20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

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

Hawn v. Saul · filed 2021-03-08(d)(2)

Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, “[t]he regulations require that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.” Reed v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sarden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08(c)(2)

The ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record”. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2); see Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dywinski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-20(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating provider’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, sections 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) require weighing factors including the treatment relationship and consistency with the record.

Relerford v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-09(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels, 874 F.3d at 654. In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the adjudicator must weigh it using specified factors, including the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, tests, consistency, and support.

Fierro v. Saul · filed 2021-03-10(c)(2), (c)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Second, even if the ALJ had provided good reasons for discounting Devassy’s opinion, he was required to consider a checklist of factors in determining precisely how much weight he should give it. See Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)); see also Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2010). Those factors include “the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician’s specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion.” Larson, 615 F.3d at 751. The ALJ failed to address any of these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the treating-physician rule, an ALJ must first explain why a treating opinion is not entitled to controlling weight because it lacks acceptable diagnostic support or conflicts with substantial evidence, and then weigh it under the regulatory factors; opinions about disability itself are not medical opinions, while opinions about physical or mental restrictions are.

Prudich v. Saul · filed 2021-03-11(a), (d)(2)

Only opinions that are “on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [claimants’ impairment(s)]” qualify. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a), (d)(2). Also, opinions on “issues reserved to the Commissioner,” are expressly disqualified and indeed are “not medical opinions” at all. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... There are two steps involved, however, when an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s medical opinion does not deserve controlling weight. The first is to explain why it is based on unacceptable diagnostic techniques or is contradicted by other substantial evidence; that done, the second is to analyze it under the factors (of which supportability is one). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“When we do not give the treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, we apply [certain factors] in determining the weight to give the medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Allen v. Saul · filed 2021-03-11(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating medical source should be given controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2002).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explicitly consider the treatment relationship, medical support, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, although a slavish recitation is unnecessary when the reasoning shows the rule was applied.

Bockeno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, “‘the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequen[c]y, 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.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence, but requires good reasons and consideration of the relevant factors when assigning weight.

Gracanin v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15(d)

Although the opinions of treating physicians are generally afforded deference, the ALJ need not afford such an opinion controlling weight if it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record and not well-supported by the medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; where the treating physician’s opinion is not so supported, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight he affords to that opinion. ... Recently, the Second Circuit reiterated the specific procedure for weighing a treating physician opinion: first, the ALJ must decide whether the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight; and second, if the ALJ decides that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must determine how much weight to give it by “explicitly consider[ing]” the relevant factors. ... Although the Second Circuit found that failure to explicitly consider these factors constitutes a procedural error meriting remand, it also recognized that such failure would not require remand where a “searching review of the record assures the reviewing court that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” ... The Court is therefore assured that the ALJ was fully aware of the standard he was required to apply, and that he did apply that standard in a meaningful way. ... The Court is also assured that the ALJ provided legally sufficient reasons for declining to rely more heavily on Dr. Breslow’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Markese v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-15(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Harris v. Colvin, 149 F. Supp. 3d 435, 441 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (“A corollary to the treating physician rule is the so-called ‘good reasons rule,’ which is based on the regulations specifying that ‘the Commissioner “will always give good reasons”’ for the weight given to a treating source opinion.” (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-03-16(c)(2)

As Williams’ treating physician, the ALJ was required to give Cheung’s opinions “controlling weight” so long as they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” ... The ALJ erred when determining that Dr. Cheung’s opinions were not based on “objective evidence” given the undisputed fibromyalgia diagnosis, treatment history, and consistent reports not only from Williams herself but from her treating physician and examiners.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion that conflicts with objective medical tests, without separately discussing each factor in § 404.1527(c).

Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-17(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ was not required to assign controlling weight to Dr. Bell’s opinions because his opinions were set forth in a questionnaire format. The ALJ was not required to discuss the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) because she found that Dr. Bell’s opinions were in conflict with objective medical tests performed on Lee.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a treating source’s opinion after declining to give it controlling weight.

McLendon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-11(c)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician's assessment, the ALJ must consider the following factors to determine the weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence in support of the opinion; (4) the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is that of a specialist; and (6) any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sandusky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Potter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. ... Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”). ... The ALJ’s opinion is deficient. The ALJ does not address the medical evidence which supports, or fails to support, the doctor’s opinions. In addition, the ALJ’s assignment of weight to the opinion is ambiguous. The ALJ has failed to articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 545; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Accordingly, this matter will be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, the Commissioner should re-evaluate Dr. Kilbourn’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Vernon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(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. ... At step one, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-98. If the treating source’s opinion meets these criteria, then it is “entitled to controlling weight.” Id. Otherwise, the ALJ must proceed to step two and “determine how much weight, if any, to give” the opinion. Id. ... At step two, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the following factors derived from Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008) (emphasis added): “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96. At both steps one and two, “the ALJ must give good reasons in its notice of determination or decision for the weight it gives the treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. at 96. ... ALJ Romeo did not explicitly consider the Burgess factors as required. ... ALJ Romeo traversed the treating source rule by failing to provide good reason for departing from Dr. Baxter’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the record as a whole.

Trujillo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-18(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must determine whether the treating ... source’s opinions were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Second, the ALJ must then determine whether those opinions were “consistent with the record as a whole.” Id. If the treating source’s opinions satisfy both criteria, they are entitled to controlling weight. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Heerkens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(c)(2)

Thus, where the treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it will be afforded controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion and requires good reasons for the weight assigned when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Higginson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. ... Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”). ... The ALJ gave good reasons for the limited weight assigned to Dr. Guerrero’s June 2017 opinion. ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported and consistent treating-source medical opinion to receive controlling weight, and otherwise requires the adjudicator to give good reasons for the weight assigned after applying the listed factors.

