20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

For DIB claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion unless it conflicts with other substantial record evidence, and otherwise requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Fox v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-18(c)(2)

The SSA regulations governing DIB claims filed before March 27, 2017, promise DIB claimants that the SSA “will always consider the medical opinions in [the] case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence” and, “[r]egardless of its source, [ ] will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c). The regulations further provide that an ALJ must give special consideration to medical opinions from a claimant’s treating physician. Specifically, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s condition or RFC if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); accord Rogers v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 242 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Gentry, 741 F.3d at 727 (holding that “[t]he treating physician rule also applies to the RFC of the claimant”). ... The ALJ provided sufficient reasons for not giving Sharma’s opinions controlling weight. ... For these reasons, Fox has not shown that the ALJ violated the treating physician rule or that the ALJ’s analysis of Sharma’s medical opinions lacks the support of substantial record evidence.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion in claims filed on or before March 27, 2017 when the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-16(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. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2).

For disability claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating medical source’s opinion controlling weight only if it is well supported by acceptable medical evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Mikrazi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-05(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,” for disability benefits claims filed, like the instant claim, prior to March 27, 2017, an opinion from a treating medical source is entitled to controlling weight so long as the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s reliance on opinions of Drs. Santarpia, Anderson, Echevarria, and Mafi, as well as on the Plaintiff’s treatment progress notes from Horizon Health, establishes the ALJ did not err in failing to give controlling weight to the opinions of MHC Jakowski, NP Molino, NP Millard, and Dr. Wolin.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and, if controlling weight is denied, to assess the opinion under the regulation’s enumerated factors and give good reasons.

Williams v. Colvin · filed 2024-03-06(c)

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.3 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). ... The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. ... However, this evaluation of Dr. Giacchino’s opinion failed to comply with the then-applicable regulations.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only if it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Arch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-06(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician” rule, the ALJ must generally give “more weight to medical opinions” from a claimant’s “treating source”—as defined in the regulations—when determining whether the claimant is disabled. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); accord Morales v. Berryhill, 484 F. Supp. 3d 130, 142 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). However, if there are genuine conflicts in the medical evidence, the Commissioner may resolve them and find that the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. Monroe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 676 F. App’x. 5, 7 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (citing Veino, 312 F.3d at 588). Stated differently, the opinion of the treating physician is not entitled to controlling weight where the opinion is “not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record” or the opinion is not well-supported. Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32; see also Ratliff v. Barnhart, 92 F. App’x 838, 840 (2d Cir. 2004). “When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s assessment, the ALJ must consider the following factors,” also known as the Burgess factors: (1) the length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence in support of the opinion; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is that of a specialist; and (6) any other relevant factors.” Monroe, 676 F. App’x at 7 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). The ALJ must comprehensively set forth his reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion. Id. (citation omitted). ... In sum, the ALJ adequately explained and provided good reasons for affording less than controlling weight to the opinion of Arch’s treating physician.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ applying the pre-2017 regulations to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by acceptable medical techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Ochoa v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-03-04(c)(2)

Under the pre-2017 regulations that apply to Plaintiff’s claim, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s 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] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Section 404.1527(c)(2)'s treating-physician rule applies to opinions from treating medical sources, but not to opinions from licensed social workers.

Bates v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-12(c)(2)

Nor did the ALJ’s discounting of LMSW Borgogelli’s opinion violate the so-called “treating physician’s rule” applicable to disability benefits claims filed, like the instant claim, prior to March 27, 2017, and pursuant to which an opinion from a treating medical source is entitled to controlling weight so long as the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record....” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Nevertheless, the treating physician’s rule does not apply to Borgogelli, a licensed social worker.

For claims filed before 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 other substantial record evidence.

MacDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-19(c)(2)

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

For benefits applications filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 required an ALJ to favor treating-source opinions and give good reasons for declining to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.

Crespo v. O'Malley · filed 2024-03-25(c)(2)

For benefits applications filed before March 27, 2017, the SSA’s regulations required an ALJ to give more weight to those physicians with the most significant relationship with the claimant. ... Under this “[T]reating [P]hysician [R]ule,” an ALJ was required to “give good reasons” ... if he or she determined that a treating physician’s opinion was not entitled to “controlling weight,” or, at least, “greater weight” than the opinions of non-treating and non-examining sources.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence; an ALJ assigning it less weight must give good reasons.

Twentyfive v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-25(c)(2)

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

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Kraus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-17(c)(2)

For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017,5 the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ is required to consider several factors in determining how much weight an opinion should receive, including the length of the relationship and frequency of examinations, nature of the relationship, medical evidence that supports the opinion, consistency with the record, and if the physician’s specialty is relevant to the impairment. ... If the ALJ gives the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must provide good reasons for doing so. ... Contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments, ALJ Bell provided good reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Fendya’s December 2016 opinion and properly addressed the Burgess factors in doing so.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ that declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its weight by considering six regulatory factors.

Staniszewski v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-21(c)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight to give the opinion by analyzing the following factors: (1) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) any other factors “which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... When assessing Dr. Walsh’s opinion and affording it “little weight,” the ALJ discussed each regulatory factor but focused largely on three factors−the treating relationship, supportability, and consistency. ... The ALJ met that minimal standard here and adequately explained why she afforded Dr. Walsh’s opinion “little weight.”

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and good reasons for whatever weight is assigned.

Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-03(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... 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). ... As is evident, the ALJ articulated his reasoning for the weight accorded to the opinions of Dr. Corbett and Dr. Liu, and the Court concludes those reasons are sound.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its weight by analyzing the regulation’s treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Kiser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-04(c)(2)-(6)

Moreover, once the ALJ declined to give Dr. Singh’s opinions controlling weight, he was required to “also provide an analysis of the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).” Hargett, 964 F.3d at 552 (citing Rogers, 486 F.3d at 245-46; Cole, 661 F.3d at 938). ALJ Kenyon, however, did not apply any of the regulatory factors in weighing Dr. Singh’s opinions. Even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine what weight to give the opinion by balancing a host of factors: the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the degree to which the treating source’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the overall record; the specialization of the treating source; and any other relevant factors.” Hargett, 964 F.3d at 552 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376). The ALJ did not acknowledge Dr. Singh’s specialization as a psychiatrist; his nearly four year treatment history with plaintiff prior to rendering his 2011 opinion; or the frequency with which he treated plaintiff (approximately every 4 to 6 weeks). Nor did the ALJ identify the degree to which Dr. Singh’s opinions were supported by the relevant evidence, including the supporting progress notes from treating therapist Mr. Guest who treated plaintiff in tandem with Dr. Singh at Advance Therapeutic Services and Clearing Paths. The Court is unable to discern whether and to what extent the ALJ considered these regulatory factors in assessing Dr. Singh’s opinions. This is reversible error.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to weigh all medical opinions using the regulation’s six factors.

Ruiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-06-18(c)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the SSA regulations provide that, unless the ALJ affords controlling weight to a treating source’s medical opinion, the ALJ is required to consider and weigh all medical opinions of record, whether those opinions are from acceptable medical sources, other medical sources or non-medical sources, with consideration of the following factors for determining the appropriate weight to afford such opinions: (1) the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence in support of the medical opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (6) other factors brought to the SSA’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Saxon v. Astrue, 781 F. Supp.2d 92, 103-04 (N.D.N.Y. 2011); See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, and failure to expressly discuss every relevant factor is harmless when a searching review confirms that the substance of the rule was followed.

Adams v. O'Malley · filed 2024-06-26(c)(2)

The ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight given by explicitly considering nonexclusive factors, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), referred to as the 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.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 69 (internal quotation marks omitted); see Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008). “An ALJ’s failure to ‘explicitly’ apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight at step two is a procedural error.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 96 (2d Cir. 2019). “If, however, a searching review of the record assures us that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed, we will affirm.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Although the ALJ did not explicitly apply each Burgess factor, she articulated good reasons for assigning “some weight” to Dr. Valentine’s opinion. ... The ALJ thus provided a detailed explanation for her decision, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)'s treating-physician rule applies only when the claimant filed the application before March 27, 2017.

STEEVES v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-08-16(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s argument on this point seems to invoke the inapplicable “treating physician rule,” which is applied only in cases where the application is filed before March 27, 2017. Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (applying to cases prior to the amendment of the regulations) with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a) (applying to later cases).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions the most weight and controlling weight when they are well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

(SS) Lutz v. Social Security · filed 2024-09-09(c)(2)

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that more weight is generally given to the opinion of treating physicians, which are given controlling weight when well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended (Apr. 9, 1996) (noting that the opinions of treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining physicians are entitled to varying weight in residual functional capacity determinations). ... Here, the ALJ did not demonstrate awareness that the analysis begins with the presumption that the treating source opinions are given the most weight, even quoting the revised regulation stating otherwise.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion when it is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence, but permits an ALJ to credit a conflicting non-treating or non-examining opinion after considering the treating relationship.

LENZ v. O'MALLEY · filed 2024-09-09(c)(2)

Plaintiff is correct that for claims, such as this one, filed before March 27, 2017, the older versions apply, and a treating physician’s opinion is to be given “controlling weight” so long as the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... Under Sections 404.1527 and 416.927, an ALJ must consider the treating relationship between a claimant and an opining doctor, but when the medical opinion of a treating source conflicts with that of a non-treating, or even a non-examining physician, “the ALJ may choose whom to credit.”

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

WHEELER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2024-09-11(c)(2)

Plaintiff is correct that for claims, such as this one, filed before March 27, 2017, the older versions apply, and a treating physician’s opinion is to be given “controlling weight” so long as the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it under the regulation’s six factors.

Anaya v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-26(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s original claim predates March 27, 2017, the ALJ’s evaluation of opinion evidence from a treating physician must comport with the “treating physician rule” articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. This regulation requires a sequential, two-step analysis. ... First, the ALJ must determine whether the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” and if so, must afford the opinion “controlling weight.” ... The Court therefore finds that the ALJ permissibly concluded that Dr. Shapiro’s opinion was inconsistent with other record evidence, and accordingly, the ALJ was not obligated to give the opinion controlling weight.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons if the opinion is discounted.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-30(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003) (“The SSA recognizes a ‘treating physician’ rule of deference to the views of the physician who has engaged in the primary treatment of the claimant.”). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but she must “comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (noting the SSA “will always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s opinion).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence and to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Sotka v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-11(c)(2)

The Court concludes that the ALJ violated the treating physician rule, necessitating remand for further proceedings. For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003) (“The SSA recognizes a ‘treating physician’ rule of deference to the views of the physician who has engaged in the primary treatment of the claimant.”). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but he must “comprehensively set forth reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (noting the SSA “will always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s opinion). ... In this case, the ALJ failed to explicitly consider the amount of medical evidence that supported Dr. Magun’s opinion. ... The ALJ’s error cannot be considered harmless.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s medical opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must consider the relevant weighting factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-03(c)(2)

For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, as is the case here, medical opinion evidence is evaluated pursuant to the treating physician rule. See Sylvester v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 692 F. Supp. 3d 46, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (citing Crowell v. Comm’r, 705 F. App’x 34, 35 (2d Cir. 2017)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. “The treating physician rule, as its name connotes, 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 diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Colgan v. Kijakazi, 22 F.4th 353, 359 (2d Cir. 2022) (quoting Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “[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 doing so, it 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.’” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95–96 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)). ... The Court finds that “the ALJ’s decision not to give controlling weight to [Dr. Touchstone’s] opinion under the ‘treating physician’ rule was proper considering the substantial evidence contradicting [Dr. Touchstone’s assessment].” Monroe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 676 Fed. App’x 5, 7 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to reject a treating physician’s opinion that conflicts with other medical opinions only by giving specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Kimberly Pickett v. Michelle King · filed 2025-02-10(c)(2)

The ALJ did not err by rejecting Dr. Khalsa’s medical opinion concerning Pickett’s condition. For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with other medical opinions “by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons, grounded in the regulatory factors, for assigning less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Oliveras v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-20(c)(2)

The “treating physician rule” provides that the medical opinions and reports of Plaintiff’s treating physicians are to be given “special evidentiary weight.” ... However, the opinion of a treating physician “need not be given controlling weight where [it is] contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record.” ... The ALJ must “explicitly consider” the Burgess factors when assigning less-than-controlling weight to a treating source opinion; if not, the Court will conduct “a searching review of the record” and will affirm where “the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” ... The ALJ must also set forth “‘good reasons’ for not crediting the opinion of a [plaintiff’s] treating physician.” ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in according less weight to Dr. Freedman’s opinion, because the ALJ explained that it was not supported by Dr. Freedman’s own treatment notes reflecting mostly normal examinations and effective management of symptoms with medication.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527's treating-physician rule gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but omission of an explicit Burgess-factor analysis is harmless when a searching review shows good reasons for the weight assigned.

