20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c)(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.

Everson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-21(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh it using specified factors.

Lance v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-22(c)(2)

Accordingly, the medical opinion of a treating source3 must be given “controlling weight” 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, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (internal quotation marks and alterations to original omitted)). ... When assigning a treating source opinion less than “controlling weight,” an ALJ “must apply certain factors – namely, 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 – in determining what weight to give the opinion.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6); 416.927(c)(1)-(6) (2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) limits controlling weight to opinions from treating physicians.

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(d)(2)

First, controlling weight is only appropriate for a treating physician opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives greater weight to opinions from sources who have examined the claimant, grants controlling weight to a treating source's opinion unless it lacks support or conflicts with substantial record evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bartlett v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(c)(2)

For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, the treating physician rule, codified at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, states that, “[g]enerally, [the agency] will give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [a patient] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [the patient].” ... Controlling weight is granted unless the ALJ finds that a treating source’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or that it is “inconsistent with other ‘substantial’ evidence in the record.” ... Regulations require an ALJ to “provide ‘good reason’ for the weight afforded to the opinions of treating sources.” ... The First Circuit has held, however, that an ALJ is not required to “expressly address each of the factors provided in § 404.1527(c)(2)” in explaining how much weight he or she affords the opinion of a treating source. ... Because the ALJ specifically addressed at least two of the factors from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)—supportability of the opinion by other evidence and consistency with the record—he was not required to further detail his analysis or reasons for according the opinions of Dr. Archer and Ms. Spagnuolo less weight. ... His analysis of the relevant evidence, including the treating sources’ opinions, set forth “good reason” for rejecting those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source medical 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 in the case record.

Burnett v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-29(c)(2)

In fact, the regulations demand that a medical opinion from a treating source be afforded “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] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise directs the ALJ to weigh it using the listed factors.

GATTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)-(6)

Rather, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), a treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight only if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” When controlling weight is not warranted, several factors are used to determine the weight given to the medical opinion including: the length of the treatment relationship; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability by the medical evidence; and consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

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.

PECK v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled “controlling weight” only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.6 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the same method used for other types of medical opinions and weigh the opinion based on listed regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6) (length and frequency of the treatment relationship, “nature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the opinion’s “supportability” and consistency with the record as a whole, the opining physician’s specialization, and factors such as the opining physician’s familiarity with the standards of the Social Security program). ... Such evidence establishes that the ALJ properly concluded that the unremarkable physical findings were inconsistent with Dr. Smith’s opinion that Peck should be limited to sedentary work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes treating-source controlling weight conditional on support from medically acceptable laboratory and diagnostic techniques and consistency with the record.

Solomon v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(d)(2)

“A treating physician’s opinion is generally given controlling weight, but is not inherently entitled to it. An ALJ may elect under certain circumstances not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. For a treating physician’s opinion to have controlling weight, it must be supported by medically acceptable laboratory and ... diagnostic techniques and it must not be ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives 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 other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons if controlling weight is denied.

Phillips v. Saul · filed 2020-10-13(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source such as Dr. Gorrepati 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.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ does not afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must offer “good reasons” for discounting the opinion. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating-source opinion is entitled to controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)(2)

While it is certainly evident that Ortiz has a lengthy history of psychiatric treatment with Dr. Caussade, 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c)(2) and SSR 96-2p,4 as argued by the Commissioner, instruct that a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight only to the extent that it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. The ALJ did not give controlling weight to Dr. Caussade’s opinion, finding that the severity of the restrictions offered by Dr. Caussade were inconsistent with other medical evidence in the record, which is a valid reason to discount a medical assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and otherwise requires weighing it under specified factors and giving good reasons for discounting it.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-15(c)(2)-(6)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” 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.” See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2); Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *2-3 (Soc. Sec. Admin. July 2, 1996). ... If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on factors such as the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, 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. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. §404.1527(c)(2). These reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and 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.” Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *5; Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242. ... The court concludes that the ALJ properly considered the opinions of Dr. Wolfgang as a treating source and gave good and sufficient reasons for the weight assigned to those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise to weigh it using specified factors and explain any discounting with good reasons.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-19(c)(2)

Accordingly, the medical opinion of a treating source must be given “controlling weight” 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.” ... When assigning weight to a treating source opinion, controlling weight or otherwise, an ALJ must consider certain factors “namely, 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 . . ..” ... Finally, in support of the weight assigned to a treating source opinion, if less than “controlling weight,” an “ALJ must provide ‘good reasons’ for discounting treating physicians’ opinions, reasons that are ‘sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s medical 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.

CULVER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-10-23(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 explained that he gave Dr. Baluyot-Escusa’s opinion about Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity only “some weight” because it was not supported by the evidence of record. This is proper, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Kolodziej v. Saul · filed 2020-10-29(d)(2)

In evaluating medical opinions, the case law and regulations distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (non-examining, or consulting, physicians). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). ... If a treating source’s opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record, the ALJ must give it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... The ALJ properly gave Dr. Choi’s opinion partial weight, rejecting his marked limitations and predicted absences from work (AR 25) for specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Vickers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-02(c)(2)

The regulations require ALJs to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. ... “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. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (internal quotations omitted). ... The procedural requirements to assign weight to the opinion of a treating source and provide “good reasons” for that weight serves both to ensure adequacy of review and to give the claimant a better understanding of the disposition of his case.

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 techniques and consistent with the substantial evidence, and otherwise requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Gove v. Saul · filed 2020-11-16(c)(2)

A claimant’s treating physician generally merits the most deference. A treating source’s medical opinion will be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “[I]f the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must provide good reasons for the weight given to that opinion.” Pappas v. Saul, 414 F. Supp. 3d 657, 675 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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 other substantial evidence in the record.

