opinion and considered whether those reasons were supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole based on the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. While Judge Roberts found that some factors (length and frequency of treatment relationship and specialization) weighed in favor of giving Hoffman’s opinion greater weight than the ALJ assigned, this was simply another way of considering evidence that detracts from the ALJ’s decision. When reviewing the opinion under the factors of supportability and consistency (factors cited by the ALJ), he determined that the record supported the ALJ’s decision to give her opinion little weight. Having conducted my own de novo review of the record, I agree that the ALJ’s decision to give Hoffman’s opinion little weight is supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate treating-source medical opinions using specified factors after deciding whether they receive controlling weight.

Kloos v. Saul · filed 2020-05-04(c)

Even if a physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, that opinion must still be evaluated using certain factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and source specialization, after deciding whether a treating opinion merits controlling weight.

Hutchinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-18(c)

If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) to decide what weight to give the opinion; specifically, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the record when evaluating a disability claim.

Horton v. Saul · filed 2020-05-19(c)

Similarly, the ALJ wholly fails to address Dr. DeWald’s opinions (who certainly offered impartial opinions in his IMEs, which were commissioned by the party potentially opposing Plaintiffs Worker’s Compensation benefits), including, iver alia, about Plaintiffs back limitations and hand limitations, a remandable error as the AL] has an obligation to consider all the medical opinions in the record. Hardy v. Berryhill, 908 F.3d 309, 313 (7th Cir. 2018) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Roddy ». Asstrue, 105 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Arndt v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-26(c)

Indeed, under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c), the ALJ was required to “evaluate every medical opinion” “regardless of its source.” Thus, even though Dr. Byram’s and Dr. Rung’s opinions were provided in relation to plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim, the ALJ was required to review those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, weigh it using specified factors, and give no special consideration to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Plemons v. Saul · filed 2020-08-13(b), (c), and (d)

When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must consider all medical opinions in the record in addition to all other evidence they receive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). Pursuant to federal regulation, the ALJ is required to “evaluate every medical opinion [they] receive” regardless of its source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). When the ALJ does not afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, they consider numerous factors in determining the amount of weight they give to any medical opinion. Id. These factors include: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship, including the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of evaluation, as well as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors. Id. However, the ALJ is not required to give special consideration to any medical source opinion with respect to whether the claimant is disabled, their RFC, the application of vocational factors, or whether the impairment meets or equals the requirements of any impairments in the Listing of Impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Russell v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-17(c)(2)

Federal regulations expressly require ALJs to evaluate “every medical opinion” of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. ... The Social Security Administration states that it “will always give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Here, the ALJ carefully considered Dr. Chirackal’s opinion and assigned it little weight because (i) it was inconsistent with Dr. Chirackal’s own treating notes and statements and (ii) the proposed limitations were inconsistent with the activities that Russell reported that he could do.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion by the judgments it expresses about an impairment's nature and severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions, and requires the ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion received.

Neal v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-01(a)(1), (b), (c)

Under the regulations, medical opinions are “judgments about the nature and severity of your impairments(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite your impairment(s) and your physical and mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). Portions of Dr. Rohen’s report qualified as medical opinion such as her diagnoses and determination that Neal could manage her own social security benefits. The ALJ was required to evaluate those portions of Dr. Rohen’s report that qualified as medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b) & (c), 416.927(b) & (c) (“we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record”; “we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”) However, Neal challenges the ALJ’s failure to consider only one sentence of the report, which stated that Neal “does not appear to have functioned well for years.”1 That statement was not a judgment by the psychologist as to Neal’s diagnosis, prognosis, or what she could “still do.” Even as to the more general categories of “impairments” or “symptoms” included in the definition of medical opinion, Dr. Rohen did not discuss their severity or nature, or correlate them to Neal’s poor functioning. Her statement was vague and does not meet the criteria for a medical opinion under the regulations. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in failing to evaluate this statement by Dr. Rohen.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated in part based on their supportability and consistency.

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

Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ should evaluate medical opinions in part based on their supportability and consistency holds true under § 404.1527(c) as well as under § 404.1520c(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion using relevant factors such as the source's examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other considerations, including for relevant opinions from non-acceptable medical sources.

Ramcharran v. Saul · filed 2020-09-09(c), (c)(1)-(6), (f)(1)

Under the regulations, the Commissioner must evaluate every medical opinion the Agency receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In deciding the weight to give to any medical opinion, the Commissioner must consider the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the evidence supporting the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the specialization of the source, and any other relevant factors the claimant raises that may tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). Relevant opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources are also to be considered according to the same factors. Id. § 404.1527(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider and evaluate every medical opinion under specified factors, and treats statements from acceptable medical sources about an impairment and resulting abilities or restrictions as medical opinions.