Yorio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-03-26(c)(2)

Plaintiff filed for DIB and SSI before March 27, 2017, and, as such, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule in his determination. ... 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.” ... An ALJ’s failure to “explicitly” apply the Burgess factors is a procedural error and subject to a harmless error analysis. ... Remand is not necessary if the Court can conclude, after a “searching review of the record,” that the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule by providing “good reasons” for the weight assigned.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to apply the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Lucas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-30(c)(2)

The applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, defines “medical opinion” and “treating source” and outlines how medical opinions are weighed. Dr. Cole, Dr. Kelly, and Dr. Quadri were all treating sources who had ongoing treating relationships with Plaintiff. While the ALJ discussed that he found the treating physicians’ opinions to be contradictory to the other evidence presented, such as Plaintiff caring for her ill mother or walking her dog, he failed to include the required explanations. The ALJ was not required to give the treating physicians’ opinions controlling weight, but he was required to apply the factors under § 404.1527(c)(2) and “give good reasons in [their] notice of determination or decision for the weight” given.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ evaluating a claim filed before March 2017 to give a well-supported, not-inconsistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight or otherwise assess its persuasiveness under the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Chavez v. Dudek · filed 2025-05-01(c)(2)

Because plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 2017, the ALJ was required to evaluate Dr. Gurtizen’s opinion in accordance with the treating-physician rule. That rule “requires ALJs to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Peter V. v. Dudek, Case No. 22-cv-50306, 2025 WL 885997, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2025) (internal quotation marks omitted). “If an ALJ denies a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ still must consider the opinion’s persuasiveness after evaluating statutory factors, such as specialization, supportability, and consistency.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). An ALJ must give “good reasons” to support the weight he ultimately assigns to a treating source’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine its specific weight by analyzing the regulation’s factors, and failure to do so is reversible error.

James Michael Rancatore Sr. v. Bisignano · filed 2025-05-28(c)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the “Treating Physician Rule” applies, under which a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion is both well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ cannot simply disregard the opinion, but must proceed to the second step and determine what specific weight it should be given after considering certain factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The regulations specifically state that ALJs “consider all of [these] factors in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion.” ... The ALJ’s decision does not reflect an analysis of the factors. ... Rejecting a treating physician’s opinion “without considering the regulatory factors” is “a reversible error in itself.”

Section 404.1527(c)(2)'s treating-physician rule required controlling weight for a well-supported opinion that was not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence, but the rule does not govern claims filed after March 27, 2017.

Duff v. SSA · filed 2025-06-11(c)(2)

First, concerning the proper standard for evaluating Helton’s opinion, the new regulations for evaluating medical opinions are applicable here since Claimant’s claim was filed after March 27, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. The previous regulations required a treating physician’s opinion be given controlling weight if it was well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and was not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. Id. § 404. 1527(c)(2).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent medical opinion controlling weight and requires an ALJ who assigns it less weight to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Dywinski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-29(c)(2)

As the court explained in the first Kathryn D. decision, under the rules applicable to plaintiff’s claim,3 “a treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record’.” 2021 WL 195342 at *2 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)). If an ALJ decides to give less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, she 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 v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotations omitted). These are the so-called “Burgess factors”. See Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2008)). “At both steps, the regulations require the ALJ to give ‘good reasons’ - i.e., reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record - for the weight she affords the treating source’s medical opinion.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 75. ... Accordingly, I find that ALJ Mattimore did apply the Burgess factors in deciding to give Dr. Zhan’s treating opinion less-than-controlling weight. ALJ Mattimore’s reasons for assigning such weight are grounded in substantial evidence in the record, and are thus “good reasons”. See, e.g., Schillo, 31 F.4th at 77; Meyer v. Commissioner of Social Security, 794 F. App’x 23, 26 (2d Cir. 2019). Therefore, the treating physician rule was not violated, and remand is not required on this ground.

Section 404.1527’s prior hierarchy for weighing medical opinions does not govern applications filed on or after March 27, 2017, which are evaluated under the newer regulations.

Quinnett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-14

Under prior Social Security regulations, a hierarchy of medical opinions dictated the weight that must be given by an ALJ: treating doctors were generally given the most weight and non-examining doctors were generally given the least weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (1991); 56 Fed. Reg. 36,932 (Aug. 1, 1991). For applications filed on or after March 27, 2017, the new regulations eliminate the old hierarchy of medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a), 416.920c(a) (2017). Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits on March 2, 2018. Thus, the Commissioner’s new regulations apply to the ALJ’s assessment of this opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c; 82 Fed. Reg. 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017); see also 82 Fed. Reg. 15,132 (Mar. 27, 2017) (correcting technical errors).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Leffler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-08-19(c)(2)

As an initial matter, the Social Security rule that Plaintiff cites, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), does not apply to his case. Commonly known as the “treating physician rule,” the rule requires the ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App'x 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (citation modified). But this rule applies only to claims filed before March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; see also Nasser v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 22-1293, 2022 WL 17348838, at *1 (6th Cir. 2022). For a claim filed after March 27, 2017―like Plaintiff’s (R. at 34)―an ALJ evaluates medical opinions under the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c and is not required to give more weight to treating physicians. See Masterson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24-5512, 2025 WL 317501, at *1 n.1 (6th Cir. 2025) (“[U]nder the new rule, ALJ’s must evaluate all medical opinions under the same factors.” (citations omitted)). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ’s decision must be overturned because he failed to follow the treating physician rule is without merit.