Granados v. Saul · filed 2021-03-23(c)(2)

When determining disability, the ALJ will consider medical opinions from acceptable medical sources, including treating physicians, together with the rest of the relevant evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)–(b) & 416.927(a)–(b). A “treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)” will be given controlling weight if the ALJ finds that 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.” Id. at §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2). When a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ applies the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)–(ii) and (c)(3)–(c)(6) of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 in determining what weight to give the opinions and provides “good reasons” for the weight given. Id. at §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2). ... The Court is of the opinion that such an analysis provides specific reasons that satisfy the regulatory requirement to provide good reasons for the weight given the opinion of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a 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.

Brusca v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(d)(2)

Pursuant to the “treating physician” rule, “[t]he 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.’” ... “While the opinions of a treating physician deserve special respect, they need not be given controlling weight where they are contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source 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, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Larson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. ... Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”). ... The ALJ reviewed plaintiff’s treatment history with Dr. Grossman and explained in detail the reasons why he assigned the doctor’s opinion little weight, based in part on the lack of contemporaneous treatment records. The ALJ’s evaluation of the doctor’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this claim of error is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-25(d)(2)

“[a]n ALJ must give the 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.’ ... The treating physician rule applies only to opinions that are actually the opinions of the physician rather than the self-reported limitations of a claimant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cintron-Sostre v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(c)(2)

Regulations provide that the opinion of a treating physician is presumed to carry controlling weight as long as it is well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26

If the ALJ decides that the treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” ... The factors that the ALJ “must consider” include: (i) The frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Failure to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion is a ground for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) requires an ALJ to explicitly consider the frequency, length, nature, and extent of a treating relationship when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, although a slavish recitation of every factor is unnecessary when the ALJ’s compliance is clear.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26(c)(2)(i)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “‘explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is required. ... Nevertheless, the ALJ failed to explicitly consider or discuss any of these factors in deciding the weight to apply to the opinions of either Dr. Augustine or Dr. Kreitzer. This is “clear error and contrary to the well-established considerations to be made when an ALJ decides not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.” Daniels, 2020 WL 6253304, at *3; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004) (“We do not hesitate to remand when the Commissioner has not provided ‘good reasons’ for the weight given to a treating physician[’]s opinion and we will continue remanding when we encounter opinions from [ALJs] that do not comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned . . . .”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Diaz v. Saul · filed 2021-03-26(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion will be afforded controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mathewson v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the plaintiff’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well-supported and consistent with the record, while opinions not entitled to controlling weight must be weighed under the regulation’s listed factors.

Koskinas, II v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, *1 (July 2, 1996). ... In the second step, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. [§§] 404.1527 and 416.927. In many cases, a treating source’s medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.” SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, *4. ... The Court concludes that the ALJ adequately explained the weight given to Dr. Thomas’s opinions, and the ALJ’s decision to afford Dr. Thomas’s opinions limited weight was supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and to consider specified factors when deciding what weight otherwise to give it.

DePaulo v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires the ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “[I]f the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, [she] must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). When the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008). Moreover, “the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia, (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to consider the relevant factors and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)-(6)

Second, if the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider various factors and provide “good reasons” for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6); see also Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015). These “nonexclusive Burgess factors [include]: (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.” ... In my view, upon careful review of the record, the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule and properly articulated her reasons for the weight she gave to Dr. Al-Tariq’s opinion. ... In sum, the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule and proffered “good reasons” for the weight she accorded Dr. Al-Tariq’s opinion. Accordingly, plaintiff’s contention that the ALJ erred by failing to give controlling weight to Dr. Al-Tariq’s opinion is meritless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kramer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)

Thus, where the treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it will be afforded controlling weight. White v. Saul, 414 F. Supp.3d 377, 383 (W.D.N.Y. 2019), quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight and requires controlling weight when supported by proper medical testing and consistent with the record, with good reasons explaining any lesser weight.

Bowers v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, when the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. Id. “However, [a]n ALJ may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, considering the specified factors when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Blair v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

“Second, if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must make clear how much weight the opinion is being given (including whether it is being rejected outright) and give good reasons, tied to the factors specified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 . . . for the weight assigned.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ provided adequate reasons to give Dr. Enzenauer’s opinions only partial weight by sufficiently demonstrating that Dr. Enzenauer’s opinions were partially in conflict with the evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight and to consider specified factors when assigning it less than controlling weight.

Dockey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

An ALJ must, therefore, give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source if: (1) the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). ... If the ALJ affords less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still determine the weight it should be afforded. Id. at 376. In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of the opinion, (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the treating source, and (6) other relevant factors. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record, and to give good reasons and consider relevant factors when assigning less weight.

Carter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-01(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, “a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to ‘controlling weight’ when it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,’” Gualano v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 415 F. Supp. 3d 353, 358 (W.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... An ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must give “good reasons” for discounting it. Rolon v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 994 F. Supp. 3d 496, 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). ... In addition, the ALJ must explicitly “consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... As an initial matter, the ALJ did not explicitly consider the Burgess factors in determining “how much weight to give to” Dr. Fitelson’s opinions. ... Ultimately, the ALJ failed to offer “good reasons” for discounting Dr. Fitelson’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating medical source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits lesser weight when the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record.