Dolliver v. Saul · filed 2020-11-10(c)(2)

“A treating ... source’s opinion on the question of the severity of an impairment will be 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] record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who gives a treating source's opinion less than controlling weight to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to assign it.

Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-20(c)

When an ALJ decides to afford a treating source's opinion less than controlling weight, he must still consider various factors in determining how much weight, if any, to give the opinion, including: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) what evidence supports the treating physician's report; (4) how consistent the treating physician's opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the area of specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant in claimant's particular case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 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 case record.

Miller v. Saul · filed 2020-11-20(a)(2), (c)(2)

To be a “medical opinion” entitled to “controlling weight,” an opinion must come from a “treating source,” it must be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and it must be “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally calls for controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is supported by medical findings and consistent with the record, but permits discounting it otherwise.

Chic Zoch v. Saul · filed 2020-11-24(c)(2)

An ALJ should generally give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is supported by medical findings and consistent with the record, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), but otherwise the ALJ may discount it.

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.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-19(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), 416.927(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003).

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 claimant’s record.

Vader v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(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) entitles a treating source’s opinion to controlling weight when it is supported by sound medical evidence and a consistent record.

Lacher v. Saul · filed 2020-12-01(c)(2)

For applications like Lacher’s that were filed before 2017, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by sound medical evidence and a consistent record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when it is inconsistent with the physician’s own findings and other record evidence, provided the ALJ gives reasons clear enough for review.

Wireman v. SSA · filed 2020-12-11(c)(2)

The Court agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ provided “good reasons” for affording Dr. Goble’s opinion little weight. The ALJ ruled that Dr. Goble’s inconsistent opinions (with both his own findings and the findings of other experts involved) required his opinion be given lower weight. The ALJ’s written rationale “make[s] clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (July 2, 1996). The ALJ is only required to give a treating physician’s opinions “great weight if they are supported by sufficient clinical findings and are consistent with the evidence.” Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 535, 529-30 (6th Cir. 1997). Thus, it is improper to denote a lack of substantial evidence on this ground.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-16(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 controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Bishop v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-21(c)(2)

The social security regulations require that an ALJ 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to a treating source’s opinion when the source has treated the patient longer and more often, particularly when the source has developed a longitudinal picture of the patient’s impairment.

Richerson v. Social Security · filed 2020-12-23(c)(1)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(1), generally, the longer a treating source has treated the patient and the more times the patient have been seen by a treating source, more weight will be given to the source's medical opinion. If the treating source has seen the patient several times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of that patient’s impairment, that medical source's medical opinion will be given more weight than if it were from a nontreating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wallace v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-06(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. ... The regulation further provides that the Commissioner “will always give good reasons . . . for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. ... The Court finds that the ALJ erred in applying the treating physician rule to Dr. Newman’s opinion because she failed to provide “good reasons” for giving it limited, rather than controlling, weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... There is no requirement that other substantial evidence of record support the opinion of the treating physician; rather, the ALJ must evaluate whether other substantial evidence of record contradicts that opinion. ... The fact that other evidence did not support Dr. Newman’s opinion was not a proper reason to assign it less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Wilburn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-14(c)(2)

The undersigned finds no error with the ALJ’s consideration and assessment of Dr. Dobroshi’s opinion. The ALJ properly declined to afford Dr. Dobroshi’s opinion controlling weight and articulated his reasons for doing so. In support, the ALJ reasoned that the extent of Plaintiff’s limitations opined by Dr. Dobroshi was inconsistent with, and unsupported by, the objective medical record and evidence of Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(4), 416.927(c)(2)–(4); (R at 26–27.) Not only are these good and sufficient reasons for assigning a treating source opinion less than controlling weight, but, when present, they mandate such a determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (providing that a treating source opinion will be given controlling weight if and only if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case 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 is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Wiggins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-11(c)(2)

A treating-source opinion “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.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) provides the standard for deciding whether a treating physician’s opinion qualifies for controlling weight.

Nagy v. Commissioner · filed 2021-01-14(c)(2)

The magistrate judge and the ALJ each addressed why Dr. Lis’s opinions do not qualify for controlling weight under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (ECF No. 16, PageID.1387-88; ECF No. 19, PageID.1431-32)). Plaintiff does not identify any errors in the magistrate judge’s reasoning. Moreover, it is the job of the ALJ, not the reviewing court, to “resolve conflicts in evidence.” See Collins, 357 F. App’x at 670 (quoting Gaffney, 825 F.2d at 100). Plaintiff’s objection is overruled.

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 case record, but requires an ALJ who discounts it to give good reasons.

Jaeger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(c)(2)

However, as a treating physician’s opinion, it was entitled to controlling weight as long as it was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [was] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (second brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard but must give “good reasons” for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives treating-source opinions controlling weight only when they are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the case record.

Box v. Saul · filed 2021-01-29(c)(2)

Because Drs. Christensen and Nielson were treating physicians, their opinions could have been entitled to controlling weight, but only if they were well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and were not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in Ms. Box’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) entitles a treating source’s medical opinion 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 claimant’s case record.

Ingvalson v. Saul · filed 2021-02-04(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical 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 claimant’s] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) provides that a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Burke v. Saul · filed 2021-02-22(c)(2)

Moreover, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” See Scouten v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 722 F. App’x 288, 290 (3d Cir. 2018) (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 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.

SACCO v. SAUL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-25(c)(2)

Indeed, under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion “is well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 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 opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires explicit consideration of the Burgess factors when less than controlling weight is assigned.

Abate v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source will be given controlling weight if it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). When assigning less than “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the four factors announced in Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). Those factors, referred to as “the Burgess factors,” are “(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 (citation omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). A reviewing court should remand for failure to consider explicitly the Burgess factors unless a searching review of the record shows that the ALJ has provided “good reasons” for its weight assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 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 case record.