BERNIER v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-10-12(a)(1), (b)-(c)

This was error. Pursuant to then-applicable regulations, the commissioner “will always consider the medical opinions in your case record” and “evaluate every medical opinion” received pursuant to enumerated factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b)-(c), 416.927(b)-(c). In turn, “medical opinions” are defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [his or her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he or she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his or her] physical or mental restrictions.” Id. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be evaluated using specified factors, but does not make any single factor determinative.

Hutchins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3), (c)(6)

While Hutchins cites regulations that set out the factors for evaluating medical opinions (D.N. 26, PageID # 1375), those regulations do not indicate that any factor (such as a claimant’s guardianship) is determinative. See 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(c)(3), (c)(6). The regulations thus do not support Hutchins’s contention that an ALJ errs in assigning significant weight to a medical opinion that did not discuss guardianship.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Winstead-Walters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-19(d)(2), (c)(4)

In evaluating the opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider 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.” Meece v. Barnhart, 192 Fed. Appx. 456, 461 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(d)(6) ).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of source, and to consider the relevant factors when determining the weight to assign it.

Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04(c)

As a general matter, plaintiff is entitled to consideration by the ALJ of Faulk’s and Paarlberg’s opinions and explanation of any rejection of the limitations assessed in those opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[r]egardless of its source, [the Commissioner] will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s]”); ... Thus, the ALJ’s failure to consider the opinions of Faulk and Paarlberg6 and explain the weight to be assigned to them constitutes an error that, unless harmless, requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion and to explain the weight given with enough specificity for meaningful judicial review.

Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-15(c)

In assessing the weight due to a medical opinion of record, an ALJ must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, if any, and/or whether the opinion was based on an in-person examination; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). Further, the ALJ must explain the weight given to the medical opinions of record, “with sufficient specificity to enable [the Court] to decide whether the determination is supported by substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explicitly evaluate every medical opinion using four factors when weighing the opinion.

Reyes-Lear v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-04-20(c)

The ALJ has an independent duty to develop the record and has a duty to explicitly evaluate every opinion using the four factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s failure to properly weigh Dr. Jones’s opinion was not harmless error. ... Because the ALJ had not given more weight to the treating physician, nor obtain the missing record to complete the entire record, the error is not harmless. Based on the reasons discussed above, remand is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the pre-March 2017 version of the regulation, an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion and weigh non-controlling opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Perry v. Saul · filed 2021-04-29(c)

The regulations which pre-dated March of 2017 also set standards for the evaluation of medical evidence and defined medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the plaintiff’s] impairments, including [the plaintiff’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he or she] can still do despite impairments, and [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Regardless of its source, the ALJ was required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In deciding what weight to accord to competing medical opinions and evidence, the ALJ was guided by factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) identifies non-examining consultants as highly qualified medical specialists and experts in Social Security disability evaluation, supporting reliance on their opinions.

Scott v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-14(e)(2)(i)

Moreover, the ALJ reasonably relied , on Dr. Krishnamurthi’s October 2013 consultative evaluation (Tr, 312-19), Dr. Baldwin’s November 2013 non-examining opinion (Tr. 68-71), and Dr. Post’ January 2014 non-examining opinion (Tr. 75, 80-81). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(i), 416,927(e)(2)(i) (effective from August 24, 2012 to March 26, 2017) (non-examining consultants are “highly qualified ... medical specialists who are also experts in Social..Security disability evaluation”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires a non-examining consultant to consider the pertinent evidence available when issuing an opinion, but imposes no limit on the time gap between the opinion and the ALJ's decision.

Jennings v. Saul · filed 2020-02-11(c)(3)

However, there is always some time lapse between a consultant’s report and the ALJ hearing and decision, and the Social Security regulations impose no limit on such a gap in time. At the time they issued their opinions, the non-examining experts had considered all the evidence before them, satisfying the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using the specified treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Pecore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Saenz v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-30(c)

The ALJ must also evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the source’s treatment and examination relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty, while treating disability, RFC, and vocational-factor conclusions as issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Davis v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-31(c), (d)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Further, opinions such as whether a claimant is disabled, the claimant’s RFC, and the application of vocational factors “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Kirksey’s opinion was only partially persuasive. ... As shown above, the ALJ articulated reasons for finding Dr. Kirksey’s opinion partially persuasive, and substantial evidence supports those reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as judgments from acceptable medical sources about an impairment's nature, severity, restrictions, and remaining abilities, and requires consideration of specified factors when weighing those opinions.

Dodson v. Saul · filed 2021-09-09(a)(1), (c)

Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s), including his symptoms, diagnoses, and prognoses; his physical and mental restrictions; and what he can still do despite his impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1) (2019).4 The Commissioner must consider various factors in determining what weight to accord medical opinion evidence, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the source provides support for their findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the source’s findings, the source’s area of specialty, and the source’s familiarity with the claimant’s case file and with Social Security programs. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the evidence and reasoning behind the evaluation of a medical opinion when that opinion may affect the case's outcome, so the claimant or a later reviewer can follow it.