Warmbold v. Saul · filed 2021-04-12(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating medical source should be given controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2002). ... An ALJ may discount a medical opinion if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, such as “where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1013 (citations omitted); see also Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790–91 (8th Cir. 2005). ... The Court concludes the ALJ’s determination to give slight weight to the form opinions of Dr. Thompson was not contrary to substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the regulatory factors, give controlling weight when the opinion meets the applicable standard, and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Selembo v. Berryhill · filed 2021-04-15(c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ who does not accord controlling weight to the treating physician’s medical opinion must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion, including: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the amount of medical evidence in support of the treating physician's opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist.” ... The regulations also require that the ALJ set forth “good reasons” for not crediting the opinion of the treating provider. ... Because the ALJ has neither acknowledged nor applied the treating physician rule or discussed with any specificity the factors he should have considered in evaluating the treating physician's opinion, remand is appropriate. ... The ALJ shall consider and discuss his application of the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Estep v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-19(c)(2)

In the first step, an ALJ must afford such opinions “controlling weight if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Id. at 376 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Schiller v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-15(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

McQuaig v. Saul · filed 2021-04-20(c)(2)

Section 404.1527(c)(2) sets forth the “‘treating physician rule,’ under which the medical opinion of a treating physician is entitled to ‘controlling weight’ if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported and record-consistent opinion controlling weight, explain good reasons for declining to do so, and consider the listed factors without an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Chicora v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2021-04-21(a)(2), (c)(2)–(6)

The treating physician requirement is a mandatory procedural regulation. ... Because a treating physician is “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,” the ALJ must give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight unless it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [or] is . . . inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The ALJ must provide “good reasons” for not according controlling weight to the treating physician in the benefits decision. ... And although the regulation requires the ALJ to consider all of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) when giving a treating physician less-than-controlling weight, the ALJ need only give “good reasons” in the opinion—not an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Flaviano Arroyo v. Saul · filed 2021-04-28(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight, and may be “controlling” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[.]” 20 C_F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). ... The ALJ’s decision lacks sufficiently specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Chan’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kennon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-28(c)

The regulations require that all medical opinions in a case be considered. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). The regulations further direct ALJs to accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion that is well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must proceed to weigh the treating physician’s opinion, along with all the other medical opinions of record, based upon the following non-exclusive list of factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examinations; (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) the evidence with which the physician supports his opinion; (5) the consistency of the opinion; and (6) whether the physician is a specialist in the area in which he is rendering an opinion. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5), 416.927(c)(1)-(5).3 See also Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 654 (4th Cir. 2005). ... Based upon the foregoing, the undersigned finds no error in the ALJ's consideration of Dr. Sanchez's opinion. The ALJ adequately explained his reasoning in finding that the opinion conflicted with other substantial evidence of record, including the opinions of the state agency medical consultants and contemporaneous treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Tuttle v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2021-04-22(c)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Grassmyer v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-22(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, a court gives the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while considering specified treatment and support factors when determining the opinion's value.

Lewis v. Saul · filed 2021-05-10(c)

Under the “treating physician rule,”2 an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). ... The Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to give controlling weight to Dr. Nagaj’s assertions about Plaintiff’s allegedly extreme limitations, because the opinion is not consistent with any other record evidence, including Dr. Nagaj’s own treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Sawyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-11(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule,” which is applicable to the analysis of claims which were filed on or before March 27, 2017, provides that a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). In determining the weight to be afforded to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider several factors, including: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (5) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons” for his determination. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 (c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and permits less weight when good cause exists.

Clowdus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-12(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). “Good cause exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quotation marks omitted). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to Dr. Chhabra’s opinion is supported by good cause and substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, consider specified factors if it is not controlling, and always give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Protte v. Saul · filed 2021-05-13(d)(1)-(6), (d)(2)

“Under the [Social Security Administration’s] regulations, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... Unless a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ should consider each of the following factors in evaluating every medical opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the quantity of evidence in support of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the treating physician is also a specialist; and (6) any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(6). ... Regardless of how much weight the ALJ affords a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The former version of § 404.1527 required an ALJ to give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, but did not impose that good-reasons requirement on opinions from non-treating sources.

Scott v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-14(d)(2)

The former rule requires the ALJ to provide “good reasons” for what weight she gave the claimant’s treating source opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The reasons must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242 (quotation omitted). The ALJ’s “failure to follow the procedural requirement of identifying the reasons for discounting the opinions and for explaining precisely how those reasons affected the weight accorded the opinions denotes a lack of substantial evidence, even where the conclusion of the ALJ may be justified based upon the record.” Id. at 243 (citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544). But the “good reasons” requirement does not extend to the opinions of non-treating sources. See Smith, 482 F.3d at 876 (holding the ALJ must give good reasons “for only treating sources”). Accordingly, because Drs. Morton and Dancy are not treating physicians, the ALJ was not required to give controlling weight to their opinions or provide good reasons for assigning partial weight. Id. (“In the absence of treating-source status for these doctors, we do not reach the question of whether the ALJ violated Wilson by failing to give reasons for not accepting their reports.”). Therefore, the Court concludes that the ALJ was not required to provide good reasons for giving partial weight to the opinions of Drs. Morton and Dancy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors.