COUNIHAN v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-09(c)(2)

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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives 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 claimant’s case record.

BRISBINE v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is only 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 claimant’s] case record.” ... “If, however, the treating physician's opinion conflicts with other medical evidence, then the ALJ is free to give that opinion less than controlling weight or even reject it, so long as the ALJ clearly explains [his or] her reasons and makes a clear record.” ... Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in considering Dr. Ahmad’s medical opinion, and that the ALJ sufficiently explained his reasons for giving Dr. Ahmad’s opinion less than controlling weight in the analysis.

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 consistent with substantial evidence; if controlling weight is not given, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability in assigning weight.

Anderson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-11(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” Johnson v. Berryhill, 745 F. App’x 247, 250 (7th Cir. 2018) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 252 (7th Cir. 2016)). “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” to determine how much weight to give the opinion. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 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 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.

Reader 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 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 other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, non-inconsistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; if controlling weight is denied, the ALJ must consider the listed factors and give good reasons.

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

The ALJ must consider all medical opinions that she or he receives in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, the ALJ typically gives deference to a treating physician’s opinion on the claimant’s capacity because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical filings alone . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). 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). If the ALJ does not assign controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, then the ALJ must meet certain procedural requirements. ... Here, the ALJ assigned Dr. Whetstone’s opinion little weight because it was “not supported in the broader objective medical record,” and it did “not include any narrative support for the severe limitations.” (R. at 31.) ... The ALJ considered the supportability of the opinion as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole when determining to assign Dr. Whetstone’s opinion little weight. Hence, the ALJ satisfied Wilson and substantial evidence provided a “good reason” for assigning little weight to the treating physician’s position.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight, or otherwise consider specified treatment-relationship, examination, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability factors when assigning weight.

Peissig v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. ... "If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion" to determine how much weight to give the opinion.

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.

Thelen v. Saul · filed 2021-03-22(c)(2)

Under the regulation in effect at the time of Marianne’s application, a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of an impairment 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” in the record.

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 other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

Under the treating physician rule, “[t]reating source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating-source opinion that is well-supported and consistent with the record, requires factor-based weighing and good reasons when controlling weight is denied, and excludes opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner from controlling weight while requiring their consideration.

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26(c)(2), (d)(1)

Social Security Regulations require ALJs to adhere to certain standards when weighing medical opinions. ... 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.”” ... If a treating source opinion is not found to be deserving of controlling weight, “the ALJ, in determining how much weight is appropriate, must consider a host of factors, including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the physician’s conclusions; the specialization of the physician; and any other relevant factors.” ... Additionally, “[s]eparate from the treating physician rule, but closely related, is the requirement that the ALJ ‘always give good reason’ for the weight ascribed to a treating-source opinion.” ... “treating source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are never entitled to controlling weight[,]” although they must be considered.

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 other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the treating physician rule described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 applies. Those regulations require ALJs to adhere to certain standards when weighing medical opinions. “Key among these is that greater deference is generally given to the opinions of treating physicians than to those of non-treating physicians, commonly known as the treating physician rule.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242 (citations omitted). The rule is straightforward: “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.’” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (quoting in part 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see Gentry, 741 F.3d at 723.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally 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 record.

Gonzales v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-25(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally 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(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 record.

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

Generally speaking, the ALJ will afford more weight to the opinion of a treating physician because he or she is most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the plaintiff’s medical impairment 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. Moscatello v. Saul, 18-CV-1395, 2019 WL 4673432, at *11 (S.D.N.Y.Sept. 25, 2019), citing 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(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 well-supported, consistent treating-source medical opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

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

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight, while an opinion lacking clinical support or consistency with the record receives less weight.

Ambush v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31(c)(2)

Generally, the opinions of treating physicians are given greater weight than the opinions of other examining physicians because they are “likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2017). If a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[,]” the ALJ must give it controlling weight. Lewis, 858 F.3d at 867 (citing 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 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.

SHANK v. SAUL · filed 2021-04-09(c)(2)

To the extent Plaintiff argues that these doctors’ opinions were entitled to controlling weight, I disagree. The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight when the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Here, there are significant inconsistencies between the opinions of Drs. Hannum and Ruby concerning Plaintiff’s abilities, and, as will be discussed, additional cardiac testing results, see tr. at 613-14, cast doubt on the accuracy of some of the opinion evidence. Thus, I conclude that no doctor’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to apply the treating-source two-step controlling-weight analysis before weighing the regulatory factors.

Pack v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-13(c)(2)

As this excerpt demonstrates, the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Ward’s opinions did not meaningfully consider his opinions under the required legal criteria set forth above. Instead, the ALJ collapsed the two-step evaluation procedure mandated by regulation into one by focusing on the “length of the treatment relationship” factor. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

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

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 medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Rumsey v. Saul · filed 2021-05-12(c)(2)

“For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.”

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 supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability.

ZDROJEWSKI v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-05-18(c)(2)

Under the "treating physician" rule, which applies to Judy's claim, an ALJ should give controlling weight to the treating-physician's opinion as long as it is supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that the treating physician rule applies only to claims filed before March 27, 2017). An ALJ is authorized, however, to reject a treating physician's opinion, so long as he offers “good reasons” for doing so. Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). If an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ is required to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the physician's specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (citing Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) does not require an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when the opinion lacks support from objective clinical findings.

Michael D. Henderson, by Doris Henderson v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1999-03-31(d)

An ALJ need not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it is not supported by objective clinical findings.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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 consistent with other substantial evidence.