DeCarr v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-13(f)(2)

However, when dealing with a medical opinion such as Nurse Rizzo’s, an ALJ is required to “ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator's reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ determining a claimant’s RFC to evaluate every medical opinion received, regardless of its source.

Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(c)

When determining a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received, “[r]egardless of its source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh medical opinions using factors including supportability, consistency, and the treatment relationship, while opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are not entitled to special significance.

Kallas v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-29(b), (c), and (d)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (2019), ALJ’s are required to evaluate and weigh the opinions of all medical opinions in the record. “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) . . . .” Id. § 404.1527(a)(1). When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion, whether the source examined the claimant, whether the source treated the claimant, and any other relevant factor. Id. § 404.1527(c). ... Dr. DePrima’s RFC “assessment” is not an opinion from which the ALJ could evaluate Plaintiff’s RFC. The assessment contains no “judgments” on Plaintiff’s functional limitations, and the ALJ properly acted within her discretion by affording the assessment no weight.8 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)–(c). ... Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), “[a]n ALJ must give the [medical] opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). However, “[M]edical source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner . . . are not medical opinions” and are therefore not given “any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The regulations further provide that opinions that a claimant is “unable to work” concern issues reserved to the Commissioner. Id. § 404.1527(d)(1); Dutkiewicz v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 663 F. App’x 430, 432 (6th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err by failing to give controlling weight to the doctors’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and requires the ALJ to consider every medical opinion with the other relevant evidence when evaluating the claim.

Brown v. Saul · filed 2021-10-08(a)(1), (c)

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).3 Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion received together with the rest of the relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tanksley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-09(c)

The SSA’s regulations require an ALJ to “evaluate every medical opinion [he or she] receives, regardless of its source.” Pena v. Chater, 968 F. Supp. 930, 937 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1152 (2d Cir. 1998); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 recognizes that treating and examining-source opinions may deserve more weight, but they do not bind the ALJ on the ultimate disability or residual functional capacity determination.

WICKER v. SAUL · filed 2022-01-28(e)(1) and (d)(1)-(2)

The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 404.1546(c). Although treating and examining physician opinions often deserve more weight than the opinions of doctors who review records, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), “[t]he law is clear ... that the opinion of a treating physician does not bind the ALJ on the issue of functional capacity.” ... Thus, an ALJ is not bound by the specific functional ratings set by a physician in a medical source form.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to accept some medical evidence and reject other evidence with an explanation, evaluating medical opinions using factors such as supportability and consistency.

KULIK v. SAUL · filed 2022-02-24(e)(1)

The ALJ is responsible for making the disability determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1). In making that determination, the ALJ is “free to accept some medical evidence and reject other evidence,” so long as he provides an explanation for discrediting the rejected evidence.” Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 614 (3d Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. The ALJ is tasked with evaluating the persuasiveness of the medical opinion using factors such as supportability and consistency.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Racel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-23(c)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion, weighing it by its source and support in the medical record.

(SS) Hector Narvaiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-03(b) and (c)

The ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) and (c);5 Mora v. Berryhill, No. 1:16–cv–01279–SKO, 2018 WL 636923, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018). ... The ALJ properly discounted Dr. Buttan’s opinion for the additional reason that the opined limitations were inconsistent with the medical evidence, specifically Dr. Buttan’s normal examination results. ... In sum, the ALJ stated legally sufficient reasons supported by substantial evidence to discount the restrictive opinion of Dr. Buttan.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider a non-treating medical source's opinion and weigh it using the listed factors, without omitting or disregarding any factor.

Sparaney v. Saul · filed 2022-03-30(c)

When a non-treating medical source provides a medical opinion, the ALJ is required to consider it and decide what weight to give to it. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The following factors must be considered to determine the appropriate weight to which the opinion is entitled: (1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the opinion’s support by medical evidence; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) the treating physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(5). None of these factors may be omitted or disregarded by the ALJ in considering the weight of the opinion. See Casillas v. Astrue, 671 F. Supp. 2d 635, 643–44 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (stating that the ALJ “must consider” the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight to give a medical opinion); Waldron v. Astrue, No. 1:07-CV-2040, 2008 WL 4452350, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2008) (same). In addition, the ALJ must consider any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion, but only if brought to his or her attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Beatty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-04(c)

An ALJ errs when they reject a medical opinion by ignoring it or by asserting, without explanation, that other evidence is more persuasive. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). Further, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that it is not harmless error for the ALJ to fail to discuss a medical opinion. Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (noting that this Ruling requires the evaluation of “every medical opinion” received)). Here, the ALJ made no mention of Dr. Packer’s medical opinion in his entire decision, even though it was included in the list of exhibits. AR 59.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider supporting evidence, explanation quality, consistency with the record, the source’s specialty, program familiarity, and familiarity with the case record.