Hammond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-17(c)(2)

the opinion of a treating physician on the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011) (explaining that, under the “treating physician rule,” the opinion of a treating physician “that is consistent with the record is generally entitled to ‘controlling weight’” (citations omitted)). ... If an ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the factors set forth in the regulations to ... determine what other weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850, 860 (7th Cir. 2014) (requiring an explicit discussion of certain § 404.1527(c)(2) factors on remand).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise the opinion is weighed under the regulatory factors.

Cringean v. Saul · filed 2021-05-18(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). “When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6). Greater weight is also given to the “opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Grethen v. Social Security Administation, Commissioner · filed 2021-05-18(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a treating medical provider is given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to weigh a noncontrolling opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

WOODRUFF v. SAUL · filed 2021-05-20(c)(1)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ should consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give it; the examining relationship (more weight accorded to an examining source), the treatment relationship (including length and nature of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lauricello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-21(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). ... When the ALJ does not afford controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician, he must comprehensively consider several factors, the so-called “Burgess factors,” and set forth the reasons for the weight assigned to the treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) applies the listed opinion-weighting factors to non-treating medical sources, replacing the treatment-relationship factor with whether the source examined the claimant.

Lamphere v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c)(1)-(6)

The factors for considering opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, with the consideration of whether the source examined the claimant replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the substantial evidence, requires consideration of specified factors when assigning weight, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Ryan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-03(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule,” which is applicable to the analysis of claims which were filed on or before March 27, 2017, provides that a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). In determining the weight to be afforded to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider several factors, including: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (5) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons” for his determination. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 (c)(2). An ALJ’s failure to explicitly consider the relevant factors in assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion, or to give good reasons for the weight he assigns, can constitute grounds for a remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Finton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-03(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App’x 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must consider the regulatory weighing factors and explain the weight assigned.

POULIN v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-07(c)(2)

In Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)), the Seventh Circuit held that a "treating doctor's opinion receives controlling weight if it is 'well-supported' and 'not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence' in the record." ... "If an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion." ... Irrespective of waiver considerations, the ALJ gave good reasons for giving "little weight" to Dr. Bain's opinion. ... The ALJ applied the factors—explaining that Dr. Bain only saw Linda P. once a year and his examination was unremarkable the day before he filled out the medical source statement form. ... Accordingly, the ALJ's relevant finding—concerning Linda P.'s alleged need to elevate her legs—is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally favors treating-source opinions, but controlling weight is not required when an opinion is not well-supported or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence; the ALJ must then consider additional factors in weighing it.

Lambert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-10(c)(1) and (2)

However, despite that general presumption, if those opinions are not “well-supported” or are inconsistent with other substantial evidence, then the opinions need not be given controlling weight. Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2 (July 2, 1996). In such cases, the ALJ should review additional factors to determine how much weight should be afforded to the opinion, such as “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley v. Com’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ferguson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-11(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); ... The ALJ specifically found the opinions were inconsistent with each other but his analysis also reveals the opinions were inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, subject to discounting for good cause.

Taylor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-14(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). ... Thus, in discounting the opinions of Drs. Kohen and Scott, the ALJ found that those opinions are not consistent with the record evidence. ... So, the Court finds that the ALJ articulated a good cause reason, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting the opinions of Drs. Kohen and Scott.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dalton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-15(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a treating physician's opinion.

Cooper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-16(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician's opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d); 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fogg-Crawford v. Saul · filed 2021-06-21(c)(2)

Put simply, the ALJ must provide a good reason for the weight that the ALJ affords the treating physicians’ opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) makes a treating physician’s opinion controlling unless it is unsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.

Parker v. Saul · filed 2021-06-21(d)

A treating physician’s opinion is controlling “unless it is unsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.” Stephens y. Astrue, 533 F. Supp. 2d 598, 600 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Narraway v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-21(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

McCormick v. Berryhill · filed 2021-06-25(c)(2)

A treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2); see also Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (“A treating physician’s [opinion] is binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.”) ... While the ALJ does not have to afford the treating physician’s opinions controlling weight, if the ALJ does not treat them as controlling, she must explain how they are contradicted by substantial evidence and why she is not following them, and that is where the ALJ’s Decision fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)'s treating-physician rule required greater weight for a treating physician's opinion absent other specific findings, but the newer rules removed that requirement for claims governed by them.

Corbezzolo v. Saul · filed 2021-06-29(c)(2)

The new rules remove the "treating physician" rule, which required giving greater weight to the treating physician's opinion absent other specific findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527c(2). Now the ALJ is not required to explain how they reached their decision unless the record equally supports two dissimilar medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Brodskiy v. Saul · filed 2021-06-30(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to provide good reasons and consider the relevant factors when assigning less weight.

Bellehsen v. Commissioner · filed 2021-07-06(c)(2)

The ALJ must afford the opinion of a treating physician controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical evidence and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1999). ... In deciding not to give Dr. Hertz’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ did not address whether those opinions were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... This was error. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96; see also Ferraro v. Saul, 806 F. App’x 13, 15 (2d Cir. 2020) (“[M]erely acknowledging the existence of treatment relationships is not the same as explicitly considering the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to explicitly consider the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treating relationship when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

Bernadeau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-06(c)(2)

At step two, “if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, [she] must determine how much weight, if any, to give it” and must “explicitly consider” the four nonexclusive Burgess factors: (1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96 (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the specified factors and explain the weight assigned.