Section 404.1527(c) codified the treating physician rule before March 27, 2017, requiring an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it was well supported and not inconsistent with other record evidence.

Fyfe, Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-03(c)

Before March 27, 2017, Social Security Administration (“SSA”) regulations codified the treating physician rule, which required the ALJ to assign controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it was well supported and not inconsistent with other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, for claims filed before March 27, 2017, to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Speaks v. O'Malley · filed 2025-09-29(c)

“Regardless of its source, [the ALJ] will evaluate every medical opinion[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must rely upon 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527—also known as the “treating physician rule”—to evaluate medical opinions.4 Shelley C., 61 F.4th at 353. Under this rule, an ALJ must “assign greater or ‘controlling’ weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician[.]” Id. at 353-54. In other words, an “ALJ is required to give ‘controlling weight’ to opinions proffered by a claimant’s treating physicians so long as 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.” Lewis v. Berryhill, 858 F.3d 858, 867 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, decide whether a treating-source opinion merits controlling weight, and, if it does not, weigh the opinion under the regulatory factors.

Reynolds · filed 2026-03-31(c)

As Plaintiff filed his application prior to March 27, 2017, the rules in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 apply to the ALJ's assignment of weight to the medical opinions in the record. The regulations require ALJs to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The process for assigning weight to medical opinions in the record begins with a determination whether to assign controlling weight to the medical opinion of the treating source. Id. If controlling weight is not assigned to the treating source's opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) of this section in deciding how much weight to accord each of the medical opinions in the record, including the medical opinion from the treating source. Id. ... Here, the numerous medical records, x-rays, and diagnostic tests present objective findings that are consistent with and support the treating physician Dr. Patel's opinions. The Court has reviewed the record in its entirety and finds that it was error for the ALJ to rely instead upon the opinion of Dr. Oh, the non-examining state agency physician who did not have the benefit of any of Dr. Patel's treatment records when formulating his opinion.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating physician opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if controlling weight is denied, the ALJ must meaningfully consider all six regulatory factors and give a good reason for the lesser weight.

Pham · filed 2026-05-27(c)

Because Pham’s application was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to assess the medical opinions in the record in accordance with the treating physician rule in effect at that time. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). That rule provided that ALJs must give a treating physician’s medical opinions as to the nature and severity of the 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 record.’ ... The ALJ’s analysis does not comport with the treating physician rule. Specifically, after the ALJ concluded that Dr. Tran’s opinions were not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ was required to use the six factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what less-than-controlling weight to give to Dr. Tran’s opinions. But the ALJ disregarded the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors. For example, he did not discuss at all the length of Dr. Tran’s treatment relationship with Pham, which had existed for at least 10 years. AR 2894. The ALJ also did not consider the frequency of Dr. Tran’s examinations of Pham or whether Dr. Tran had a particular specialization. Moreover, the ALJ did not explain why he allotted Dr. Tran’s opinions “modest” and “minimal” weight. See Shelley C., 61 F.4th at 355 (holding that “the ALJ’s decision to allot ‘little weight’” to the treating physician’s opinion was “erroneous” because the “ALJ did not properly consider” the “length, frequency, and nature” of the claimant’s relationship with her treating physician).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s well-supported, non-inconsistent opinion controlling weight or explicitly consider the regulatory factors in assigning lesser weight, and must give good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Gulczewski · filed 2026-06-18(c)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as Gina’s, “there are specific procedures that an ALJ must follow in determining the appropriate weight to assign a treating physician’s opinion.” Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 74–75 (2d Cir. 2022) (citation modified); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. “First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 75 (citation modified). “The opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given controlling weight so long as it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with (or contradicted by) other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.” Id. “Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, [he or she] must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” Id. (citation modified). Under the applicable regulations, an ALJ must “explicitly consider certain nonexclusive factors when making this determination: (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.” Id. (citation modified); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those factors “are sometimes referred to as the ‘Burgess factors.’” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 75; see Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2009). “At both steps, the regulations require the ALJ to give ‘good reasons’—i.e., reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record—for the weight [the ALJ] affords the treating source’s medical opinion.” Schillo, 31 F.4th at 75. And “if the ALJ proceeds to step two, [he or] she must explicitly apply the factors listed in [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)]; the failure to do so is procedural error and subject to harmless error analysis.” Id. (citation modified). Stated differently, “a court can conclude that such an error is harmless if the ALJ has otherwise provided ‘good reasons’ for [his or her] weight assignment.” Id. (citation modified).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats an ongoing therapeutic relationship differently from an individual consultative examination when weighing medical opinions.

Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners · filed 1997-07-03(d)(2)

The treating physician rule, in all its incarnations, is premised upon the existence of an ongoing therapeutic relationship between an applicant and a treating physician. HHS’ regulation identifies a “treating physician” differently than “individual examinations, such as consultative examinations” of the type plaintiffs psychologists supplied.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Dwyer v. Apfel · filed 1998-10-19(d)(2)

If the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must give good reasons in his decision for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. ... Given the numerous statements throughout the record which are consistent with Dr. Beals’ 1996 findings, the ALJ failed to adequately explain his reasons for not giving Dr. Beals’ report controlling weight.

An ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must explain the decision by analyzing the six regulatory factors.

Kenner v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-31(c)(2)

While the determination of the weight to be accorded to a treating physician is well within the province of an ALJ, the treating physician rule, as interpreted by the judges of this District, requires that an ALJ give controlling weight to the opinions of a treating physician, and if not, explain why those opinions were rejected by undertaking an analysis of the six factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors to determine its proper weight.

Burstein v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-26(c)

If the opinion of the treating physician is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply a number of factors in order to determine the opinion’s proper weight.

An ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must consider the relevant factors, including the frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship.