Ainab v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-10(c)

That framework provided that the opinions of treating physicians, who were presumed to have “the most significant clinical relationship with the claimant[,] [were] generally entitled to more weight than those with lesser relationships.” ... To discredit a treating provider’s opinion, the ALJ must give “specific and legitimate reasons for doing so that are supported by substantial evidence.” ... Regardless of source, in evaluating a medical opinion the ALJ should also consider “[a]dditional factors” set forth in the regulations, such as “the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided,” whether the medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the opining physician’s specialty, awareness of “the Administration's ‘disability programs and their evidentiary requirements,” and familiarity with the case record. See Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source.

Gentry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-10(c)

The regulations require ALJs to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Harden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-22(c)

The SSA’s regulations require an ALJ to “evaluate every medical opinion [he or she] receives, regardless of its source.” Pena v. Chater, 968 F. Supp. 930, 937 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1152 (2d Cir. 1998); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ failed to mention or weigh this opinion in his decision, and it seems probable that he overlooked it entirely.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give an opinion controlling weight to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors, while generally giving more weight to treating-source opinions.

Chamberlin v. Saul · filed 2022-07-25(c), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4)

Thus, it was legal error for the ALJ to only consider the opinion’s consistency with the record when weighing the medical opinions, when the Social Security regulations, make clear that the ALJ needed to analyze the remaining factors. ... It was similarly legal error for the ALJ to ignore the fact that Dr. Robbins and Dr. Adams had evaluated Chamberlin while Dr. Bucklew had not because 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) required ... the ALJ to consider whether a medical source examined Chamberlin when weighing the evidence. ... This error was particularly troublesome because Dr. Robbins was Chamberlin’s treating physician and, under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, her opinion was entitled to deference.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sullivan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-01(c)

When determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity, the SSA’s regulations require the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the regulatory factors.

Day v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-19(c)(2)-(6)

However, the Commissioner’s regulations provide that a treating source’s opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of an individual’s impairment is entitled to controlling weight only if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). When a treating source’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight, factors, including length, nature and extent of a treatment relationship, relevant evidence to support an opinion and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the source’s specialty, as well as any other factors are considered in determining what weight to afford the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). ... Thus, a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it is not consistent with the source’s own treatment notes or with other substantial evidence. See Halloran, 362 F.2d at 31-32 (citing Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002)); Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F. App’x 71, 77 (2d Cir. 2013). ... Based on the foregoing, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Clark’s opinion of extreme limitations in most areas of physical functioning was not supported by her treatment notes and clinical findings, and therefore was not entitled to controlling weight. Tr. 33; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); See Halloran, 362 F.3d at 31 (ALJ demonstrates good reason for assigning a treating source opinion little weight where the assessment is not supported by the source’s own treatment notes); Woodmancy v. Colvin, 577 F. App’x 72, 75 (2d Cir. 2014) (ALJ properly assigned little weight to treating physician’s opinion when contradicted by unremarkable clinical findings).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the regulation's listed factors.

Bullard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(c)(1), (c)(2)

In considering a claim of disability, the ALJ generally must give the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1). However, a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment must be given “controlling weight” only if it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). When an opinion does not garner controlling weight, the appropriate weight to be given to the opinion will be determined based upon the length of treatment, frequency of examinations, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, the specialization of the source, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to explain the weight assigned and consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Longstreth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-18(d)(3)-(6)

As is relevant here, when an ALJ does not assign controlling weight to the opinions of the claimant’s treating providers, the ALJ must explain the weight assigned to the opinions of all medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(e)(2)(ii). In doing so, the ALJ is required to apply the following factors: “The length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. . . .” Rabbers, 582 F.3d at 660 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to treating and examining physicians’ opinions than to opinions from doctors who only review records, but a treating physician’s opinion does not bind the ALJ on functional capacity.

Anders v. Saul · filed 2022-10-05

Although treating and examining physician opinions often deserve more weight than the opinions of doctors who review records, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2), “[t]he law is clear ... that the opinion of a treating physician does not bind the ALJ on the issue of functional capacity,” Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 197 n. 2 (3d Cir.2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, weigh it under the regulatory factors, and state the weight given and the reasons for that weight.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(c)

The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability”; (4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and (5) “[s]pecialization.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); Walker v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 987 F.3d 1333, 1338 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted); McNamee v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 164 F. App’x 919, 923 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted) (stating that “[g]enerally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than those of non-examining physicians[;] treating physicians[’ opinions] are given more weight than [non-treating physicians;] and the opinions of specialists are given more weight on issues within the area of expertise than those of non-specialists”). An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). While “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion,” Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 279); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005); Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440. ... When it came time to address Dr. Valente’s opinion, the ALJ found it was entitled to “[l]ittle weight,” among other reasons, because “the severity level opined by this consultative examiner is inconsistent with treatment records that establish generally mild and unremarkable findings.” Tr. at 1245. In light of the other infirmities identified above, this finding needs to be reevaluated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating non-treating medical opinions to consider six factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to explain the weight assigned to the opinions.

