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) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hart Coleman v. Commissioner for Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-27(c)(2)

“Treating-source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... “Separate from the treating physician rule, but closely related, is the requirement that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight ascribed to a treating-source opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, requires good cause and specific reasons to reject it, and requires deference and consideration of the regulatory factors when it is not controlling.

Cordova v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-28(c)(2)

The opinions of a treating source are entitled to controlling weight when they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. Further, they cannot be rejected absent good cause for specific and legitimate reasons clearly articulated in the hearing decision. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Good cause may be found when an opinion is brief, conclusory, or unsupported by the medical evidence. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir. 1987). Under the regulation, even when a treating source is not given controlling weight, “[t]reating source medical opinions are . . . entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (quoting SSR 96-2p). ... The Court finds the ALJ followed the applicable standards when assigning weight to Dr. Jimenez’s opinions, and she did not err in failing to accord controlling or deferential weight to them. She thoroughly explained the reasons for the weight she assigned, and those reasons constitute sufficient good cause for the assigned weights. Those reasons are all appropriate considerations for not assigning controlling weight to a treating source opinion. And while she did not separately discuss the six Watkins factors, the Decision reflects the ALJ considered each of those factors in weighing Dr. Jimenez’s opinions. (AR 25-26.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned when declining to credit it.

Page v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. ... Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. ... In the Court’s opinion, ALJ Reamon’s decision fails to give good reasons for discounting Dr. Hunt’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, non-contradicted treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and, if it declines that weight, to consider all listed factors in assigning weight.

Mathis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-28(c)(2)–(6)

Accordingly, the treating physician rule requires that ALJs give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if that opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Id. Upon deciding not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, ALJs must determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the opinion by considering “all of ... the factors” listed in the regulation, which include the length of the treatment relationship, consistency of the opinion with the record, and the physician’s specialization. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight because of the physician’s longitudinal perspective and requires an ALJ declining controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability.

Ledbetter, Jack v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2021-09-29(d)(2)

An ALJ who does not give controlling weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician must offer ‘good reasons’ for declining to do so. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Generally, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician are “give[n] more weight” because he or she is “likely to be the medical professional[] most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2011). If an ALJ chooses not to 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 consistent and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the substantial evidence, while opinions that a claimant is disabled or unable to work are not medical opinions entitled to controlling weight.

(SS) Sagherian v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-29(c)(2), (d)

“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] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... A physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not entitled to controlling weight because statements “by a medical source that [a claimant is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’” “are not medical opinions” under the Social Security regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider medical evidence and generally give treating physicians' opinions more weight than examining or non-examining physicians' opinions, while allowing a contradicted treating opinion to be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Saldana v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-29(b), (c), (e)

The regulations distinguish among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians; (2) examining physicians; and (3) non-examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), (e), 416.927(c), (e); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). “Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.027(c)(1)-(2). ... If the treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by other opinions, the ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for rejecting it. Id. ... In sum, the ALJ’s gave two reasons for dismissing Dr. Le’s opinion that were specific, legitimate, and supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Le’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-29(c)(2)

The SSA regulations applicable when Plaintiff filed her application required an ALJ to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinions if they were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”3 Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... While an ALJ may reject a treating physician’s findings when there is good cause, “he must clearly articulate [the] reasons for doing so.” ... I conclude that the entries in Dr. Haxhiu-Erhardt’s treatment notes indicating Plaintiff’s mental functioning was within “normal limits,” without more, cannot constitute good cause to reject Dr. Haxhiu-Erhardt’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician's opinion when it is conclusory, lacks objective medical support, or is inconsistent with the record.

Vaughn v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-29(c)

An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion, however, when it is conclusory, the physician fails to provide objective medical evidence to support the opinion, or the opinion is inconsistent with the record. E.g., Portal v. Saul, No. 17-CV-5503, 2019 WL 4575391, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require a slavish recitation of each factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Pesco v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-29(d)(2)

In weighing a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must consider: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the relevant evidence .. ., particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527) (cleaned up). ... The ALJ need not undertake “a slavish recitation of each and every factor,” however, “where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Anderson v. Saul · filed 2021-09-27(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, controlling weight is assigned to the opinions of a treating physician if it is well supported by both medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to decide what weight to give treating and examining doctors’ opinions and explain the reasons, which may be shown by reading the decision as a whole.

Van Jacob v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30

In making a determination, the ALJ must decide which treating and examining doctors’ opinions should receive weight, and explain the reasons for that finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Reviewing the record as a whole, the Court finds that the ALJ met her burden to explain which opinions she accepted and which she discounted and why. ... As explained above, the ALJ articulated her reasons for the weight she assigned to the State agency consultant’s conclusions as well as the conclusions of the treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using specified regulatory factors and provide good reasons for the assigned weight.

Hatton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)-(6), (d)(2)

The Commissioner must afford controlling weight to a treating physician opinion when it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... If the opinion is not controlling, then the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors, which include “the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence.” ... Additionally, in discounting the weight given to a treating physician opinion, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” that are “supported by the evidence in the case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) provides that a treating source's opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rivera v. Saul · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

When evaluating a treating source’s opinion on the nature or severity of a claimant’s impairments, the treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight when it is well-supported by, and consistent with, other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source's well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, consider specified factors if controlling weight is declined, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Zagaja v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)

The treating physician rule that applied at the time Zagaja filed her application6 “mandate[s] that the ALJ ‘will’ give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight if it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931, 937 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). “If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, [the ALJ] must then balance the following factors to determine what weight to give it: ‘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 specialization of the treating source.’” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004)). “Importantly, the Commissioner imposes on its decision makers a clear duty to ‘always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to a] treating source’s opinion.’” Cole, 661 F.3d at 937 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to weigh it under specified factors otherwise.