Bluni v. Saul · filed 2022-02-10(c)(2)

Additionally, the Court finds that the ALJ, in concluding that Dr. Puro’s opinions on the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s mental impairments, or his diagnoses, are not entitled to controlling weight, erred by failing to consider many of the Burgess factors, such as the frequency, nature, and extent of Dr. Puro’s treating relationship with Plaintiff.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to explain why another doctor's opinion receives more weight than treating physicians' opinions.

Velez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)

Judge Fox’s recommendation that the case be remanded is also premised on his conclusion that the “ALJ did not accord the opinion of Velez’s treating sources . . . controlling weight,” as then required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Accordingly, this Court adopts Judge Fox’s R&R on this point. Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted to the extent that this case will be remanded for the purpose of the ALJ explaining why the opinions of Dr. Long are entitled to more weight than the opinions of Velez’s treating physicians – Dr. Radna and Dr. Katzman – and why this determination is appropriate under the applicable SSA regulations.

Section 404.1527(c)’s treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017; revised regulations govern later claims.

Malak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-22(c)

Before March 27, 2017, Social Security Administration (“SSA”) regulations codified the treating physician rule, which required the ALJ to assign controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it was well supported and not inconsistent with other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In this case, however, revised SSA regulations (published on January 18, 2017, and effective on March 27, 2017) apply because Plaintiff filed her claim on December 11, 2019 (Tr. 72).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight must still weigh it under the regulatory factors.

Medina v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

Nevertheless, the ALJ would still have been required to determine what lesser amount of weight to accord the opinion based on the regulatory factors. Here, the ALJ completed only phase one and stopped. He failed to complete an “analytically distinct” inquiry into the regulatory factors. Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1330. This was legal error.

Section 404.1527’s treating physician rule requires a reviewing court to assess whether the evidence relied on by the ALJ is sufficient to overcome deference to the treating physician’s opinion.

Jenkins v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29

To the extent the Commissioner might complain that my analysis set forth above constitutes a re-weighing of the evidence, I would disagree and submit that the treating physician rule itself requires a reviewing court to assess whether the evidence relied on by the ALJ is sufficient to overcome that rule.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it conflicts with substantial evidence in the record.

Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)

In the instant case, as discussed above, Discussion, supra, at 12-13, ALJ Romeo’s determination that the opinions of NP Addler-Gribble, and Drs. Deines and Hodder are inconsistent with the opinions of Drs. Long, Slowik, and Meyer is supported by substantial evidence in the record. Significantly, not only is a treating physician’s opinion not binding where contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record, but the ALJ is permitted to rely on the opinion of a consultative examiner provided the opinion is supported by and consistent with other evidence in the record.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors in deciding how much weight it receives.

McCullough v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(1)–(6)

If the opinion of the treating physician is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply a number of factors in order to determine the opinion’s proper weight. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination as well as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating source’s opinion; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the treating source is a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

The treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017.

Hinton v. Saul · filed 2021-03-31

But since Plaintiff filed her claims on May 6, 2015, the treating physician rule applies.

An ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; an analysis of other evidence does not cure that failure unless it supplies those reasons.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(d)(2)

The ALJ’s analysis of the record as a whole also does not constitute implicit “good reasons” for giving Dr. Ahn’s opinion less than controlling weight.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Reeves v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-20(c)(2)

First, a searching review of the record confirms that the ALJ properly applied the appropriate factors when assessing the opinions of Dr. Hoffman and Dr. Queenan, including their treating relationship with Plaintiff, their specialty, the consistency of their opinions with the record as a whole, and the evidence supporting their opinions.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by accepted medical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Booker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-30(c)(2)

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

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) requires an ALJ to consider the examining and treatment relationship when weighing a medical opinion.

Shaller v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-15(c)(1)-(2)

The ALJ did not acknowledge Dr. Hastings’ treating relationship or extensive treatment record. See T. at 42; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) (requiring consideration of the examining and treatment relationship).

Section 404.1527(c) required controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that was not inconsistent with other record evidence under the rules in effect before March 27, 2017.

Naberhaus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-28(c)

Before March 27, 2017, Social Security Administration (“SSA”) regulations codified the treating physician rule, which required the ALJ to assign controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it was well supported and not inconsistent with other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

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

Heuser v. Social Security · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)

Because the ALJ did not in fact give Dr. Chuang’s opinion controlling weight (Tr. 30), he was required to “explicitly consider” (1) “the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment;” (2) “the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion;” (3) “the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence;” and (4) “whether the physician is a specialist,” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95–96. The ALJ, however, failed to do so.

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

Gray v. Saul · filed 2022-03-31(c)

If the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, he or she is nevertheless required to consider the following factors in determining the weight to be given to that opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence provided to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (6) other factors brought to the Commissioner’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Section 404.1527(c)(2)’s treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017.

KOSHIR v. SAUL · filed 2022-03-31(c)(2)

The Court notes that for cases such as this one, filed on or after March 27, 2017, the regulations have eliminated the “treating physician rule.” Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (applying to cases prior to the amendment of the regulations) with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a) (applying to later cases).

Section 404.1527(c)’s treating physician rule does not apply to claims filed after the regulatory change.

Gilliam v. O'Malley · filed 2022-07-13(c)

Plaintiff’s argument centers around the ALJ’s alleged failure to correctly apply the “treating physician rule.” (Dkt. 17, pp. 6-7 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).) However, the “treating physician rule” does not apply to this case. Because Plaintiff applied for benefits well after the rule change, the ALJ applied a new set of regulations for evaluating medical evidence that differs substantially from prior regulations.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion; conclusory descriptions of the opinion as vague or nonspecific are insufficient.

Brown-Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-19(c)(2)

Such conclusory analysis is insufficient to satisfy the treating physician rule.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion; failure to do so requires remand.

Goodwin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(c)(2)

The Commissioner’s opposition is silent as to what “good reasons” were stated for assigning only “some weight” to Dr. Sadiq’s opinion, and the Court finds none. Accordingly, ALJ Weiss’ failure to appropriately evaluate and weigh treating physician Dr. Sadiq’s opinion requires remand.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when the opinion fails to meet the controlling-weight standard, but requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Yau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-30(c)(2)

The ALJ may afford less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if it fails to meet this standard, but is required to provide good reasons for the weight assigned upon consideration of, 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.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)’s treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017.