Alexander v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(c)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) provides six factors for ALJs evaluating medical opinions, which, for non-treating physicians like Drs. Cyr-McMillon and Brill, include supportability, consistency, and specialization. ... Thus, the ALJ erred in not providing a proper narrative discussion of the specific evidence supporting the weight he afforded these opinions and in failing to evaluate the opinions under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) – “[r]ight or wrong, that decision warrants some explanation.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, when no opinion receives controlling weight, to weigh the opinions under the applicable regulatory factors, including supportability and consistency with the record as a whole.

Altland v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-28(c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). ... Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). ... The ALJ then afforded only partial weight to the only medical opinion which considered the entire medical record, reasoning that this opinion was inconsistent with normal objective examination findings. However, the decision fails to account for and explain the multitude of abnormal findings that post-dated the April 2017 opinion and does not sufficiently explain how those findings were inconsistent with Dr. Amusa’s limitations that a vocational expert testified would preclude her past work. ... Therefore, we cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports the RFC finding in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion and directs the ALJ to weigh each opinion using six specified factors.

Eich v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-09(c)

The SSA’s regulations require the Commissioner to “evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of its source.” Labonte v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-518, 2017 WL 1546477, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. May 1, 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). The ALJ must consider the following factors when he or she weighs a medical opinion: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) whether a treating source provided the opinion; (3) whether the source presented relevant evidence to support the opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether a specialist rendered the opinion in his or her area of expertise; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assess a non-acceptable medical source’s opinion under the listed factors and explain the weight assigned, but it does not require a factor-by-factor recitation when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Boffa v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-15(c)

The ALJ was required only to do two things in evaluating DePaola’s opinions. First, he needed to assess them according to the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Those factors include: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the source’s treatment relationship with the claimant; (2) the source’s specialization; (3) the opinion’s supportability (i.e., the extent to which the source explains his opinion, and supports it with objective medical evidence); and (4) the consistency of the opinion with the other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Second, the ALJ needed to explain his decision on what weight to accord the reports. ... Further, the Second Circuit has explained that even when addressing a treating source’s opinion, let alone an other-source opinion, no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” is required as long as “the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” ... Here, the ALJ clearly explained that he partially discounted DePaola’s opinion evidence because it was inconsistent with other evidence in the record, and he identified that other evidence. See Tr. 49. This explanation was legally sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the agency to evaluate every medical opinion it receives and consider the relevant factors when deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

COYNE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2023-07-25(c)

The Court remanded the matter because Defendant failed to “evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[d]” and consider the relevant factors when deciding the weight to give the opinion as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In the decision under review, the ALJ discussed Dr. Wilk’s records, including the opinion records, independently and in the context of his assessment of Dr. Anderson’s opinion, and the ALJ discounted Dr. Wilk’s opinion as inconsistent with Plaintiff’s treatment history. (R. 1015 – 1018.) The ALJ satisfied Defendant’s obligation to evaluate every medical opinion it received.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight under the listed factors, regardless of its source, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Holdaway v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-11-17(c)

In evaluating medical opinions, the regulations require that, unless the opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight, [7] an ALJ must evaluate all medical opinions according to the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors, regardless of their source. ... However, it is not necessary that an ALJ give “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” ... Here, the Court finds that ALJ Benedict sufficiently explained why she afforded Dr. Hayes’s report little weight and how she considered the factors as outlined 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 and, unless a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight, explain the weight assigned regardless of its source.

Pierce v. O'Malley · filed 2024-02-09(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion contained in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). Unless the ALJ assigns controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must explain the weight given to every medical opinion of record, regardless of its source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b)-(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, although the ALJ need not credit every medical opinion.

KUNKLE v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-03-08(b)-(c)

Although the ALJ need not credit every medical opinion, she must consider every medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source.

Wheeler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-15(c)

As noted, ALJs must consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (emphasis added). Several statements in the Functional Assessment section of Dr. Meyer’s November 2017 report constitute medical opinions. Therefore, the ALJ was required to evaluate them. But the ALJ merely summarized subjective complaints and mental status findings in Dr. Meyer’s report. (Decision, Doc. No. 8-2 at PageID 127.) The ALJ did not summarize or discuss any of Dr. Meyer’s opinions. (Id.) The ALJ therefore did not comply with the requirement to evaluate the persuasiveness of every medical opinion and to explain how she considered the supportability and consistency factors. This failure constitutes reversible error and provides another reason why the case should be remanded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical-source statements about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including the source’s examinations and testing, but does not require reevaluation of an older opinion that the agency already evaluated in an earlier benefits decision.