Singleton v. Saul · filed 2021-10-07(c)

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 “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.3 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight it merits by considering the following factors: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; and (4) the consistency and supportability of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Gerstner, 879 F.3d at 263. The ALJ “must offer good reasons for discounting the opinion of a treating physician.” Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, support and consistency, and specialization.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-12(c)(2)

Should the ALJ decide not to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient relationship, the frequency of evaluations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight and otherwise consider specified factors when determining the weight to assign it.

Carmack v. Saul · filed 2021-11-01(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)–(6)

Section 404.1527(c)(2) sets out two rules an ALJ must follow when evaluating a medical opinion from a treating physician. First, it establishes the “treating physician rule,” under which the medical opinion of a treating physician is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also, e.g., Arakas v. Comm’r of SSA, 983 F.3d 83, 106-07 (4th Cir. 2020) (citing Section 404.1527(c)(2) and applying the treating physician rule); Brown v. Comm’r of SSA, 873 F.3d 251, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2017) (same). Second, if a medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must consider each of the following factors to determine the weight the opinion should be afforded: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability,” i.e., the extent to which the treating physician “presents relevant evidence to support [the] medical opinion”; (4) “[c]onsistency,” i.e., the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the evidence in the record; (5) the extent to which the treating physician is a specialist opining as to “issues related to his or her area of specialty”; and (6) any other factors raised by the parties “which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when assigning weight.

Fulkerson v. Saul · filed 2021-11-05(c)

The ALJ identified that Dr. De Maso’s record was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with other evidence of the record. The ALJ referred to the other. evidence in the record in identifying Plaintiff's ability. The ALJ also addressed the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c): she identified the relationship between Plaintiff and Dr. De Maso; she discussed the length, nature, and frequency of treatment; she explained that Dr. De Maso made vague statements and failed to offer evidence to support some of her conclusions; and she identified inconsistency within Dr. De Maso’s opinion itself and when viewed in conjunction with other evidence in the record. Thus, substantial evidence did support the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. De Maso’s opinion no weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 governs the consideration of medical opinion testimony for applications filed before March 17, 2017, and the revised medical-opinion rules do not apply.

Dulany v. Commisioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-09

Because Plaintiff filed her application before March 17, 2017, the application is governed by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, and the revised rules relating to the consideration of medical opinion testimony do not apply.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, while a factor-by-factor recitation is unnecessary when the reasoning shows that the treating-physician rule was followed.

Woodward v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-26(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia, “‘(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) is required. Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (citing Halloran, 362 F.3d at 31-32).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization, and to clearly explain the weight assigned.

Rodriguez v. Social Security · filed 2021-11-15(c)(2)

In deciding to give less-than-controlling weight to Rodriguez’s treating physicians, the ALJ was required to “explicitly consider” the Burgess factors: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella, 925 F.3d 90, 95–96 (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129). While the Second Circuit “does not require ‘slavish recitation of each and every factor,’ the ALJ’s ‘reasoning and adherence to the regulation’ still must be clear from [her] opinion.” Cabrera v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-4311 (AT) (JLC), 2017 WL 3686760, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2017) (citing Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013)). If the ALJ does not “explicitly” consider these factors, the case must be remanded unless “a searching review of the record” assures the Court that the ALJ applied “the substance of the treating physician rule.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95; see also Halloran, 362 F.3d at 33 (the Second Circuit “will continue remanding when [it] encounter[s] opinions from ALJs that do not comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.”). Here, in giving Rodriguez’s treating physicians’ opinions less-than-controlling weight, the ALJ failed to weigh the following Burgess factors: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship with Drs. Canetti and Golden; (2) the evidence supporting the opinions; and (3) whether these opinions were from specialists.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 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.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-11-17

A medical opinion from a treating source must be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source opinion to consider the listed factors and give sufficiently specific, evidence-supported good reasons for the weight assigned; inconsistency with the record supports giving the opinion less weight, without requiring an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Lynn v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-19(c)(2), (c)(4)

“If the ALJ does not accord controlling weight to a treating physician, the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406 (citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (eff. Aug. 24, 2012). ... First, the ALJ stated that Dr. Furlan’s opinion was exaggerated and inconsistent with the overall record. The fact that there were treatment notes—assuming they supported Dr. Furlan’s opinions—would not change the evaluation because inconsistency is one of the good reasons an ALJ can rely on when affording less weight to a treating source’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(4). ... Finally, the fact that the ALJ did not discuss the longitudinal history or Dr. Furlan’s specialty was not error. While the ALJ should consider the length of the relationship and specialty of the treating source, the regulations “expressly require only that the ALJ’s decision include ‘good reasons . . . for the weight . . . given[n] [to the] treating source’s opinion’—not an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir. 2011) (alterations in original) (citations omitted). The ALJ gave two reasons—inconsistency and exaggeration—for assigning Dr. Furlan’s opinion little weight. Thus, she did not err in assigning Dr. Furlan’s first opinion little weight despite not discussing the other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing the opinion under the listed factors.