Colon v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule1, a “treating source’s opinion on the issue of the nature and severity of a [claimant’s] impairment(s) will be given ‘controlling weight’ if the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” ... If an ALJ does not give controlling weight to the treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider various factors to determine how much weight, if any, to give to the opinion, including: “(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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but does not require an ALJ to expressly address every weighing factor in the written decision.

Kirby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. ... (indicating that, under Blakley and the good reason rule, an ALJ is not required to explicitly address all of the six factors within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for weighing medical opinion evidence within the written decision).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Silva v. Saul · filed 2021-07-08(c)(2)

‘The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-07-09(c)(2)

If we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ found that Dr. Monka’s opinions about non-exertional limitations were inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record and gave them little weight. Plaintiff has pointed to no contrary evidence of record. The Court finds no error here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fair v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-15(c)(2)

While Plaintiff is correct that the ALJ is required to give a medical opinion of a treating physician controlling weight, such determination is made only if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See Rosa, 168 F.3d at 78-79; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight if it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to apply the remaining weighing factors only after determining that controlling weight is unwarranted.

Cline v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-19(c)(2)

Instead, the ALJ improperly reduced the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by the Regulations into solely consideration of the remaining factors in the Regulations, such as the “supportability” and “consistency” factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). This constitutes error because the “supportability” and “consistency” factors, along with the others listed in the Regulations, “are properly applied only after the ALJ has determined that a treating-source opinion will not be given controlling weight.” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing specified factors and giving good reasons for discounting it.

Barton v. SSA · filed 2021-07-21(c)(2)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, id., as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence. Id. The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise to give good reasons for its weight after considering the listed factors.

Mraz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-26(c)(2), (d)(2)

The treating-source rule requires that an ALJ give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If an ALJ does not assign controlling weight to a treating source, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight assigned. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). There are six factors an ALJ must consider if the opinion of a treating source is not accorded controlling weight: (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) the frequency of examination, (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) supportability of the opinion, (5) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (6) specialization of the treating source. Wilson, 378 F.3d. at 544 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... The ALJ assigned limited weight to Dr. Koirala’s opinion and gave good reasons for doing so. Specifically, she observed that Dr. Koirala’s most recent opinion is inconsistent with his prior treatment notes and with the record, both of which reflect that Plaintiff has only moderate symptoms and limitations. ... Because the record supports the ALJ’s findings that Dr. Koirala’s most recent medical opinion is inconsistent with his own treatment notes and with the remainder of the record, the ALJ did not err in assessing Dr. Koirala’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship and give greater weight when the physician has reasonable knowledge of the claimant’s impairments.

Obremski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(c)(2)(ii)

Under the treating physician rule, Dr. Dayal’s opinions are entitled to greater weight if he has “reasonable knowledge” of Obremski’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii). Accordingly, the ALJ was required to consider how Dr. Dayal was uniquely situated to opine as to Obremski’s symptoms given that he was Obremski’s vascular surgeon who treated him immediately following the date of onset.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating source’s opinion, consider specified factors when declining controlling weight, and need not recite every factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Seymour v. Berryhill · filed 2021-07-27(c)(2)

When determining eligibility for disability insurance benefits, the Social Security Administration “give[s] more weight to opinions from . . . treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Consequently, the ALJ reviewing a claim for disability insurance benefits must likewise give “deference to the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). However, “the opinion of the treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where . . . the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.” Id. If the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight the opinion is due: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion was from a specialist; and (v) any other factors that “tend to support or contradict the opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ need not always recite each factor. See Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (noting that “it [was] unclear on the face of the ALJ’s opinion whether the ALJ considered (or even was aware of) the applicability of the treating physician rule,” but nevertheless concluding that “the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed”); see also Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We require no such slavish recitation of each and every factor where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.”). While Judge Davison found that the ALJ’s failure to explicitly cite each of these factors in his analysis is a procedural error, after conducting a “searching review of the record,” Judge Davison concluded that the ALJ “properly weighed Dr. Lyden’s opinion, proffered good reasons for discounting it[,] and applied the substance of the treating physician rule.” (R&R 15.) The Court agrees.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Salemi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). If the ALJ gives the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must provide good reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-29(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2). ... Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); ... Here, the ALJ provided the requisite good reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion only when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

VANDYKE v. SAUL · filed 2021-07-27(c)(2)

Although Plaintiff urges that the treating physician rule should govern, that doctrine does not require ALJs to give controlling weight to treating physician opinions that, as here, are inconsistent with or unsupported by underlying treatment records and other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c)(2) permits a treating source's opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable evidence and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of relevant regulatory factors.

Westbrook v. Saul · filed 2021-08-02(c)(2)

An ALJ must evaluate each medical opinion of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). But only a treating physician’s opinion may be afforded controlling weight, and then only if it is both well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with the remainder of the record. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must offer “good reasons” for doing so, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739, and consider various factors to determine what weight, if any, to afford the opinion, Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008). Those factors include: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and requires consideration of specified factors when assigning weight to non-controlling medical opinions.