Vetterneck, Fayne v. O'Malley, Martin · filed 2024-03-28(a)(1), (c), (c)(2)(ii)

Under the regulations that governed the ALJ’s decision, the ALJ was required to consider statements by medical sources that “reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s),” along with “the kinds and extent of examinations and testing the source has performed.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) and (c)(2)(ii). The above statements are among the things that § 404.1527 required the ALJ to consider. ... Section 404.1527(c) states that “we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” But the agency did evaluate Rattan’s opinion—in 2014 when the agency awarded benefits to Vetterneck.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be assessed based on the nature of the claimant's relationship with the medical source.

Valladares v. O'Malley · filed 2024-08-14

The former regulations required that medical opinions be assessed based on the nature of the medical relationship the claimant had with the medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, including an opinion from a federal or state psychological consultant, although the ALJ need not adopt the opinion.

Kessler v. O'Malley · filed 2024-11-14(c)

Further, the 2021 Decision provides no explanation for why the ALJ no longer finds the CE’s opinion to be of “great weight.” (See id. at 41 (ALJ affording the CE’s opinion “great weight” in 2019 Decision because it is consistent with Lacey’s “benign mental status examinations”).) Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion, including those from federal or state psychological consultants. And while an ALJ is not required to adopt such an opinion, she must still consider the weight to afford it because “Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion in the record, but does not require the ALJ to discuss every piece of medical evidence.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-13(c)

While the ALJ did not cite to Exhibit 27F, the ALJ need not specifically discuss every piece of medical evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (ALJs are required to evaluate each medical opinion in the record, but not each piece of medical evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and to support the weight assigned to an opinion with the record evidence.

Minton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-18(c)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). ... Given that Dr. Ditz’s opinion directly relates to the timeframe at issue, and in light of the evidence during the timeframe that supports his opinion, the ALJ’s partial discounting of Dr. Ditz’s opinion and the ultimate RFC are not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the prior opinion-evidence rules, an ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record.

Humerick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-29(b), (c)

Under the prior opinion evidence rules in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ either to accept medical opinions or give specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting them.

Mullins · filed 2025-10-17

The ALJ was required to either accept the opinions or give specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting them. Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 422 n.3 (9th Cir. 1988); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. The ALJ’s failure to do so was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received, including a detailed questionnaire that reflects an acceptable medical source’s judgments about the claimant’s impairments and limitations.

Toni Michelle Henderson v. Frank Bisignano · filed 2026-06-05

Regardless of the source, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. There is no question that the MCQ completed by Dr. LaVallee is a “medical opinion” that merited more thoughtful consideration.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Henderson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-20(c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pena v. Chater · filed 1997-06-30(d)

Pursuant to its own regulations, the Commissioner must evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of its source. ... ALJ Goldman’s well-reasoned and thorough decision reflects a detailed evaluation of Pena’s medical records, independent and consultative physicians’ diagnoses and medical opinions, Pena’s subjective testimony as to his pain and disability, and regulatory vocational factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight to assign it by considering the factors listed in § 404.1527.

Walter v. Berryhill · filed 2017-08-21(c)(2)-(6)

If the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to- controlling weight, the ALJ still.must determine what weight, if any, to assign to the opinion by considering the factors listed at 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 presented, regardless of its source, and § 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions to include statements by licensed physicians reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms.

Brown v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2017-09-29(c), (a)(1)

Pursuant to the relevant regulation, the ALJ was required to “evaluate every medical opinion” presented to him, “[r]egardless of its source.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). What Dr. McMillan provided — including his interpretation of the MRI and conclusion that it showed an impairment consistent with Brown’s complaint of pain — was certainly a “medical opinion” that the ALJ was obliged to consider. See id. § 404.1527(a)(1) (defining “medical opinions” to include “statements from [licensed physicians] that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Atchison v. Colvin · filed 2017-10-27(b)

“In assessing whether a claimant is disabled, an ALJ must consider the medical opinions in a case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence received.” Chambers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 662 F. App’x 869, 870 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering examination and treatment relationships, support, consistency, and specialization, and to explain the weight assigned.

Johnson v. Berryhill · filed 2017-11-09(c), (d)(3)-(4), (f)

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)). “[T]he ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) directs ALJs to give more weight to a medical opinion from a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not.

Burian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c)(1)

“give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [her].”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion from a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not.

Perfinski v. Saul · filed 2021-03-19(c)(1)

It is an error and an ambiguity which runs afoul of the basic regulatory tenet that: “Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527( c )(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

An ALJ is also “required to consider the opinions of non-examining state agency medical and psychological consultants because they ‘are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.’” Milner v. Barnhart, 275 Fed. Appx. 947, 948 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i)). ... Because Dr. Koulianos’ opinions are consistent with the substantial medical evidence in this case and do not conflict with the credible opinions of any examining sources, the ALJ properly accorded them great weight. See Harris v. Colvin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159749, *25, 2014 WL 5844240, *8 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 12, 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hooks v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-29(f)(2)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-examining consultants and permits reliance on them when they do not conflict with examining-source opinions.