Vitale v. Apfel · filed 1999-05-13(d)(2)

When considering physicians’ opinions, the Commissioner generally gives a treating physician’s opinion greater weight than that of a non treating source. The Commissioner’s regulations specify that under certain circumstances, the Commissioner will give “controlling” weight to a treating physician’s opinion. ... Such opinions are given “controlling” weight if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and are consistent with other substantial evidence of record. ... The Second Circuit has upheld the Commissioner’s regulations regarding the weight to be given to a treating physician’s opinion. ... The ALJ properly evaluated the retrospective opinion of Dr. Shapiro. ... Additionally, Dr. Shapiro did not base his retroactive opinion of' disability on any medical findings from the period between November 14, 1980 to December 31, 1985.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rutherford v. Apfel · filed 1999-08-26(d)(2)

The Commissioner gives controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment, if that opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) identifies a treating physician by the length, frequency, and nature and extent of the ongoing treatment relationship.

Ketcher v. Apfel · filed 1999-08-27(d)(2)

From the language of the regulation, it is apparent that a treating physician is a medical professional that examines a patient on several occasions over a long period of time. The treatment relationship is determined by the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of the examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship.

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).

A treating physician’s well-supported opinion receives controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Geisz v. Apfel · filed 2000-03-14(d)(2)

If Dr. Schisler’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of Plaintiffs impairment is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, ALJ LaFalce should have that opinion given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, with greater weight generally given to longer treatment relationships.

Tyson v. Apfel · filed 2000-08-07(d)(2), (d)(2)(i)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight as long as it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. The longer a source has treated the claimant, the more weight must be given to that source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Shramek v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-09-01(d)(2)

A physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of an impairment will be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Nothing in the record contradicted Dr. Quenan’s conclusions, and the medical evidence in the record supports his opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires consideration of specified criteria when deciding whether to give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight.

Edwards v. Apfel · filed 2000-09-14(d)(2)

We have reviewed the record and conclude that in assessing Edwards’s RFC, the Commissioner failed to perform an analysis considering the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) before declining to give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion that Edwards could not perform the lifting requirements of light work and was limited by additional non-exertional impairments.

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 medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Clifford v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2000-09-14(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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) generally gives a treating physician's medical opinion controlling weight unless it lacks adequate clinical and record support, and requires consideration of listed factors before the opinion is assigned no weight.

Hannaford v. SSA · filed 2001-01-15(d)

However, under the regulations, a treating physician's medical opinion will generally be given controlling weight unless the ALJ finds that the opinion is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic technigues, and concludes that it is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, in which case the opinion may be afforded less or no weight. ... Although the lack of objective medical evidence may result in a decision not to assign controlling weight to a treating physician's medical opinion, a decision to assign no weight to the opinion must follow consideration of the additional referenced factors. ... While the objective medical evidence of record, in isolation, might undermine Dr. Nagel's opinion, and application of the relevant factors may not alter the weight the ALJ assigns to that opinion, this record does not adeguately support the decision to completely disregard Dr. Nagel's assessment of claimant's ability to sit, stand, and walk.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits discounting it when contrary medical assessments are superior or the physician’s opinions are inconsistent.

Hogan v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-02-12(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is due “controlling weight” if 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.’ ” ... Although a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to great weight, it does not automatically control or obviate the need to evaluate the record as whole. ... The ALJ may discount or disregard such an opinion if other medical assessments are supported by superior medical evidence, or if the treating physician has offered inconsistent opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion on the nature and severity of impairments to receive controlling weight.

Echevarria v. Apfel · filed 1999-05-11(d)(2)

The Commissioner is to give a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the applicant’s impairments “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 claimant’s] case record.”

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 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight, and otherwise give good reasons and consider the specified factors when assigning weight.

Smith v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-19(d)(2)-(6)

However, a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight only where it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. ... If the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must give good reasons in his decision for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. ... Furthermore, the ALJ must consider various factors in determining the weight given to treating physician’s opinions including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination by the treating physician for the condition in question, the specialization of the physician, the supportability and consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any other relevant factors.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an adjudicator to give a supported treating physician's opinion about a claimant's disability controlling or great weight unless substantial evidence provides good cause to the contrary.

Loza v. Apfel · filed 2000-07-13(d)(2)

Medical evidence must support a physician’s diagnosis, but if it does “[t]he expert opinion[] of a treating physician as to the existence of a disability [is] binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence to the contrary.” Bastien v. Califano, 572 F.2d 908, 912 (2d Cir. 1978); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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 gives greater deference to treating physicians and specialists, with the length, frequency, and nature of the treatment relationship informing the weight assigned to their opinions, and requires a basis—generally other medical evidence—to reject a treating physician’s opinion.

Henderson v. Apfel · filed 2001-02-28(d)(2), (d)(5), (d)(2)(i), (d)(2)(ii)

However, as a general rule, treating physicians, as well as specialists, are granted greater deference than general practitioners. ... The length, frequency, and the nature of the treatment relationship is helpful in determining the weight given to the treating physician’s and/or specialist’s opinion. ... If a treating physician’s opinion is rejected by the ALJ, however, the ALJ must present some basis for rejecting it.. ... If the ALJ wishes to reject a medical conclusion, the basis for rejecting it must generally be other medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s medical opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but excludes opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner from controlling weight.

Schwartz v. Halter · filed 2001-03-08(a)(2), (d), (e)

Opinions from a claimant’s treating physicians are important in evaluating a claimant’s residual function capacity; however, the final responsibility for determining residual functional capacity is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). A treating physician’s medical opinion as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) will be given controlling weight if the ALJ finds that the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, such as an opinion that the claimant is disabled, are not medical opinions, however, and thus are not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Gowell v. Apfel · filed 2001-03-09(d)(2)

The ALJ expressly credited the opinion of Dr. Martimbeau and generally accepted the restrictions the doctor placed on Gowell, properly noting that when the opinion of a treating physician is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it is entitled to controlling weight.