Hugg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-17(c)(2)

For claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians were to be given “controlling weight” provided such opinions were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [were] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). New regulations regarding the evaluation of medical evidence took effect on March 27, 2017. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence. 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01 (Jan. 18, 2017). Because Plaintiff’s application was filed on May 16, 2019, the previous regulations, including the treating physician rule, are inapplicable to Plaintiff’s claim.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to address substantial evidence that may support it.

Lieberman v. Berryhill · filed 2024-03-07(d)(2)

The ALJ also failed to properly apply the treating physician rule as to Dr. Hui Chon Kim (“Dr. Kim”), because he failed to address substantial evidence in the record that may provide support for Dr. Kim’s opinion.

An ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight must consider the Burgess factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Pinnock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-03-27(c)(2)

The ALJ did not explicitly consider the Burgess factors or provide “good reasons” for assigning Dr. Carpenter’s decision “partial weight” (Tr. 19); this is sufficient grounds to remand the case.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)’s treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017, but not to claims filed on or after that date.

KOONTZ v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2024-03-27(c)(2)

However, Plaintiff overlooks the fact that for cases filed on or after March 27, 2017, the regulations have eliminated the “treating physician rule.” Compare 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (applying to cases prior to the amendment of the regulations) with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a) (applying to later cases).

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when determining the weight of a treating physician's opinion.

Baybrook v. Chater · filed 1996-08-14(d)

The new regulations require consideration of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) factors in order to determine the proper weight to give the opinion.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent medical conclusion controlling and gives it extra weight based on the physician’s treatment relationship and familiarity with the claimant’s condition.

Reynolds v. Apfel · filed 1998-04-15(d)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R; § 404.1527(d)(2) (“§ 404.1527(d)(2)”), the medical conclusion of a “treating” physician is “controlling” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” The treating physician’s opinion on the subject of medical disability, i.e., diagnosis and nature and degree of impairment, is: (i) binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence; and (ii) entitled to some extra weight because the treating physician is usually more familiar with a claimant’s medical condition than are other physicians.

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

Minsky v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-17(d)(2)

The ALJ was bound to give their opinions “controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.”

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating source opinion controlling weight and requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Ruiz v. Apfel · filed 1999-09-27(d)(2)

Where the ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must apply a variety of factors to determine how much weight the opinion should receive. These factors include: (1) whether the doctor actually examined the plaintiff; (2) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examinations; (3) the nature and extent of the treatment provided by the treating doctor including the kinds of examinations and tests performed or ordered; (4) the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant medical evidence such as medical signs or laboratory findings; (5) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (6) whether the treating source is giving an opinion in his area of specialty; and (7) other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) through (5).

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explain the weight given using specified factors.

Blandford v. Apfel · filed 1999-10-04(d)(2)-(6)

The opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight, under certain circumstances, in the belief that an ongoing relationship between doctor and patient yields a better evaluation than a one-time physical. Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 568 (2d Cir.1993); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight only where it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78-79 (2d Cir.1999). If the opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must give good reasons in his decision for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). Furthermore, the ALJ must consider various factors in determining the weight given to treating physician’s opinions including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination by the treating physician for the condition in question, the specialization of the physician, the supportability and consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any other relevant factors. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

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

Whitfield v. Apfel · filed 2000-03-13(d)(2)

There is no dispute that the law accords special evidentiary weight to the opinion of the treating physician. Specifically, the regulations state that: ... Generally, we give more weight to opinions by your treating sources.... If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... The Second Circuit has stated the factors to be considered when the treating physician’s opinion should be given controlling weight: ... In addition, the regulations provide that the agency “will always give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it] gives [claimant’s] treating source opinion.” ... Nevertheless, in the Court’s view, the ALJ did not err in giving controlling weight to the opinion of Dr. Thompson, as his opinion that Whitfield was disabled was not consistent with the medical evidence available in the case.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating source opinion consistent with substantial evidence and good reasons when controlling weight is denied.

Rooney v. Apfel · filed 2001-08-14(d)(2)

The “treating physician rule,” as it is known, “mandates that the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by the medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... If the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner applies various factors to decide how much weight to give the opinion. ... When the Commissioner chooses not to give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it] gives [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” ... Applying these standards to the facts of this case, the Court finds that although the ALJ’s conclusion may be correct, the case must be remanded to the ALJ for further proceedings, because the ALJ did not properly apply the treating physician rule.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported and consistent treating source opinion and consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Devora v. Barnhart · filed 2002-05-22(d)(2)

The duty of the ALJ to develop the record is particularly important when it comes to obtaining information from a claimant’s treating physician. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. These regulations state as follows: ... If we find that a treating source’s opinion of the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If the Commissioner does not give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion, the regulations require the Commissioner to consider various factors in determining what weight the treating physician’s opinion should be given.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires treating source opinions to receive controlling weight when adequately supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of the listed weighing factors.

Langley v. Barnhart · filed 2004-06-30(d)(2)

Here, contrary to the requirements of SSR 96-2p, the ALJ completely rejected Dr. Hjortsvang’s opinion once he determined it was not entitled to controlling weight, without any consideration of what lesser weight the opinion should be given or discussion of the relevant factors set forth in § 404.1527.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Bartlett v. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 1996-09-13(d)(2)

The district court concluded that the treating physician's opinion was inconsistent with the other substantial evidence and should not be given "controlling weight." See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). 14 Again, we affirm this determination for substantially the same reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Martinez's Recommended Ruling, as adopted by Chief Judge Dorsey.

The treating physician rule does not require an ALJ to give a chiropractor’s opinion the weight reserved for an acceptable medical source.

St. Clair v. Apfel · filed 2000-05-22(d)(2)

Because Dr. Sibley was not an acceptable medical source, the ALJ was not required to apply the treating physician rule when weighing Dr. Sibley’s opinion.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; failure to do so warrants remand.