Bond v. Saul · filed 2021-11-23(c)(1)-(6)

“[T]he treating physician rule is well-established.” ... It “requires that ALJs give ‘controlling weight’ to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if that opinion is (1) ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and (2) ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.” ... Should an ALJ decide that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine the appropriate weight to assign the opinion by considering several factors, all of which also must be considered when evaluating medical opinion evidence—whatever the source. ... Those factors are: the length and nature of the treatment relationship, ...; whether the opinion is supported, “particularly [by] medical signs and laboratory findings”; whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the opinion is “related to [the provider’s] area of specialty”; and any other relevant factors, id. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(6).

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 only when it lacks support from medically acceptable techniques or is inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires adequate record support for that decision.

Sherman v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-24(c)(2)

An ALJ may decline to accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinions that are “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the ALJ’s inconsistency findings failed to follow these and other relevant legal standards and were otherwise unsupported by substantial evidence. ... Here, substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that the assessment of limitations found in Dr. Rexroad’s 2018 medical source statement was inconsistent with the medical evidence of record. Because this is the case, and because substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Rexroad’s 2018 opinions lacked objective medical support, the decision to deny controlling weight to those opinions was error, and remand is required. See Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wiles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-24(c)(2)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that because Plaintiff filed his application before March 27, 2017, the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician's opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), is applicable.

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 the record; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed under the regulation’s listed factors.

Stamper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-30(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must give “controlling” weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record. . . .” 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, then the opinion is evaluated using the criteria listed in 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (3)-(6). ... Accordingly, the ALJ provided good reasons for the weight given to Dr. Reddy’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jedovnicky v. Saul · filed 2021-11-18(c)

Under the “treating physician rule,”3 an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, while opinions not given controlling weight must be evaluated under the regulation's factors.

Gass v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-22(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider each of its factors when determining the weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Youngblood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-22(c)

However, the ALJ failed to consider each of the Section 404.1527(c) factors in determining what weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the listed treatment, examination, specialty, testing, consistency, and support factors.

Kolaites v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-03(c)(2)–(6)

On remand, the ALJ must give Dr. Szuch’s medical opinion controlling weight unless it is not supported by medically acceptable clinical techniques or is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Punzio, 630 F.3d at 710. If the ALJ identifies inconsistent substantial evidence in the record (which he did not do this time around), the ALJ then must “determine what weight [Dr. Szuch’s] opinion was due under the applicable regulations.” Larson, 615 F.3d at 751 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). To do so, the ALJ “must 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 support for the physician’s opinion.” Kaminski v. Berryhill, 894 F.3d 870, 875 (7th Cir. 2018), amended on reh’g (Aug. 30, 2018) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to deny controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion when it is not well-supported or is inconsistent with substantial evidence, but requires consideration of specified factors and an explanation of the weight assigned.

Marino v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-10(c)(2)

For disability benefit applications filed prior to March 27, 2017, treating medical sources are generally given more weight than non-examining sources due to a treating physician’s heightened familiarity with a claimant’s condition. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). If the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider several factors—including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, the length and nature of treatment, supportability, consistency, and specialization, among other factors—in deciding how to weigh the source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must thereafter provide an explanation for the weight given to each medical source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). If certain evidence contradicts a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must provide “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence” for rejecting that physician’s opinion. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Lester, 81 F.3d at 830) (internal citation marks omitted). ... Despite the deference generally afforded to treating physicians, the ALJ is not required to rely on them. If a treating physician’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ need not give it controlling weight. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (an ALJ may discredit treating physicians’ opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in assigning its relative weight. When rejecting a treating physician’s testimony, “the ALJ must do more than offer his conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors’, are correct.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421–22 (9th Cir. 1988)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but does not require a slavish recitation of each factor when the reasoning clearly shows the rule was applied.

Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-15(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia, “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) is required.

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 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Titolo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-08(d)(2)

The treating physician rule requires an ALJ to give a “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairment “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 claimant’s] case record.”2 Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) and Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000)).

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 consistent with the record, but permits discounting an unsupported or inconsistent opinion if the ALJ gives good reasons for doing so.

Clemow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-28(c)(2)

Thus, no reversible error occurs when an ALJ determines that a treating physician opinion is not entitled to controlling weight because it is not well-supported, is internally inconsistent, and/or is inconsistent with the record as a whole. However, an ALJ must provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to the opinion of a treating physician in order to allow for meaningful judicial review. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it using the regulatory factors, explaining inconsistencies sufficiently for review.

Barber v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-31(c)(2)

Second, “even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, 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.” Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301) (cleaned up). Although an ALJ is not required to discuss each of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, see Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007), if an ALJ rejects a treating source opinion as inconsistent with the record as a whole, he or she must explain or identify the claimed inconsistencies with sufficient specificity to allow for meaningful review, Langley, 373 F.3d at 1123.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to give good reasons and consider the regulatory factors when assigning weight.

McDermott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-31(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments is given “controlling weight” so long as it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 106 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); Bonneau v. Astrue, No. 5:13-CV-26, 2014 WL 31301, at *5 (D. Vt. Jan. 3, 2014) (same). Where the Commissioner determines that the opinion of a treating physician should not receive controlling weight, she must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] gives [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Manfra v. Colvin, No. 15-CV-2844, 2016 WL 4434820, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2016); Perez v. Astrue, No. 07-CV-958, 2009 WL 2496585, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2009). An ALJ’s failure “to provide good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is ground for a remand.” Snell, 177 F.3d at 134 (internal quotation marks omitted). When a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ should “comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned” to that opinion, considering the factors identified in the relevant regulations. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). “These same factors are considered when evaluating other medical opinion evidence.” Hernandez v. Saul, No. 18-CV-832, 2019 WL 4805211, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a well-supported treating-source medical opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, but permits less weight or rejection when the opinion conflicts with other medical evidence and the reasons are clearly explained.