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

When a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider specified treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors in deciding how much weight to give it.

Cauthen v. Apfel · filed 2001-03-26(d)(2)

Recently, in the case of Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 456-57 (5th Cir.2000), the Fifth Circuit stated that an ALJ is required to consider each of the factors under 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2) when the ALJ intends to reject or give little weight to a treating specialist’s opinion, citing Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security, 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir.1998); Goatcher v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir.1995); and Dwyer v. Apfel, 23 F.Supp.2d 223, 228 (N.D.N.Y.1998). ... This court finds that from the medical records the ALJ considered and specifically noted the length of time both Dr. Terry and Dr. Flowers had treated the plaintiff. The medical records considered by the ALJ listed the frequency of the plaintiffs examinations. The nature and extent of the treatment relationship was considered by the ALJ when he noted Dr. Flowers conclusion of disability in August of 1996, even though he did not examine the plaintiff until January of 1997. The ALJ also noted that Dr. Terry did not examine the plaintiff again after his referral of the plaintiff to Dr. Flowers. The ALJ concluded that the substantial evidence did not support these doctors’ conclusions that the plaintiff was disabled, and that the doctors’ opinions were internally inconsistent, as well as unsupported. Finally, the medical records revealed to the ALJ that Dr. Terry was a general practitioner while Dr. Flowers was an internist. In sum, the ALJ acknowledged his duty to give controlling weight to the doctors’ opinions unless they were inconsistent with other substantial evidence. In this court’s view, the ALJ adequately performed the Newton analysis under 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 instructs an ALJ how to weigh medical opinions, including consideration of the length, frequency, and nature of the treating relationship.

Holland v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-13(d)(2)

However, as a general rule, treating physicians and specialists are granted greater deference than general practitioners. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), (5). The length, frequency, and the nature of the treatment relationship is "helpful in determining the weight given to the treating physician’s and/or specialist’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)(i), (ii). ... If a treating physician’s opinion is rejected by the ALJ, the ALJ must present some basis for rejecting it. ... The ALJ must first examine the medical record and determine if the medical opinion was based upon sufficient medical data. ... Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ did not error as a matter of law in crediting Dr. Jenkins’ assessment over the assessment of Dr. Reed and Dr. Aguillard.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the specified factors before rejecting that opinion.

Locke v. Massanari · filed 2001-07-20(d)(2)

In particular, the ALJ must consider the six factors of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), including “specialization of the treating physician,” an impossible task if the ALJ has not attempted to ascertain Dr. Salvato’s specialization. The ALJ, in evaluating a treating physician’s medical opinion, must consider the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2), before rejecting that opinion. Failure to meet this legal standard constitutes an error requiring remand.

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).

The regulation gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise directs consideration of specified factors in deciding how much weight to give it.

Turay v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare · filed 2001-03-30(d)(2)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... Where a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the following factors determine how much weight it should be given: “(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 is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors.”

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion consistent with the record and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Flores v. Massanari · filed 2001-09-13(d)(2)

If the ALJ finds that the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record,” it will be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). More weight is to be given to an opinion if the doctor had a lengthy treatment relationship, had reasonable knowledge about the impairment, presents relevant evidence to support his opinion, and his opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. ... Under the applicable regulations, the Social Security Administration is required to explain the weight it gives to the opinions of treating physicians. ... Failure to provide good reasons for discrediting a treating physician’s opinion is grounds for remand. ... On remand the ALJ should reconsider Dr. McGillen’s opinion in light of the factors set forth in § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a properly supported treating-physician opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to weigh it under prescribed factors when controlling weight is unavailable.

Arnold v. SSA · filed 2001-11-15(d)(2)

A properly supported opinion of a treating physician is to be given controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight under § 404.1527(d)(2), the ALJ must determine how much weight to afford the opinion in light of the prescribed factors. See id. ... Dr. Parent, however, is a chiropractor, not a physician. A chiropractor is not an accepted medical source within the meaning of the social security regulations. ... As a result, the ALJ had discretion in how much weight to afford Dr. Parent’s report.

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).

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Ruby E. Heston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2001-03-26(d)(2)

According to the regulations, a treating physician’s opinion will not be given controlling weight unless it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to weigh it using specified factors if controlling weight is not warranted.

Burch v. Apfel, Commissioner · filed 2001-05-29(d)(2)

Normally, the treating physician's opinion is accorded controlling weight if "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2000); see also Giving Controlling Weight to Treating Source Medical Opinions, 61 Fed. Reg. 34490, 34491-92 (1996). ... We find no error in the ALJ's decision to accord Dr. Murphy's testimony little weight. ... Accordingly, the ALJ's treatment of Dr. Murphy's opinion is in accord with the regulations and supported by substantial evidence in the record.

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).

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.

Holmstrom v. Larry G. Massanari, 1 Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2001-10-29(d)(2)

“The [social security] regulations provide that a treating physician’s opinion ... will be granted ‘controlling weight,’ provided the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’ ”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Dixon v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2001-11-08(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs adjudicators to give generally greater weight to treating-source opinions because those sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal view of the claimant’s impairment.

Washington v. Barnhart · filed 2001-12-11(d)(2)

A similar preference for the opinions of treating doctors is found in the Commissioner’s regulations: Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultive examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2). If an ALJ gives less than substantial weight to the treating physician’s opinion, he must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so, and the failure to do so is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Baladi v. Barnhart · filed 2002-04-04(d)(2)

The treating physician’s opinions were based upon plaintiffs subjective complaints of pain and unremarkable objective tests, and therefore the ALJ was not required to give that opinion controlling weight, as it was not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, while permitting consideration of the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and objective medical support.