Bamberger v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-02(c)

It “requires that ALJs give ‘controlling weight’ to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if that opinion is (1) ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and (2) ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.” ... Should an ALJ decide that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine the appropriate weight to assign the opinion by considering several factors, all of which also must be considered when evaluating medical opinion evidence—whatever the source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Betts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-03(c)(1)-(6)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ considers the following factors to determine how much weight it should receive: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (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 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to first determine whether it qualifies for controlling weight based on support and consistency; if not, the ALJ must consider the six listed factors and give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Provencio v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-09(c)(2)–(6)

If an ALJ decides that a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to less than controlling weight, the ALJ must follow two steps. See id. at *5. “First, the ALJ must find the opinion to be unsupported by medical evidence or inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.” Id. If the opinion is not well-supported by the medical evidence or if it is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record[,]” the ALJ will not give the opinion controlling weight. Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). At the second step of the analysis of a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ “must determine what deference he will accord the opinion after considering the six deference factors listed” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Padilla, 2015 WL 10383109, at *4; see also Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 2004). ... “When evaluating any medical opinion in the record, the ALJ must give good reasons—reasons that are ‘sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers’—for the weight that he ultimately assigns to” those opinions. Id. (quoting Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119). The ALJ’s “determination, like all of his findings, must be supported by substantial evidence.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed using the regulatory factors.

Miller v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-08-09(c)(2)

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

Austin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-10(c)(2)

It is well settled that under the treating physician rule that was in place at the time the plaintiff’s application was filed, an ALJ is obligated to grant controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, so long as it was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2). Where an ALJ declines to grant controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must set forth “good reasons” for having done so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the adjudicator to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to consider specified factors when deciding the weight of that opinion.

Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-10(d)

Pursuant to the applicable regulations, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir.2003); Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78 (2d Cir.1999). In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician's opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d); 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bructo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-10(c)(2)

The treating physician rule originates from the plain language of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which instructs that a medical opinion from a treating physician should be given controlling weight, unless the ALJ sets forth why the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and requires an ALJ who declines that weight to consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons.

Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-12(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” ... These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) requires the ALJ to analyze and determine whether a physician qualifies as a treating physician before evaluating the physician’s opinion.

Blamer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-13(a)(2)

It is incumbent on the ALJ to analyze and make a determination pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) with regard to Dr. Lesniak’s status as a “treating physician.”

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, and requires the ALJ to explain reasons for discounting it.

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

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record”. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). If the treating physician’s opinion does not meet this standard, the ALJ may discount it, but is “required to explain the weight it gives to the opinions of a treating physician . . . . Failure to provide ‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is a ground for remand”. Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). See also 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Accordingly, I find that ALJ Fuller properly considered Dr. Bavibidila’s opinion under the treating physician rule, and that her assignment of little weight to that opinion is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to meaningfully consider all six listed factors when determining the weight to give a treating physician’s medical opinion.

Ford v. Saul · filed 2021-08-24(c)

Section 404.1527(c) establishes the “treating physician rule,” whereby the medical opinion of a treating physician is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... In such cases, the ALJ must then consider each of the factors laid out by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) in determining the proper weight of the opinion. ... While the ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis, it must be clear from the decision that the ALJ meaningfully considered each of the factors before determining how much weight to give the opinion. ... The ALJ’s decision here suffers from similar defects. While the ALJ found that Dr. Scoggins’ opinion is unsupported by diagnostic testing and inconsistent with the longitudinal record, she fails to explain how the opinion is unsupported and inconsistent. Moreover, the ALJ makes no reference to any of the remaining four Section 404.1527(c) factors. ... Here, the ALJ failed to fully engage in the appropriate analysis as required by Section 404.1527(c). As such, this error necessitates a remand in this case to allow the ALJ to consider Dr. Scoggins’ medical opinion in accordance with Section 404.1527(c) and Dowling.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Simpson v. Saul · filed 2021-08-27(c)(2)

But even under the old regulations, the Commissioner was not always required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. Rather, the Commissioner was only required to give controlling weight to such an opinion if it was well-supported and consistent with other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (“If we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) 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, we will give it controlling weight.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, generally give treating-physician opinions the most weight, and explain the reasons for discounting them when good cause exists.

Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(b), (c)(2)

The Regulations set forth three tiers of medical opinions: (1) treating physicians; (2) non-treating, examining physicians; and (3) non-treating, non-examining physicians. Himes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 585 F. App’x 758, 762 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(c)(1)–(2); id. at § 416.927(c)(1)-(2)). Treating physicians’ opinions are accorded the most deference because there is a greater likelihood that these healthcare providers will “be able to give a more complete picture of the [claimant’s] health history.” Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1259 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). As a result, the ALJ must give the opinion of a treating physician substantial or considerable weight unless the ALJ clearly articulates reasons—buttressed by substantial evidence—that establish “good cause” for discounting that opinion. Hargress, 883 F.3d at 1305–06; Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241. “Good cause exists when (1) the treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence, (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding, or (3) the treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with his or her own medical records.” Schink, 935 F.3d at 1259 (citations omitted). In the end, irrespective of the nature of a physician’s relationship with a claimant, an ALJ “is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” Huntley v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm’r, 683 F. App’x 830, 832 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citing Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985)). ... In this case, Dr. Amarchand submitted a medical source statement in July 2017 and—as alluded to previously—an RFC questionnaire in October 2017. (R. 352–55, 365–70). The ALJ assigned “little weight” to both, describing them as “completely inconsistent with Dr. [Amarchand’s] treatment records.” (R. 21).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion that is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Hickman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to apply the treating-physician rule with enough specificity to permit review of whether it was properly observed.

Gardner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-31(c)(2)

The Court takes no position as to the weight that should have been assigned to Dr. Ameduri’s opinion, but finds that the ALJ’s analysis was not sufficiently specific to enable a determination as to whether or not the “treating physician rule” at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and § 416.927(c) was properly observed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source's opinion to apply the treating-physician rule, including considering the specified factors and giving good reasons for the weight assigned.

Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-02(c)(2)-(6)

“Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” ... “In doing so, it must explicitly consider” (1) “the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment”; (2) “the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion”; (3) “the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence”; and (4) “whether the physician is a specialist.” ... “An ALJ’s failure to ‘explicitly’ apply the [four] factors when assigning weight at step two is a procedural error.” ... “Thus, “[a]t 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.” ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, the opinion’s supportability, and its consistency with the record.

Lord v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-07(c)(2)-(4)

The ALJ also cited to plaintiff’s treatment notes with Dr. Lorraine (and other providers from his office) dating from October 2016 through November 2018, indicating that the ALJ considered the length and nature of the treatment relationship, and the frequency of examination. (T. 19-22) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (treatment relationship). ... The ALJ also addressed the remaining two remaining Burgess factors: the consistency of the opinion with the entire record, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (consistency), and the sufficiency of the evidence cited in support of the opinion, see § 404.1527(c)(3) (supportability). ... Thus, while the ALJ did not explicitly name each of the factors set forth in Burgess, the court’s review of the ALJ’s decision proves that she adequately considered them. Accordingly, the court finds no error in the ALJ’s application of the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who gives a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight to determine the weight it deserves using the listed factors and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(c)(1)-(6)

If an ALJ accords less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for doing so. ... If the ALJ affords less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still determine the weight it should be afforded. ... In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of the opinion, (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the treating source, and (6) other relevant factors. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) treats a consultative examination as insufficient to establish a treating relationship for purposes of giving an opinion greater weight.

WESLEY v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-09-09(c)(2)

Consultative examinations do not establish treatment relationships. See 20 C.F.R. $§ 404.1527 (c) (2), 416.927 (c) (2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give greater weight to treating-source medical opinions and give a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight.

Cathey v. Berryhill · filed 2021-09-10(c)(2)

An ALJ must “give more weight to medical opinions from . . . treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of . . . [the] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s opinion is “given controlling weight so long as it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion and to credit an opinion that is well supported and consistent with the record.

Howard v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-10(c)(2)

The Court must determine whether the ALJ articulated “good reasons” for the weight she afforded to Dr. Kennedy’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The Court concludes the ALJ did not. ... Dr. Kennedy’s specific opinions as to Plaintiff’s limitations, however, are well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Reece, 834 F.3d at 908-09. ... The ALJ should have given at least substantial weight to Dr. Kennedy’s opinions as to Plaintiff’s limitations in sitting, standing, and lifting; her inability to twist, stoop, bend, and crouch; her need to be able to shift positions at will from sitting, standing, or walking; her need to take 1 to 2 unscheduled breaks per day; and the likelihood her impairments would cause her to be absent about twice a month. Or, because Dr. Kennedy’s treating source statement is admittedly internally inconsistent as discussed above with respect to his conclusion that Plaintiff would not have difficulty working a full-time job on a sustained basis, the ALJ should have sought additional evidence from Dr. Kennedy to resolve this conflict.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hoffman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(c)(2)

Because plaintiff filed her claim before March 27, 2017, the “treating physician rule” applies to the ALJ’s decision. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”). ... The ALJ gave good reasons for the weight assigned to the doctors’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-09-14(c)

“[T]he treating physician rule is well-established.” Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 106 (4th Cir. 2020). It “requires that ALJs give ‘controlling weight’ to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if that opinion is (1) ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and (2) ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... The regulations clearly establish a scheme in which an ALJ should first determine whether an opinion is entitled to controlling weight and second determine what weight an opinion not entitled to controlling weight should be accorded. Here, the ALJ provided only two unsupported reasons for giving the opinion very low weight. Remand is therefore necessary.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion more weight, and potentially controlling weight, when it is well supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, but an opinion from a source without an ongoing treatment relationship or on the ultimate issue of disability is not entitled to that deference.

Sorensen v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-14(c)(2), (a)(2), (d)(1)

The treating physician rule generally requires an ALJ give a treating physician’s opinion “more weight” because the treating physician is “likely to be the medical professional[] most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [Plaintiff's] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained ftom the objective medical findings alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Moreover, an ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability. 20 CER. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... This is not the type of “ongoing treatment relationship” that gave Dr.-Silvernail a “detailed, longitudinal picture” of Plaintiff's impairments. 20 CER. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2). His opinion is therefore not of the type that the treating physician deference rule is meant to elevate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, with reasons sufficiently specific to explain the weight and the basis for it.

Dryden v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-15(c)(2)

The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. The ALJ must give reasons “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to explicitly consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization factors when assigning weight.

Kirby v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-15(c)(2)

Then, “if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give” and must “explicitly consider” the four nonexclusive Burgess factors: (1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96 (citing Burgess,537 F.3d at 129 and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... However, at step two, ALJ Johnson did not explicitly consider the Burgess factors.

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 unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence, to consider the listed factors and give good reasons when assigning weight, and to treat conclusory opinions that a claimant is disabled as issues reserved to the Commissioner rather than controlling medical opinions.

Bezerra v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(a)(1), (c), (c)(2), (d)

The regulations require the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment . . . so long as it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record” (the “Treating Physician Rule”). ... If the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, he or she is nevertheless required to consider the following factors, known as the “Burgess factors,” in determining the weight to be given to that opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) ... After considering these factors, the ALJ must fully set forth his reasons for the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion. ... The SSA defines “medical opinions” as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the patient’s] impairment(s), including [the patient’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the patient] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the patient’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), § 416.927(a)(2). ... Similarly, “a doctor’s opinion that a claimant is ‘disabled’ (particularly for purposes of a different statute) is not controlling,” Johnson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17 Civ. 5598 (BCM), 2018 WL 3650162, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2018), aff’d, 776 F. App’x 744 (2d Cir. 2019), since such statements “are not medical opinions,” but rather “opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when the source provides relevant supporting evidence and a better explanation.