KERCH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-02(c)(2)

However, since this claim was filed prior to March 27, 2017, the applicable standard is the treating source rule. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... “II]f a treating source's medical opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given controlling weight, ie., it must be adopted." ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in giving Ms. Marron’s opinion less than controlling weight because Ms. Marron’s medical opinion conflicted with other medical evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Betances v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-06(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,”3 the medical opinion of a treating source as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to “controlling weight,” where 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.” Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 74 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Covey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-08(c)(2)

Generally, an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... And an ALJ will “give good reasons in its notice of determination or decision for the weight it gives the treating [physician]’s.... opinion.” ... Though the ALJ did not give controlling weight to the opinion of Plaintiffs treating physicians, the ALJ otherwise provided “good reasons”—that is, “reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record”—for the weight he assigned.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-16(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule,” which is applicable to the analysis of claims which were, like plaintiff’s, filed on or before March 27, 2017, provides that a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... I find that the ALJ specifically and appropriately considered the factors relevant to the weighing of treating source opinions, sufficiently explained his reasoning for declining to grant controlling weight to Dr. Berke’s and Dr. Bulger’s opinions, and furnished good reasons for giving them “little” weight.

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 case record.

Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-17(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight7 so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating source's opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, medical support, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Bruggeman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-22(c)(2)

The regulatory framework requires the ALJ to evaluate a testing source’s opinion in consideration of factors such as length of treatment, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, support of opinion afforded by medical evidence, consistency of opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the treating source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ weighs it using the listed factors.

SPINELLI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-27(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.” ... Therefore, the Court finds ALJ Toland properly provided supporting explanations in affording less weight to the medical opinions of Dr. Bascara and Dr. Hassanien.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the adjudicator to apply the treating physician rule and explicitly consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization when deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.

Neumeister v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-27(c)

The ALJ did not properly apply the treating physician’s rule. The ALJ did not explicitly consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. That alone is reason to remand. ... Not only was Dr. Acerra the treating physician to the plaintiff, whose opinion should have been given controlling weight under the treating physician rule, but he is also a specialist which should have conferred more weight on his recommendation regarding Neumeister’s ability to perform at the work level found by the ALJ. The agency “generally gives more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the listed treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors, with reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Barnes v. Saul · filed 2022-06-30(c)

Plaintiff also points out that the ALJ did not address the majority of the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, which are to be addressed at Step Two of the treating physician analysis. ... While this may be true, the ALJ’s analysis was too cursory, as it only addressed one of the checklist factors briefly. The ALJ did mention the length of treatment, noting that Dr. Oteng had been Plaintiffs pain management physician since January 2018, R. 70, but she failed to discuss how she factored this into her analysis of the weight to give Dr. Oteng’s opinion. Examining the checklist factors (such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the consistency and supportability of Dr. Oteng’s opinion), may have supported giving Dr. Oteng’s opinion greater or less weight. ... On remand, if the ALJ properly determines that Dr. Oteng’s opinion does not deserve controlling weight at Step One, then the ALJ must support this finding with substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent opinion to receive controlling weight and directs adjudicators to weigh noncontrolling opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Rocha v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-05(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” as 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); Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to explain the rejection by analyzing six specified factors.

Harvey v. Berryhill · filed 2022-07-06(c)(2)

Where an ALJ does not afford a treating physician’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ is required to “explain why those opinions were rejected by undertaking an analysis of the six factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Demarzio v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-11(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight only if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” Jimenez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 413 F. Supp. 3d 993, 999 (D. Ariz. 2019); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2).

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, and requires good reasons when the ALJ declines controlling weight.

Federico v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-11(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claims were filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, pursuant to which the opinion of a treating source is given controlling weight if it “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). ... Second, the ALJ gave good reasons for affording Dr. Blymire’s opinions less than controlling weight—namely, that they were not supported by corroborating evidence from his own examinations of Plaintiff and that they were inconsistent with the other medical opinions of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and subsections (c)(2)-(6) require the ALJ to explain and weigh it using specified factors.

Tondi v. Saul · filed 2022-07-18(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source 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 record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it so long as she provides an adequate explanation for doing so. Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739, and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rockowitz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-25(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but he must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons” for doing so. ... On remand, the ALJ is directed to consider the opinion of Dr. Nickels and, in the event he determines that Dr. Nickels’ opinion should be discounted, he must set forth good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight to Dr. Nickels’ assessment of Plaintiff's need for absences from work during flares and for a work schedule that accommodates her need to perform exercises.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Grant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-26(d)(2)

Because the ALJ’s mistake left the factual record less than fully developed, reversal with an instruction to award benefits would be inappropriate. Cf. Martin, 118 F. Supp. 2d at 18. Rather, the SSA’s decision should be reversed and remanded with instructions to properly consider Dr. Nolte’s opinion with reference to the medical evidence from the examinations of Ms. Grant’s cervical spine. See Jones, 647 F.3d at 357. If the ALJ determines that Dr. Nolte is a “treating physician,” her opinion that Ms. Grant had a moderate limitation in head movements is “entitled to ‘controlling weight’ if [it is] not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence and [is] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

HORNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-07-18(a)(2)

However, there must be an ongoing relationship between the patient and the doctor for that doctor to be considered a treating physician under the regulations for claims filed prior to March 27, 2017.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must determine its appropriate weight using the listed factors and provide specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Culberson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-29(c)(2), (d)(2)-(d)(6)

At the time of Plaintiff’s application, the regulations and controlling law provided that when evaluating the opinion evidence, “[t]he ALJ ‘must’ give a treating source opinion controlling weight if the treating source opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and is ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... If the ALJ does not accord controlling weight to a treating physician, the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(d)(6)). ... As noted above, 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.” ... Here, the ALJ's evaluation of the opinion evidence does not build an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and his conclusion and his reasons for rejecting Dr. Lunderman’s findings are not “good reasons” as outlined by controlling law. As such, this matter should be remanded because there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wasserman v. Saul · filed 2022-08-09(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule” for claims made before March 27, 2017, which is set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), “states that the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician must be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Here, the ALJ properly applied the treating physician rule and reasonably decided not to assign weight to Dr. Goldstein’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to decline to give a physician’s opinion controlling weight when the ALJ provides a reasoned explanation, including inadequate support, inconsistency, conclusory reasoning, or reliance on subjective complaints.

VanDyke v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-09(d)(2)

However, the Commissioner may decline to give a physician’s opinion controlling weight if the ALJ gives a reasoned explanation why. See Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 720 (8th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Acceptable reasons include where a treating physician’s opinions are not sufficiently supported by the objective medical findings, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), are inconsistent, see Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir. 2001), are conclusory, see Piepgras v. Chater, 76 F.3d 233, 236 (8th Cir. 1996), or rely on a plaintiff’s subjective complaints, see Kirby v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 705, 709 (8th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; when contradicted, the ALJ must consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-17(c)(2)

For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, 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 substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... In that situation, "'the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and, (4) whether the physician is a specialist.'" ... "The failure to provide '"good reasons" for not crediting the opinion of a claimant's treating physician is a ground for remand.'" ... Thus, the ALJ explicitly considered the extent of the treatment, the amount of medical evidence supporting Dr. Federico's and Ms. Baker's opinions, and the consistency of those opinions with the remaining medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion.

Klapat v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-18(c)(2)

Further, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2) require that the Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he] gives to [a claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Arias v. Saul · filed 2022-08-24(c)(2)

The applicable regulations entitle a treating source’s opinion to controlling weight only if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in a claimant’s case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's well-supported, noninconsistent opinion controlling weight and treats the length of the treatment relationship as a factor for assigning weight only when controlling weight is not given.

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

Under the “treating physician rule,” which is found in the version of the regulations that apply to Plaintiff’s claim, the opinion of a treating physician on the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Jelinek v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 805, 811 (7th Cir. 2011); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (applicable to claims filed before March 27, 2017). ... The length of the treating relationship is appropriate to consider when assigning weight if the treating physician rule is not applied, but it is not used in determining whether to apply the treating physician rule. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“When we do not give the treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section [including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination].”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to determine whether a treating physician's opinion deserves controlling weight and, if not, explicitly consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Isaac v. Saul · filed 2022-09-12(d)(2)

“Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95. In deciding how much weight to assign to the opinion, the ALJ “must ‘explicitly consider’ the following, nonexclusive ‘Burgess factors’: ‘(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Id. at 95–96 (alteration in original) (quoting Selian, 708 F.3d at 418); see also Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (discussing the factors). ... In rejecting Dr. Rodriguez’s assessments, the ALJ failed to comply with the treating physician rule. ... The ALJ’s failure to explain why he did not assign any weight to Dr. Rodriguez’s treatment records constitutes error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion under the listed factors, but does not require the ALJ to discuss each factor individually when the ALJ gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

White v. Berryhill · filed 2022-09-15(c), (c)(2)

The rule stems from regulations directing the Commissioner to accord “controlling weight” to a treating source’s medical opinion if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... When discounting a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ need not reference the treating physician factors. ... “The regulations require only that ‘good reasons’ be provided for the weight given a treating physician’s opinion.” ... But, as stated above, an ALJ need not discuss each factor when according weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise weigh it using the listed factors.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-16(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the opinion evidence rules set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 apply. These regulations require ALJs to adhere to certain standards when weighing medical opinions. First, the ALJ is required to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c). ... The “treating physician” 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.’” ... If the treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, “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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For a claim governed by the former treating-source rule, a treating physician’s well-supported opinion is controlling unless inconsistent with substantial evidence, and an ALJ assigning it less weight must give good reasons after considering the prescribed factors.

Moss v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-20(c)(2)

Where the ALJ affords limited weight to the treating source’s opinion and more weight to a non-treating source’s opinion, he or she must provide “good reasons” for doing so. Schaal, 134 F.3d at 505; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In addition, the ALJ must follow “specific procedures . . . in determining the appropriate weight to assign” the treating source’s opinion. Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). The ALJ must “explicitly consider the following, nonexclusive Burgess factors: (1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Id. at 95-96 (quoting Selian, 708 F.3d at 418) (per curium) (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, but failing to discuss each factor explicitly is harmless when the ALJ otherwise gives good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(c)

“[W]hen a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling’ weight, the regulations [then] require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive.” ... Therefore, even though Plaintiff is technically correct that ALJ Koennecke failed to discuss each of the factors mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), such a failure is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record to receive controlling weight.