White v. Barnhart · filed 2002-04-05(d)(2)

The ALJ must give "controlling weight" to the treating physician's opinion, provided that opinion "is well-supported ... and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). We have said that a treating physician's opinion is not dispositive on the ultimate issue of disability. Castellano, 26 F.3d at 1029. In addition to its consistency with other evidence, we examine a treating physician's opinion with several factors in mind: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the extent to which the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In short, the record reveals that Dr. Fanning's examinations of Ms. White were limited and did not fully support her very restrictive functional assessment; that her opinion was inconsistent with the findings of the consulting physicians; and that her treatment relationship with Ms. White was relatively brief. This is sufficient to disregard Dr. Fanning's opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Sims v. Barnhart · filed 2002-04-12(d)(2)

Generally, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, provided that opinion “is well-supported ... and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits a treating physician’s opinion to be denied controlling weight when it is inconsistent with substantial evidence or unsupported by detailed objective criteria, while favoring opinions from specialists and long-term treating physicians.

Auxier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-05-09(d)(2)

We evaluate every medical opinion offered, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), and we give deference to medical opinions and diagnoses of treating physicians, but they are not entitled to complete deference and thus are not controlling if they are inconsistent with other substantial evidence or unsupported by detailed objective criteria and documentation. ... We also give more weight to the opinion of a specialist, § 404.1527(d)(5), and to a treating physician who has been seeing the individual for an extended period of time, § 404.1527(d)(2)(i); § 416.927(d)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes an ongoing treating relationship relevant to weighing medical opinions, so an agency may not automatically favor a one-time consultative examiner over other examining physicians on that basis.

Camacho v. R.I. Dhs 01-2502 (2002) · filed 2002-06-19(d)(2)

A "treating physician can give the longitudinal, detailed picture of a plaintiff's medical status that cannot be obtained from a consultative examination or a short term or a one time evaluation by a non-consultative examination or any other medical source." Casher v. Halter, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5343 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) (2000)). ... Thus DHS erred in giving the medical reports submitted by Drs. Mansourati, and Vibhakar "less weight in consideration as the consultative exams done by Dr. McCloy and Dr. Nizetic." (Decision at 8).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(e)(2) reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Bolan v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-16(d)(2) and (e)(2)

The Secretary will give .controlling weight to that type of opinion if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... The treating physician’s opinion that claimant is disabled is not dispositive, however, because final responsibility for determining the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 416.927(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(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 is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.

Krizon v. Barnhart · filed 2002-04-23(d)(2)

A treating physician’s medical opinion is to be given controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

McGoffin v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2002-05-03(d)(2)

“An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion, so long as it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.”

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 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion, but does not require the Commissioner to accept a medical source’s conclusion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work, or give enhanced weight to an RFC opinion.

Gagnon v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-01(d)(2), (e)

The regulations promulgated by the Social Security Administration provide that a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R.. § 404.1527(d)(2). However, “[a] statement by a medical source that [a claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Commissioner] will determine that [the claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e); ... The Regulations specifically provide that the determination of whether a claimant is disabled is a determination to be made by the Commissioner, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). Therefore, the Commissioner is not bound by a doctor’s opinion regarding disability. ... Likewise, the Commissioner will not give enhanced weight to a treating physician’s opinion as to the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e); SSR 96-5p.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Criner v. Barnhart · filed 2002-07-09(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition 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 in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Liscano v. Barnhart · filed 2002-08-12(d)(2)-(6)

Moreover, even if not entitled controlling weight, the ALJ should have at least discussed what weight Dr. Neucks’ opinion was entitled to based on the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

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).

The regulation permits an adjudicator to decline controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with substantial evidence, including reports from non-treating physicians.

Castro v. Barnhart · filed 2002-05-08(d)(4)

Ms. Castro concedes that, under the applicable regulations, the administrative law judge may reject a treating physician’s opinion as controlling if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, even if that evidence consists of reports from non-treating doctors. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4). ... The limitations placed on the Plaintiff in Dr. Bell’s residual functional capacity assessment are not consistent with his own treatment records ... or the entire medical record as a whole. Therefore, it was entirely permissible for the ALJ to grant greater weight to Dr. Chase’s assessment.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Bailey v. Barnhart · filed 2002-06-26(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See Clifford, 227 F.3d at 870; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors before discounting a treating physician’s opinion.

Segler v. Barnhart · filed 2002-08-28(d)(2)

Though Dr. Michael Rotenberg had indicated on two prior occasions that Segler was disabled, the ALJ complied with the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) before discounting Dr. Rotenberg’s prior determinations of disabled.

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, and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Dolph v. Barnhart · filed 2002-10-21(d)(2)

Under the Commissioner’s regulations, a treating physician’s opinion 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Accordingly, an ALJ should “give good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1013.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(4) gives treating-physician opinions deference, but they are not controlling when inconsistent with substantial evidence or unsupported by detailed objective criteria and documentation.

Nabours v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2002-11-04(d)(2)-(4)

The opinions and diagnoses of treating physicians are entitled to deference, but they are not entitled to complete deference and thus are not controlling if inconsistent with other substantial evidence or unsupported by detailed objective criteria and documentation.

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 the medical record and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Fischer v. Barnhart · filed 2002-12-12(d)(2)

The weight given to medical opinion evidence is codified in 20 CFR 404.1527. Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight as long as it is well supported by the medical record and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... The correct legal standard when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion is whether the opinion is “not inconsistent” with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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).

The regulation generally gives a treating source's well-supported opinion controlling weight and directs that greater supporting medical evidence warrants greater weight.