PATTI v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-06-14(e)

An ALJ is required to consider the opinions of non-examining consultants because they “are highly qualified physicians . . . who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Moreover, an ALJ may rely on opinions of non-examining sources when they do not conflict with those of examining sources. Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584–85 (11th Cir. 1991). Here, the ALJ considered and then assigned partial weight to the opinions of the state agency consultants, but the ALJ did so in a manner that favored Plaintiff (the consultants found no mental limitations whatsoever, but the ALJ found mild limitations in three areas). Put simply, the ALJ committed no error in partially relying upon the opinions of agency experts.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the findings of state-agency medical and psychological consultants, including later-submitted evidence when determining how much weight to give a consultant's opinion.

Claymon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-06(e)(2)

The regulations provide that Administrative Law Judges “must consider” the medical findings of State Agency medical and psychological consultants because they “are highly qualified” physicians and psychologists as well as “experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2). When a State Agency medical consultant renders an opinion without having the opportunity to review the complete case record, the Administrative Law Judge must consider the subsequently submitted evidence in assessing how much weight to give that source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-examining state agency physicians about the nature and severity of an impairment or whether a claimant meets or equals a listing, and to explain the weight assigned to the opinion.

Strothers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-16(f)(2)(ii)

ALJs are obligated to consider the opinions of non-examining state agency physicians that relate to the nature and severity of an impairment, or whether a claimant meets or equals a listing. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2)(ii), 416. 927(f)(2)(ii). An ALJ must evaluate the opinion of a non-examining source, and must explain the weight he assigns it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions from non-examining state agency physicians but does not require the ALJ to adopt them.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-19

The regulations direct that ALJs are not required to adopt such opinions, but they “must consider” them according to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.9274 because they “are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513a(b)(1), 416.913a(b)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider a state-agency consultant's opinion as medical-opinion evidence, apply the regulatory weighing factors, and explain the weight assigned.

Portillo v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-23(c)(1)-(6), (e)(2)(i)

These consultants are considered “highly qualified” and “experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(i). The ALJ must explain the weight given to the consultant in her written decision. Id. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(H). “In evaluating RFC assessments prepared by state consultants, the ALJ follows the same process that applies to any opinion evidence, considering factors such as ‘the supporting evidence in the case record.’” Brown v. Colvin, No. 4:12-CV-00247-FL, 2014 WL 1282255, at *15 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2014) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)-(d), 416.927(a)-(d)). ... The Court is not persuaded the ALJ’s rejection of the 10-pound lifting restriction is backed by substantial evidence. ... Without more, the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Coleman’s lifting restriction appears to be the impermissible substitution of lay opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh support, consistency, treatment relationship, and specialization.

Creighton v. Berryhill · filed 2022-09-28(d)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5)

The “treating physician” rule requires ALJ’s to give “deference to the views of the physician who has engaged in the primary treatment of the claimant.” ... Specifically, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” ... An ALJ may decline to give “controlling” weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician, but must “consider several factors in determining how much weight [the physician’s opinion] should receive,” ... The ALJ acknowledged also that Dr. Scanlon was an internist and Dr. Herbst, a family practitioner, while Dr. Levine was a board-certified orthopedic surgeon, and appropriately afforded “great weight” to Dr. Levine’s opinion. Tr. at 462-64, 503; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (generally the opinion of a specialist about issues related to his specialty are entitled to more weight than the opinion of a non-specialist). ... Thus, it was appropriate for the ALJ to afford these opinions less weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (a well-supported medical source opinion is entitled to more weight than a medical source opinion that is not well supported). ... This Court also finds no error with the ALJ giving great weight to the opinion of Dr. Levine, given its consistency with the record as a whole. Tr. at 461-64; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it deserves). ... Accordingly, this Court finds that the ALJ articulated sufficiently good reasons for affording Dr. Scanlon’s and Dr. Herbst’s opinions less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Finkelstein v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, provided the opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... However, the ALJ’s Decision does not include a discussion regarding whether Dr. Rose’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. (Pl’s Mot. at 13,15.) This is an error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to explain the weight assigned using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Brush v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-26(c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ must accord "controlling weight" to a treating source's medical opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments if the opinion "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record." ... If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source's opinion, the ALJ must provide "good reasons" for the weight given to that opinion or face remand. ... When assessing how much weight to give the treating source's opinion, the ALJ should consider factors set forth in the Commissioner's regulations, which include (i) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination; (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (iii) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; (iv) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (v) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (vi) other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) does not treat a physician as a treating source when the claimant's relationship with that physician is based solely on obtaining evidence for a disability claim.

Santos v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2018-04-17(a)(2)

A medical source is not a treating source if the claimant’s relationship with the source is based solely on the claimant’s need to obtain evidence in support of a disability claim. Id. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to explain the weight given using the regulation's factors.