Hancock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(c)(2)

The “treating physician” 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 v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting in part 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 723 (6th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives greatest weight to a treating physician’s opinion and more weight to an examining physician’s opinion than to a nonexamining physician’s, while allowing a contradicted treating opinion to be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Gaebel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-22(c)

Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ generally should give greatest weight to a treating physician’s opinion and more weight to the opinion of an examining physician than a nonexamining physician. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040-41. Where the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by other doctors, as in this case, the ALJ may reject the opinion by providing “‘specific and legitimate reasons’ supported by substantial evidence in the record[.]”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight, and if it is not controlling, to weigh it using the prescribed factors and give good reasons.

Espinal v. Social Security · filed 2022-09-23(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff applied for SSI benefits prior to March 27, 2017, his application is subject to the “treating physician rule.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... Because the ALJ failed to explicitly consider each of the Burgess factors in evaluating the opinions of Dr. Khan and Dr. Kupersmith, the Court must conduct a “searching review of the record” to confirm whether ALJ Berkowitz applied the substance of the treating physician rule. ... Upon review, the Court is not satisfied that the ALJ properly weighed the treating physicians’ opinions, and thus the ALJ failed to apply the substance of the treating physician rule in determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

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 requires the ALJ to weigh it under the regulatory factors otherwise.

Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Willis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the requisite factors is a “procedural error.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). However, such error is harmless if “a searching review of the record” confirms “that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” Id. (quotations omitted). Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician’s opinion, he must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Harris v. Colvin, 149 F. Supp. 3d 435, 441 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (“A corollary to the treating physician rule is the so-called ‘good reasons rule,’ which is based on the regulations specifying that ‘the Commissioner “will always give good reasons”’ for the weight given to a treating source opinion.” (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’s well-supported opinion to receive controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider various factors when controlling weight is denied.

Blacken v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion, he or she “must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.”

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 techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Hatfield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-21(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 well-supported treating source opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Reyes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-27(c)(2)

A medical opinion from a claimant’s treating source “must 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.” ... ALJ Feuer provided good reasons for giving little weight to the opinions offered by Dr. Terrelonge, given the degree to which those opinions were inconsistent with Dr. Terrelonge’s own treatment notes and other substantial evidence in the record, including the opinions of Drs. Sebold, Blackwell, and Efobi. AR 23-25, 45-55 (Dr. Efobi testimony), 94-96 (Dr. Blackwell opinion), 625-29 (Dr. Sebold opinion). ... In sum, the ALJ’s decision and the Court’s examination of the record amply demonstrate the contradictions between Dr. Terrelonge’s MSSs and the remainder of the record, and therefore the ALJ committed no error in assigning “little weight” to Dr. Terrelonge’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, requires an ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons for assigning less weight, and gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Pierce v. Saul · filed 2022-11-08(c)(2) (d)(2)

Claimant filed her claim before 2017, meaning her treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ must provide “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Fair v. Saul, 2021 WL 1711810, at *3 (7th Cir. 2021), and in so doing, must 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 support for the physician’s opinion. Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir. 2010); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). So long as the ALJ minimally articulates his reasons and considers the proper factors, the decision to afford a treater’s opinion less than controlling weight will stand. Elder, 529 F.3d at 415. ... Nor was the ALJ required to give any deference to Dr. Strugala’s opinion that Claimant could not work or perform even “low stress” jobs, as the ultimate issue of whether Claimant can work is reserved for the Commissioner. Collins v. Astrue, 324 F. App’x 516, 520 (7th Cir. 2009) (in contrast to a medical opinion, “a treating physician's administrative opinion—such as the applicant's residual functional capacity (for sedentary work, for example) or whether the applicant is ‘disabled’—is not entitled to any particular weight because those determinations are ‘reserved to the Commissioner.’ ”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(3) (“We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight and to provide good reasons for the weight assigned if it is not given controlling weight.

Molina v. Saul · filed 2022-11-15(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires an ALJ to engage in a two-step process when assigning weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion. ... A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... When determining what weight to give a less than controlling medical opinion, the ALJ must explicitly consider the following factors: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; ... and (4) whether the physician is a specialist. ... In according less than controlling weight to the opinions of Molina’s treating physicians, the ALJ was required to explicitly consider the Burgess factors or otherwise provide “good reasons” for his weight determination. ... As discussed below, the ALJ did not meet this requirement. ... In sum, the ALJ violated the treating physician rule by failing to provide good reasons for assigning diminished weight to the opinions of Molina’s treating physicians. The ALJ’s failure to provide good reasons for his weight determination is grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Leiva v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-05(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion will generally receive controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” ... However, the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating physician's evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Dolph, 308 F.3d at 878-79.

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 and consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when assigning less than controlling weight.

Hoefert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-06(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. 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it under the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the assigned weight.