Morales Colon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-02-14(d)(2), (d)(3)

Generally, we give more weight to the opinions from a [claimant’s] treating source, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic evidence in [the] case record, we will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 4041527(d)(2). ... This subsection must be read concurrently with that on supportability: “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical finds and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give an opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3). ... Therefore, the Court concludes that the ALJ failed to comply with the treating physician rule by failing to grant proper weight to evidence from the claimant’s treating physicians.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless it is not well-supported by medical findings or is inconsistent with other record evidence.

Drea v. Barnhart · filed 2003-02-14(d)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion on the claimant’s medical condition unless the opinion is not well-supported by medical findings or is inconsistent with other record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Nelson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2003-03-07(d)(2)

An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion, so long as it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... The Court, however, finds the reasons articulated by the ALJ are not legitimate reasons for disregarding the severity of the limitations as indicated by Dr. True on the Medical Assessment form.

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 requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion, otherwise weigh it under specified factors, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Crudup v. Barnhart · filed 2003-03-12(d)(2)-(d)(6)

Starting with plaintiffs arguments concerning the weight the ALJ gave to Dr. Williams's March 28, 2000 opinion on the disability assessment form, the court is mindful that "[a]n ALJ should ordinarily give substantial weight to a treating physician's opinion." Edwards v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 964, 967 (8th Cir.2003). If the opinion is not well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ can give it less weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Edwards, 314 F.3d at 967; Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1012-13. When the treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, several factors are considered in determining the amount of weight to give to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) (listing the factors). The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to the treating source's opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) limits controlling weight for treating-physician opinions to opinions supported by medical findings and uncontradicted by other record evidence.

Grecol v. Halter · filed 2002-08-29(d)(2)

Opinions of treating physicians are entitled to complete deference only if well supported by medical findings and not contradicted by other evidence in the record.

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 may impose a more demanding obligation than the common-law treating-physician rule for an ALJ to explain the basis for findings.

Schoofield v. Barnhart · filed 2002-09-06

In any case, the regulation arguably is more demanding than the common law rule in regard to the ALJ’s responsibility to set forth the basis for his findings. Neither paradigm is satisfied in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion must 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 in the record.

Johnson v. Barnhart · filed 2002-10-24(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight.

Law changed since 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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating-source medical opinion to be weighed using all of the regulatory factors and to receive deference even when it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Robinson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-01-31(d)(2)

Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 and 416.927.

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 gives a treating physician's medical opinion controlling weight on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments 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.

Pachilis v. Barnhart · filed 2003-05-30(d)(2)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record ....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since 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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Johnson v. Barnhart · filed 2003-06-26(d)(2)

Since the opinions of plaintiffs treating physicians are entitled to controlling weight absent inconsistent substantial evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the record in this case clearly establishes that plaintiff is neither capable of engaging in her past relevant work or in any other substantial gainful work in the national economy.

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 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating source opinion using specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Wates v. Barnhart · filed 2003-06-30(d)(2)

Treating source opinions must be given special consideration in social security cases. ... If well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the adjudicator must afford such opinions controlling weight. ... Even if the ALJ finds that the opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ may not simply reject the opinion. ... Rather, she must evaluate the opinion’s weight by looking at the length, nature and extent of the plaintiffs and physician’s treatment relationship; the degree to which the opinion is supported by the evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; whether the doctor is a specialist; and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... Regardless of the weight the ALJ ultimately gives the treating source opinion, she must always “give good reasons” for her decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight only when it is sufficiently supported and consistent with other medical evidence.

Herrera v. Massanari · filed 2003-07-10(d)(2)

To the extent Dr. Seidl relied on CT scan results that had already been discounted by the ALJ, the Appeals Council could easily have found that Dr. Seidl’s opinion was not sufficiently supported and consistent with other medical evidence to be entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (treating physician rule); 416.927(d)(2) (same).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Oslin v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-17(d)(2)

“An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion, so long as it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Drapeau v. Massanari , 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2); 416.927(d)(2).

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) requires an ALJ deciding how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion to consider specified factors.

Southard v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-28(d)

In declining to give Dr. Wills’ opinion controlling weight, the ALJ was required to consider the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Green v. Barnhart · filed 2003-05-15(d)(2)

In social security disability cases, a treating physician may proffer an opinion about the nature and severity of claimant’s impairments and the Commissioner will accord “controlling weight to that type of opinion if it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.”

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 requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Oshkeshequoam v. Barnhart · filed 2003-07-31(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and generally gives treating physicians more weight because of their familiarity with the claimant.

Gudgel, Curtis D. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2003-09-26(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). More weight is given to the opinion of treating physicians because of their greater familiarity with the claimant’s conditions and circumstances. Clifford, 227 F.3d at 870; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives treating physicians’ opinions about the nature and severity of an impairment more weight than other physicians’ opinions only when they are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Holiday v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-10-06(d)(2)

While it is true that a rule adopted by the Commissioner provides that special weight should be accorded to treating physicians’ opinions, that rule also provides that opinions from treating physicians on the nature and severity of an impairment will be given more weight than other physicians’ opinions only if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to consider a treating physician’s opinions and prohibits ignoring them altogether.

Davila v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2003-10-31(d)(2)

Still, under the regulations, the ALJ cannot altogether ignore a treating physician’s opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give substantial weight to opinions of a claimant's treating physician.