Youney v. Barnhart · filed 2003-08-06(d)(2)

Regardless what weight the Commissioner does give the treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she gives the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... Because the ALJ failed to provide “good reasons” for not affording Dr. Palafox’s opinion controlling weight, this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with the record.

Bernola v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-09-09(c)(2)

The so-called “treating physician” rule requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight where it is: 1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques;” and 2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Id. at 376 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc., Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 405 (6th Cir.2009). In other words, an ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion deference only when supported by objective medical evidence. Vance v. Comm’r of Soc., Sec., 260 Fed.Appx. 801, 804-05 (6th Cir.2008).

The section gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Donnelly v. Barnhart · filed 2004-07-01(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight when that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2); Schisler v. Sullivan, 3 F.3d 563, 567 (2d Cir.1993). Given the inconsistencies identified by the ALJ between the treating physicians’ opinions and other evidence in the record, we find that the ALJ did not err in deciding to accord controlling weight to neither Dr. Peterson nor Dr. Desai.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when inconsistent with the record, but requires adequate reasons and gives controlling weight to supported, consistent opinions.

Barthelemy v. Barnhart · filed 2004-08-19(d)(2)

An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s medical opinion if it is inconsistent with other evidence in the record, but he must adequately articulate his reasons for doing so. Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir.2000); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). While “internal inconsistencies may provide good cause to deny controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion,” Clifford, 227 F.3d at 871, a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of the condition is entitled to controlling weight if supported by the medical evidence and consistent with substantial evidence in the record, Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to properly evaluate a treating physician’s opinion and support declining controlling weight with contrary medical evidence.

Pronti v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-13(d)(2)

The Second Circuit has made clear that an ALJ cannot simply discount a treating physician’s opinion based on a lack of clinical findings that accompany that opinion. Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir.1998). Rather, the ALJ has an affirmative duty to develop the record and seek additional information from the treating physician, sua sponte, even if plaintiff is represented by counsel. Clark v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir.1998); Schaal, 134 F.3d at 505. This requirement is particularly important when the record contains conflicting reports or opinions from a treating physician. Clark, 143 F.3d at 118; Schaal, 134 F.3d at 505; see also Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir.1999); Hartnett, 21 F.Supp.2d at 221. In such situations, the ALJ cannot pick and choose from the opinions of the treating physician in order to justify denying disability. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 135 (2d Cir.2000). Finally, the ALJ failed to cite medical evidence from the record that contradicted Dr. Holobinko’s October 1996 opinion that would warrant the ALJ’s failure to accord it controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Tavarez v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-02(d)(2)

“The opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78-79 (2d Cir.1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with the substantial evidence.

Foley v. Barnhart · filed 2005-06-16(d)(2)

The “treating physician rule,” is codified at 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2), and is widely accepted in the Third Circuit. ... The regulation addresses the weight to be given a treating physician’s opinion: “If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case, we will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2).

A treating physician’s or psychologist’s opinion receives controlling weight when medical findings support it and it is consistent with other substantial evidence.

Lamorey v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-19(d)(2)

Although the disability opinion of a treating physician or psychologist is not binding on the Commissioner, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1), she must give it controlling weight when it is well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, see id. § 404.1527(d)(2); Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d at 31; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(2) (listing licensed or certified psychologist as an acceptable medical source).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Schnetzler v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-05(d)(2)

Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ’s total silence on the weight accorded to Dr. Harris, Dr. Yellin, and Dr. Montas was error because the ALJ failed to provide “good reasons” for discounting their opinions.

Section 404.1527(d)’s treating physician rule does not require controlling weight for a retrospective opinion from a doctor who did not treat the claimant during the relevant period.

Monette v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-14(d)

Monette argues that the ALJ was required to give controlling weight to Dr. Huckell’s retrospective opinion under the treating physician rule described in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... This argument is unavailing because Dr. Huckell, who first saw Monette in 2000, was not a treating physician during the period in contention.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight when it conflicts with other substantial evidence.

Martin v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-16(d)(2)

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the ALJ’s explanation for not according Dr. Pocari’s assessment controlling weight is supported by substantial evidence.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; failure to do so can justify remand.

Crossman v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-16(d)(2)

The ALJ’s failure to provide “good reasons” for the weight accorded a treating physician’s opinion is sufficient to justify a remand.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to consider the prescribed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

Balodis v. Leavitt · filed 2010-03-31(d)(2)

Furthermore, the ALJ did not explicitly consider the several factors required to decide how much weight to give the treating physician’s opinion. Accordingly, the case must be remanded to the ALJ for further consideration of Dr. Goldman’s opinion in light of this Court’s analysis.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight unless it conflicts with other substantial evidence or lacks support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Yu v. Astrue · filed 2013-08-08(c)(2)

Throughout the five-step analysis, the ALJ was obligated to give “controlling weight” to opinions from treating physicians regarding Yu’s impairments, except if these opinions were (i) inconsistent with “other substantial evidence” in the record or (ii) not supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.”

A treating physician’s medical opinion should receive controlling weight when the record supports it and it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

McCarthy v. Colvin · filed 2014-11-13(d)(2)

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Dr. Allen’s detailed medical source statement should have been given controlling weight.

A treating source’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments receives controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Wiser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2015-10-05(c)(2)

The regulations require an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments “controlling weight” if it “[1] is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [2] is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to apply the treating physician rule and its checklist of factors when evaluating medical opinions.

Dyer v. Berryhill · filed 2017-02-21(c)

A separate but' important' problem is that the ALJ did not follow the treating physician rule and specifically did not apply the checklist of factors included in this rule. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. However, the plaintiff did not raise this argument. Still, on remand, the ALJ should explicitly follow this rule.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion and requires adequate reasons for the weight assigned.

Richardson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-10-19(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff's claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician's opinion is entitled to "controlling weight" when it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]" 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ therefore failed to adequately explain the reasons for the weight given to Dr. Capicotto's opinions.

An ALJ must consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for denying controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion.

Harbot v. Berryhill · filed 2018-11-27(d)(2)

In summary, the ALJ's conclusory dismissal of Dr. Ahmed's and Dr. Siddiqui's opinions, and her failure to consider any of the factors relevant to the evaluation of treating physicians' opinions or to provide any "good reasons" for rejecting them, was error. Her determination that Dr. Ahmed's and Dr. Siddiqui's opinions were not entitled to controlling weight failed to properly consider the relevant factors and is unsupported by the evidence of record.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Merkel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-11-29(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff's claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which a treating physician's opinion is entitled to "controlling weight" 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).

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ need not expressly assign controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when the assessed RFC is entirely consistent with that opinion.

Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-12-17(c)(2)

Importantly, while the ALJ did not expressly state that he was affording Dr. Evans' opinion controlling weight, the assessed RFC is entirely consistent Dr. Evans' opinion.

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

Kuhaneck v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-02-13(c)(2)

Further explanation is required before rejecting an opinion by a treating source, particularly where information in the treatment notes document Plaintiff's complaints, and the treating source identifies objective findings for Plaintiff's impairments. Accordingly, remand is required. On remand, the ALJ is directed to more thoroughly consider Dr. Teerlinck's opinion in light of the treating physician rule and, should she decide not to adopt that opinion, offer good reasons supporting her decision.

The treating physician rule does not apply when no treating source offers an opinion about the nature, severity, or functional effects of a claimant’s impairments.

Rivera v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-03-15(c)(2)

In this case, the ALJ did not err in stating that "no treating source has offered an opinion as to the nature and severity of plaintiff's impairments, or how they impact her ability to perform basic work-related activities," and therefore that the treating physician rule was "not applicable in this instance." (R. 22.)

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the factors for weighing medical opinions, but does not require a mechanical recitation of them when the record shows the substance of the rule was applied.

Tammy Lynn B. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2019-06-17(c)

Finally, while the six-factor analysis set forth above applies in all cases except where "controlling" weight is given to a treating physician's opinion, an ALJ need not mechanically recite these factors as long as the record reflects a proper application of the substance of the rule.

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

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

For all these reasons, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ failed to apply the treating physician rule, either explicitly or in substance, in assessing Dr. O’Connor’s opinions.

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Pinkerton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(c)(2)

The A.L.J.’s failure to adequately address the first Burgess factor results in this Court being unable to conclude that the A.L.J. applied the substance of the treating physician rule to Plaintiff’s benefit, requiring remand.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the treating physician factors when weighing an opinion; failure to explain that analysis is harmless when the record supplies good reasons for the weight assigned and remand would not change the result.

Bachety v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03(c)

Although the ALJ failed to explicitly consider the factors underlying the treating physician rule, my review of the record assures me that there were good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Hecht’s opinion, and thus theprocedural error was harmless.

Section 404.1527 applies the treating physician rule to claims filed before March 27, 2017.

Berrios v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29

The treating physician rule applies to claims filed before March 27, 2017.

When assigning a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, an ALJ must consider the relevant factors; failure to do so warrants remand unless the record shows that the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule.

Roberto v. Saul · filed 2021-09-01(c)(2)

In assigning Dr. Chapman’s opinion less than controlling weight, the ALJ did not explicitly consider all the relevant factors; nor does the record otherwise make clear that Dr. Chapman’s opinion is due less than controlling weight.

An ALJ may decline to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it conflicts with other evidence, but must explain the reasons.

Cox v. Berryhill · filed 2022-01-19(c)(2)

Further, the ALJ adequately discharged his duty to “explain his reasons” by specifying the internal consistency issues in Dr. Hawthorne’s opinion and citing the contradictory evidence in the record.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; failure to do so can warrant remand.

Gardner v. Colvin · filed 2019-08-08(d)(2)

A failure by the ALJ to ... provide “good reasons” for not crediting the ... opinion of a treating physician is a ground for ... remand.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must consider factors including the treatment relationship, medical support, consistency, and specialization.

Lovell v. Colvin · filed 2015-10-07(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion will be controlling if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent' with other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... While the ALJ declined to afford controlling weight to the RFC assessment of plaintiff’s primary treating physician, Dr. Cilip, the ALJ articulated sound reasons for doing so.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the relevant factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Torres v. Saul · filed 2019-08-23(d)(2)

Where an ALJ does not assign “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion, they must “consider certain factors to determine how much weight to give it, and should articulate ‘good reasons’ for the weight given.”

Section 404.1527 does not require controlling weight for a physician’s opinion when the physician had only a minimal treating relationship with the claimant.

Cavaggioni v. Saul · filed 2019-09-18(d)(2)

However, as previously discussed Dr. Lopez-Williams signature on these evaluations did not mandate an analysis under the treating physician rule, in light of his minimal treating relationship with plaintiff.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when well supported and consistent with the record; an ALJ who gives it less weight must provide good reasons.

Sease v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

The ALJ was required to give controlling weight to Dr. Sharma, unless he offered good reasons. ... Because the ALJ improperly weighed the medical opinions and substituted his own expertise, the Court must remand this case.

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

Perrone v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ did not provide “good reasons” for giving minimal weight to Dr. Mahabir’s opinion.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight when it conflicts with the record, if the ALJ gives good reasons.

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-13(c)(2)

As to Jones’s argument that the ALJ failed to provide “good reasons” for discounting the opinions of Dr. Brown, that argument fails because, as described above, the ALJ explicitly considered Dr. Brown’s opinions but found them to be contrary to the record as a whole.

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with other evidence, and the physician’s specialty.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-07(c)(2)

When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” he must “apply the factors listed” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... The ALJ, however, did not consider a great deal of the medical evidence of record, nor did he consider the consistency of Dr. Seely’s findings with other medical evidence.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, including consideration of the treatment relationship and the opinion’s consistency with other evidence.

Petersen v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-08(c)(2)

Further, the decision does not account for key factors that support the treating physicians’ findings, particularly the extent of their treatment history with Plaintiff and the consistency among their opinions. See Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96 (citing, inter alia, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Thus, the ALJ’s failure to properly address the treating physicians’ opinions on these issues was error.