Blankenship v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-07(c)(2), (c)

Under the treating-physician rule, “more weight is generally given to the opinion of a treating physician because of his greater familiarity with the claimant’s conditions and circumstances.” Clifford, 227 F.3d at 870 (citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). This principle, however, is not absolute, as “[a] treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is [only] entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Clifford, 227 F.3d at 870 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see Johansen v. Barnhart, 314 F.3d 283, 287 (7th Cir. 2002). In the event the treating physician’s opinion is not well supported or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the Commissioner looks to the following factors to determine the proper weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment-relationship; (3) how much supporting evidence is provided; (4) the consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether the treating physician is a specialist; and (6) any other factors brought to the attention of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see Books, 91 F.3d at 979. The Commissioner must always give “good reasons” for the weight ultimately applied to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see Clifford, 227 F.3d at 870.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight; if it is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight using the relevant factors and give good reasons.

Bronson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-12-15(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. Id. “[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); ... Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95. In doing so, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... At both steps, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. Id. at 96 (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(c)(2), a well-supported and record-consistent treating-source opinion receives controlling weight; if it does not, the adjudicator must consider the treating relationship, support, consistency, and specialization and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Windley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-19(c)(2)

Thus, the opinion of a treating physician “need not be given controlling weight where [it is] contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record.” ... When an ALJ does not afford controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must consider several factors: ... (5) whether the physician is a specialist. ... The ALJ must also set forth “‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a [plaintiff’s] treating physician.” ... “Ultimately, an ALJ must comprehensively set forth her reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” ... “Good reasons” are reasons that assure the reviewing court that “the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions controlling weight, permits withholding it when an opinion is inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires specific good reasons for the assigned weight; § 404.1527(c)(3) favors opinions supported by more relevant evidence.

Counts v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2022-12-22(c)(2), (c)(3)

At the core of her challenge is the treating-source rule. Under this rule, an ALJ should generally give controlling weight to a treating-physician’s opinions because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a patient’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective . . . that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (governing opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017); see also Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013). However, an ALJ need not give controlling weight if, for instance, the treating-physician’s opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. In either case, an ALJ must “always give good reasons . . . for the weight” assigned to the “treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. An ALJ meets this standard when her factfinding and analysis are “sufficiently specific to make clear” the weight assigned to the treating-physician’s opinions and reasons why. Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... By regulation, “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the Administration] will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

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 substantial evidence; when the opinion is contradicted, the ALJ must consider the relevant regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Webb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-10(c)(2)

For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, 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 substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015). ... In that situation, "'the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and, (4) whether the physician is a specialist.'" Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... As such, the Court finds that ALJ Ramos sufficiently considered the relevant factors in crediting the opinion evidence. See Atwater v. Astrue, 512 Fed. Appx. 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (Courts "require no such slavish recitation of each and every [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] factor where the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment 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.

Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-17(c)(2)

An opinion from a treating physician is afforded controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment, 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] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(d)(2). However, treating physician opinions are not always dispositive.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion to receive controlling weight; if it does not, the ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors and give specific, evidence-supported good reasons.

Doyle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-27(c)(2)

Because plaintiff's claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under the treating physician rule, if the ALJ declines to afford controlling weight to a treating physician's medical opinion, he must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. ... Whatever weight the ALJ assigns to the treating physician's opinion, he must give good reasons in his notice of determination or decision for the weight he gives to the treating source's medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Those good reasons must be supported by the evidence in the case record and must be sufficiently specific. ... Here, ALJ McGuan meticulously referenced the extensive medical opinion evidence and declined to give controlling or great weight to any of the opinions but did accord partial weight to some.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2), now codified at subsection (c)(2), requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Dollinger v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2023-02-06(d)(2), (c)(2)

One such regulation, the treating source rule, requires that ALJs accord “controlling weight” to the opinions of treating physicians if the treating source opinions are well supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence. Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009). Additionally, the regulations require ALJs to “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source’s opinion.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (current version at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to explicitly consider the prescribed factors when deciding what weight to give an opinion that does not receive controlling weight.

Hamilton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-08(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician, so long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2007)). ... Additionally, the ALJ must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, it must explicitly consider the following, nonexclusive Burgess factors: (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(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to explicitly consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Lawless v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-13(c)(2)

As Plaintiff filed her SSI application before March 27, 2017, her application is subject to the “treating physician rule.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Colgan v. Kijakazi, 22 F.4th 353, 360 n.2 (2d Cir. 2022) (“The new regulatory regime is clear that claims filed before March 27, 2017—such as [Plaintiff]’s—are still governed by the framework and evidentiary standards set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.”). ... Under the treating physician rule, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... “[I]f the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” ... In conducting this analysis, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... “At both steps, the ALJ must ‘give good reasons in opinion.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight and, if it does not qualify, evaluate its weight using factors including supportability and consistency.

Zeek v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-17(c)(2), (c)(3)–(4)

In short, the ALJ failed to provide good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, both for denying Dr. Parikh’s opinions controlling weight and for assigning them merely “some weight” based on the checklist factors of supportability and consistency. Accordingly, the Court finds that remand is warranted yet again. As before, the Court orders that, on remand, the ALJ shall address each step of the treating physician rule. If the ALJ properly determines at step one that Dr. Parikh’s opinions do not deserve controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the checklist factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to give to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Feliciano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-20(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 governs how an ALJ evaluates a treating physician’s medical opinion, including the weight given and the reasons required for discounting it.

FERGUSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-03-23

Plaintiff’s argument is based upon the ALJ’s failure to apply 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.9272 and the treating physician rule. Despite Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary, the Court finds that the ALJ appropriately applied the correct legal standards when considering Plaintiff’s treating physician opinion and records and that those considerations were accounted for when developing Plaintiff’s light work RFC. ... The treating physician rule is well-established and applies to Plaintiff’s case. Opinions of treating physicians are entitled to “substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” ... To disregard or discredit the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons. ... A finding that an opinion is inconsistent or conclusory provides good cause for not giving a treating physician’s opinion substantial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion, while subsections (c)(3) and (c)(4) support giving less weight to opinions lacking support or inconsistent with the record.

Gipp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4)

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); ... In this case, the Court concludes that the ALJ articulated good reasons for giving less than controlling weight to Dr. Kashin’s opinions. Specifically, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Kashin’s opinions were inconsistent with the record as a whole and were not supported by his own treatment records. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4); ... The Court likewise concludes that the ALJ reasonably rejected Dr. Kashin’s opinion because they lacked support. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

McCourt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, courts generally afford controlling weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician so long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence, but permits discounting the opinion after consideration of the regulatory factors, without a mechanical recitation of every factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Ziade v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-19(d)(2)

Under this rule, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Nevertheless, an ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion — such as Dr. Hussein’s opinion that Ziade could not work a full workday — when it is conclusory or “not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). ... The ALJ need not undertake a “slavish recitation of each and every factor,” however, where her “reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Jones v. Berryhill, 415 F. Supp. 3d 401, 416 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“An ALJ need not advert to every one of the Burgess factors . . . .”). Here, ALJ Ramrup properly evaluated the Burgess factors in according only limited weight to Dr. Hussein’s conclusion that Plaintiff could not sit for more than 4 hours in a day or stand for more than 2 hours.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the treating-physician rule, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ that declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its weight using the listed regulatory factors.

Cabrera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-07(c)(2)-(6)

When the ALJ decides that a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, he then must decide what weight to give the opinion based on several factors, including: (1) the length of treatment and frequency of evaluation; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinions; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in the medical area at issue; and (6) any other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless it rests on medically unacceptable diagnostic techniques or conflicts with other substantial record evidence.

Cline v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-07(c)(2)

A treating physician’s “opinion must be given controlling weight unless it is based on medically unacceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques or is contradicted by the other substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to explicitly review the listed factors in deciding what lesser weight to give the opinion.

Sylvester Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-19(c)

When declining to accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must “explicitly review the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what (if any) lesser weight to give those opinions.” ... The ALJ failed to comply with the treating physician rule. While the ALJ cited some evidence that she considered to be inconsistent with the Eakin-Creasap opinion, see id. at 19, she did not explicitly review the three other Greek factors — i.e., the extent and nature of the treatment, the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion, and whether the physician is a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is internally inconsistent or conflicts with other record evidence, including opinions from examining and non-examining physicians.

Segundo-Mendez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-29(d)(2)-(4)

However, ‘“controlling weight” is typically given to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment where it “is well-supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is no inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the claimant’s case.’ Arruda v. Barnhart, 314 F.Supp.2d 52, 72 (D. Mass. 2004) (citing 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d)(2) & 416.927(d)(2)). Furthermore, an ALJ can downplay the weight of a treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of an impairment when it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other evidence in the record including treatment notes and evaluations by examining and non-examining physicians. 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(4) & 416.927(d)(2)-(4). ... Thus, the ALJ adapted the RFC to reflect the notes of Segundo’s treating physicians. Accordingly, Segundo’s argument that the ALJ gave less weight to her treating physicians lacks merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Kain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-26(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule”5, a treating physician’s opinion is accorded “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record”. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). ... Therefore, I find that ALJ Cordovani satisfied his obligation to give “good reasons” for discounting Dr. Calabrese’s functional assessments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives treating physicians’ opinions greater weight, but permits an ALJ to discount one when substantial contrary medical evidence exists if the ALJ gives good reasons and considers the prescribed factors.

Knapp v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2023-10-16(c)(2)-(5)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must give greater weight to medical opinions of physicians who have treated a claimant than to opinions of non-treating physicians, because treating physicians are “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the [claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ is not bound by a treating physician’s opinion if there is substantial medical evidence to the contrary. Id.; Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 530 (6th Cir. 1997). Nevertheless, an ALJ “will always give good reasons” for the weight that the ALJ assigns to a treating source’s opinion. Hargett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 964 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... The ALJ also appropriately considered Dr. Goodman’s lack of specialization in orthopedics or neurology in deciding how much weight to give his opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5); Payne v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F. App’x 109, 115 (6th Cir. 2010). And, as the regulations require, the ALJ discussed all of the other necessary factors (e.g., treating relationship, supportability of the opinion, and consistency of opinion with the rest of the record) in evaluating Dr. Goodman’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(4). Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ provided “good reasons” for assigning little weight to the contested portions of Dr. Goodman’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight and, when declining to do so, consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons.

Tompkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-06(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). When the ALJ does not afford controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician, he must comprehensively consider several factors, the so-called “Burgess factors”—which include supportability, consistency, the source’s relationship with the claimant, and the source’s specialization, and ‘other factors’—and set forth the reasons for the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32. ... Although the ALJ should have proceeded more methodically through the factors enumerated in § 404.1527(c)(2), it is evident that he “applied the substance of the treating physician rule.” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32. ... the Court finds the ALJ’s procedural error harmless because “the substance of the [regulation] was not traversed.” See Loucks, 2022 WL 218293, at *2.