Blood v. Comm Social Security · filed 2003-11-14(d)(2)

Here, the ALJ failed to refer to any evidence from one of Blood’s treating physicians, Dr. Tyding, despite the rule that opinions of a claimant’s treating physician are entitled to substantial weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Cotter v. Harris, 642 F.2d 700, 704 (3d Cir. 1982).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as a physician’s judgment about an impairment’s nature and severity, and § 404.1527(d)(2) provides controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Miller v. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-26(a)(2), (d)(2)

Although Dr. Hwang’s opinion is not objective medical evidence, it would still be granted controlling weight. A treating physician’s opinion is granted controlling weight when the opinion is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record and the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2003). Dr. Hwang’s medical opinion was not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, and it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. Neither party disputes that fact. ... Based on the above, I find that Dr. Hwang’s medical opinion is not a “medical sign” or a “laboratory finding”, and is therefore not objective medical evidence as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1512(b)(1). It is instead a “statement from a physician that reflects his judgment about the nature and severity of plaintiffs impairment”, as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Watkins v. Barnhart · filed 2003-12-02(d)(2)

Under the regulations, the agency rulings, and our case law, an ALJ must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Social Security Ruling 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 ; Doyal v. Barnhart , 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003).

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).

A treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it lacks support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques or conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record.

Bowser v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-01-06(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician as to the nature and severity of an impairment is not entitled to controlling weight where it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a treating physician's opinion after considering specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Alexander v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-30(d)(2)

In so doing, the ALJ must explain the weight he will give the treating physician’s opinion after considering: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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).

The treating physician rule generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions, but controlling weight requires support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistency with the other substantial evidence, while specialist opinions are entitled to particular weight.

Joyce v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-05(d)(2), (d)(5)

According to what has come to be known as the treating physician rule, the agency will generally give more weight to medical opinions from treating sources than those from non-treating sources, but the agency will not give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating source unless the source’s conclusion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Dr. Clendenin’s conclusion that Joyce’s impairment from carpal tunnel syndrome was within tolerable limits is entitled to particular weight because he is a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to search the record for inconsistent evidence before reducing that weight.

Ynocencio v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-27(d)(2)-(6)

Controlling weight is given to a treating physician’s opinion unless it is “not inconsistent” with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The opinion need not be “consistent” with the record. ... The “not inconsistent” standard presumes that the treating physician’s opinion is predominate and requires the ALJ to search the record for inconsistent evidence in order to give the treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives weight to a treating physician’s opinion because the physician is more likely to have a detailed and longitudinal view of the claimant’s impairments, but that rationale is absent when the physician did not closely follow the claimant after surgery.

Scheck, Kenneth v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2004-02-05(d)(2)

Scheck urges that the ALJ should have given more weight to the 1999 letter from Dr. Heiferman. He cites to various Social Security rulings and regulations which stand for the general proposition that more weight will be given to a treating physician’s opinion partially because of its longitudinal view. See generally SSR 96-2p; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5); SSR 96-7p. The problem with this argument, as the ALJ noted, is that there is no longitudinal view from Dr. Heiferman; “Dr. Heiferman was unable to closely follow Mr. Scheck’s progress after the April 14, 1993 surgery, due to the latter’s move to Texas.” (Br. of Plaintiff-Appellant at A-11.) It would be exceedingly illogical to credit a doctor’s opinion because he is more likely to have a detailed and longitudinal view of the claimant’s impairments when in fact, there is no detail or longitudinal view. In other words, the very reasons the Social Security regulations set out for giving substantial weight to a treating physician’s opinion are absent in this case. The ALJ’s assignment of little weight to Dr. Heiferman’s letter was proper. See Powers, 207 F.3d at 435.

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)(3) gives more weight to a medical source’s opinion when it presents relevant supporting evidence and a better explanation.

McKay v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-10(d)(3)

Moreover, the document is extremely vague and unsupported. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) (“The 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.”).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Simpson v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-13(d)(2)

To be sure, a treating physician’s opinion should be accorded controlling weight, but only if it is well supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

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 controlling weight for a treating-source opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ may give it less weight.

Newton v. Saul · filed 2020-03-06(d)(2)

In sum, although Dr. Carr is a treating physician, the ALJ’s determination to accord his opinion little weight is supported by substantial evidence in the record due to plaintiffs presenting with normal mental status evaluations and having fairly broad activities of daily living. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Monroe v. Comm'r of Soc. Security, 676 F. App’x 5, 7-8 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (deferring to the ALJ’s rejection of a treating physician’s opinion where the physician’s opinion was contrary to his own treatment notes and noting that the ALJ properly explained his reasons for rejecting the opinion); cf. Gavazzi v. Berryhill, 678 F. App’x 98, 100 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (reversing and remanding Agency’s determination where the ALJ failed to explain his reasons for rejecting portions of the treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) entitles a treating source’s opinion to controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Noyes v. Saul · filed 2020-03-09(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if well-supported by medically-acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) provides that a well-supported treating physician opinion gets controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Nersinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(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), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’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 in the case record.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(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), 416.927(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); 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. Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to apply listed factors, including treatment history, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Miller v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-11(c)(2)

When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” he must “apply the factors listed” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including “(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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, requires good reasons for discounting it, and permits weighing it under the listed factors without an exhaustive step-by-step analysis.

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

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). ... The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). These reasons must be “supported by the evidence in the case record, and 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.” ... As for the factors under § 404.1527, the Sixth Circuit has instructed that the “ALJ need not perform an exhaustive, step-by-step analysis of each factor; she need only provide ‘good reasons’ for both her decision not to afford the physician's opinion controlling weight and for her ultimate weighing of the opinion.” ... In this case, the ALJ provided good reasons for discounting the weight given to Dr. Strenge’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight in certain circumstances, and requires deference even when controlling weight is not given.

Gardner v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 govern how an ALJ must weigh medical evidence. Those regulations afford "treating sources" controlling weight in certain circumstances. ... Even when the treating sources are not given controlling weight, they are still entitled to deference. Id.