Martes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-11-02(c)(2)-(6)

In general, the ALJ must give "more weight to medical opinions" from a claimant's treating sources when determining if the claimant is disabled. ... An ALJ must accord "controlling weight" to a treating source's medical opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments but only if the opinion "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record." ... If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source's opinion, the ALJ must provide "good reasons" for the weight given to that opinion or face remand. ... When assessing how much weight to give the treating source's opinion, the ALJ should consider the factors set forth in the Commissioner's regulations, which are (I) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination; (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (iii) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; (iv) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (v) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (vi) other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence, but permits less weight when substantial evidence contradicts it.

Cardoza v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-02-12(c)(2)

As previously discussed in Section II, a treating source's opinion, like that of Dr. Ng, is given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by objective medical and clinical evidence in the record. If the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the opinion need not be given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a medical source as a treating source only when the source has an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant.

Wimberley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-29(a)(2)

According to Social Security regulations, a treating source is an acceptable medical source that provides a claimant “with medical treatment or evaluation and has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). Dr. Tyler was not a treating provider whose opinion the ALJ was required to accord to substantial weight absent good cause shown, because he only examined Plaintiff once and had no ongoing treatment relationship with him.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats an acceptable medical source as not a treating source when the relationship is based solely on the claimant’s need for a disability-claim report.

Meehan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-10(a)(2)

The ALJ’s determination to give Dr. Ngo-Seidel’s opinion “little weight” because it was obtained at the request of Meehan equates to a finding that Dr. Ngo-Seidel was not a treating source and therefore the opinion was not entitled to substantial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to use a six-factor framework to determine the probative value of medical opinions, but does not require a single overall weight label for a treating physician's statements.

Sanders v. Social Security · filed 2019-08-22(c)

ALJs use the six-factor balancing test outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine the probative value of medical opinions from acceptable sources. ... There is no statutory requirement that an ALJ assign specific levels of weight to treating source physicians, and cases like this demonstrate why such a rule would be cumbersome and unhelpful. ... The Sixth Circuit has held that ALJs need not “label the amount of weight given to each treating physician’s view or list the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).” ... The ALJ showed “familiarity with the regulatory framework” and provided substantial evidence in accordance with the requirements of § 404.1527(c) & (d) for her decision to discount certain statements of Dr. Vaidya regarding Ms. Sanders’ ability to concentrate, sit for long periods of time, and walk for over thirty minutes. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician's opinion controlling weight and otherwise generally give it more weight than opinions from other medical sources.

De Jesus v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)

The ALJ must give “[c]ontrolling weight . . . to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.” Johnson, 204 F. Supp. 3d at 409 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Even if not given controlling weight, a treating source’s medical opinion generally receives more weight than opinions from other medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a treating source based on a claimant seeing the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment or evaluation required, so a one-time evaluator who provides no treatment is not a treating source.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-03

A medical source is “a treating source if the claimant sees her ‘with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for [the] medical condition.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). Because Dr. Koricke evaluated Mr. Long only once and did not provide any treatment to him, she is not a treating source, and the ALJ was not required to consider her report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial record evidence to receive controlling weight.

Caldwell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-21(c)(2)

The “treating source rule,” also known as the “treating physician rule,” is a series of regulations set forth by the Commissioner in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 detailing the weight to be accorded a treating source’s opinion.2 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) identifies a treating source by considering an ongoing treatment relationship and whether the frequency of treatment or evaluation is consistent with accepted practice or typical for the claimant's condition.

Frazier v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2020-12-14(a)(2)

The applicable regulations do not specifically define the term “treating physician,” but instead provide indicia that the Court should consider, such as whether there was an “ongoing treatment relationship” where the patient saw the doctor “with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your medical condition(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). The regulations also provide, “We may consider an acceptable medical source who has treated or evaluated you only a few times or only after long intervals (e.g., twice a year) to be your treating source if the nature and frequency of the treatment or evaluation is typical for your condition(s).” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight.

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

The medical opinion of the claimant’s treating physician is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... If the ALJ determines that the opinion of a treating physician is not entitled to controlling weight, she must decide how much weight, if any, to give the opinion and must comprehensively articulate her reasons for the weight assigned to it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives treating-source opinions more weight and controlling weight when they are well-supported and consistent with the record; an ALJ assigning less weight must give good reasons.

De Bolt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-17(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, opinions from “treating sources” are to be given more weight based upon their perspective on the claimant’s medical history. Allums v. Commr. of Soc. Sec., 975 F. Supp. 2d 823, 827–28 (N.D. Ohio 2013). The treating source’s opinion will receive controlling weight only if such opinions are well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. (Id.). ... Given the specificity of the ALJ’s findings and her decision to give the testimony of Dr. Raiser “little weight’, despite being Plaintiff’s treating physician, the Magistrate Judge did not err in affirming the ALJ’s decision because it was supported by good reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight if it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013).