Mercado-Figueroa v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-16(c)(3)

Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... Pursuant to the regulations, “[s]upportability” is one of the factors specifically set forth in the regulations used to evaluate opinion evidence, and states that “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). ... The decision renders it apparent that the ALJ considered the proper factors in determining how much weight to ascribe to Dr. Rae’s opinions even if the decision does not explicitly discuss each factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines an ongoing treating relationship as based on a claimant’s medical need for treatment or evaluation, rather than solely the need for a disability report.

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(a)(2)

Under the Social Security Administration’s regulations, a “treating source” is any “acceptable medical source,” including a licensed medical physician, who has an “ongoing treatment relationship” with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a)(1) & 404.1527(a)(2); see also Gayheart v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013) (describing a treating source as “a medical source who regularly treats the claimant”). As the regulations make clear, an ongoing treatment relationship must be based on an individual’s “medical need for treatment or evaluation,” and cannot be based “solely on [the] need to obtain a report in support of [a] claim for disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; if it lacks controlling weight, the ALJ must still defer to it, apply the listed factors, and give good reasons for the assigned weight.

Goettelman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-19(c)(2)-(6)

As a treating physician, Dr. Boschuetz’s opinion “should have been given controlling weight absent justifiable reasons—made on the record—for discounting th[at] opinion[].” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 408 (citing Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4-5). The ALJ failed to examine whether Dr. Boschuetz’s opinion was well-supported by her own medical examination findings or the findings of the other Hoxworth Clinic physicians contained in plaintiff’s available medical chart. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. Even if Dr. Boschuetz’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, it was incumbent upon the ALJ to give deference to the opinion of the treating physician and weigh Dr. Boschuetz’s opinion “using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 408. The ALJ’s decision does not show that she considered the requisite regulatory factors in weighing Dr. Boschuetz’s opinion. The ALJ did not consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. See also Blakley, 581 F.3d at 408. Indeed, the ALJ failed to acknowledge that Dr. Boschuetz was even a physician, despite evidence in the record showing her treatment of plaintiff.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before the March 2017 rule change, Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s well-supported opinion to receive controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Wright v. Social Security · filed 2021-09-20

Because Plaintiff applied for DIB benefits before a March 2017 rule change, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the medical opinion of her treating physician “must be given controlling weight” if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Gilbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-20(c)(2)

As the Magistrate Judge explained in the R&R (ECF No. 25, PageID.4748–4749), an “ALJ must give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight unless it is not ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [or] is . . . inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Chicora v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 852 F. App’x 968, 969–70 (6th Cir. 2021) (alterations in original) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2)). Here, the ALJ gave the opinions of Drs. Shah and Hoffmann little weight because he found them unsupported by and inconsistent with objective and subjective evidence in the record. (See ECF No. 17-14, PageID.3921.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, otherwise weigh it using the specified factors, and adequately explain the weight assigned.

Rice v. Comissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(c)

Under that framework, the Commissioner is required to evaluate and consider every medical opinion submitted, together with the rest of the relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (b) and (c). The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... After considering these factors, the Commissioner must adequately explain the weight afforded to the medical opinions, including those that do not receive controlling weight. ... As discussed above, this is not a “good reason” for rejecting the opinion of a treating physician, particularly without any discussion of the statutory factors weighing in favor of Dr. Lax’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record; opinions from non-acceptable medical sources are not entitled to controlling weight but must be considered in the context of the record as a whole.

Shaughnessy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(c)(2)

With regard to Plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ’s RFC formulation is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, because Plaintiff filed her disability benefits applications prior to March 27, 2017, the applications are subject to the so-called “treating physician’s rule,” which provides an opinion from a treating medical source is entitled to controlling weight so long as the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) 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), 416.927(c)(2). ... Where, however, an opinion is not rendered by an acceptable medical source, essentially medical doctors, psychologists and psychiatrist, such opinions are not entitled to controlling weight yet, if rendered by a treating source, should be considered “in the context of the record as a whole.” ... Accordingly, the opinions of OT Higgins and NP Ham must be considered in the context of the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give greater weight to a treating source's medical opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Wojcik v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(c)(2)

Pursuant to the “treating physician rule,” the ALJ is required to give more weight in his RFC assessment to the medical opinions of a claimant’s treating sources where those opinions are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Nothing in the ALJ’s extended discussion of his RFC determination, and particularly of his treatment of Plaintiff’s need for an assistive device, indicates either that the ALJ applied an improper legal standard or that his determination was not supported by substantial evidence. ... Further, although he did ultimately give “great weight” to the opinion of Dr. Schosheim, the ALJ did not rely on Dr. Schosheim’s opinion “by itself” as constituting substantial evidence, but rather considered the opinion in the context of the other record evidence, which the ALJ found to be consistent with Dr. Schosheim’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion; absent good cause, the opinion generally receives substantial or considerable weight.

DeLong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(c)(2)

Absent “good cause,” the opinion of a treating physician must be given “substantial or considerable weight” Williams v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 805 F. App’x 692, 694 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (noting that an ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion).