20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

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

Robinson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-11(c)(2)

The applicable version of the regulation from which the so-called “treating physician rule” derives required the ALJ to confer “controlling weight” on medical opinions from Plaintiff’s “treating sources,” so long as those opinions “on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [Plaintiff’s] impairment(s) [are] well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... Given that these were the only three medical opinions that the ALJ relied upon, and in light of these gaps in the record, the Court is unable to conclude that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to confer greater weight on the opinions of Drs. Kuslis and Khan than on that of Dr. Parrillo.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The treating physician rule is not violated when the treating physicians’ opinions do not address the relevant insured period.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(c)(2)

Because none of the opinions from treating physicians relate to the relevant time period, we do not find the “treating physician rule” to have been violated.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The treating physician rule applies only when a treating physician provides a medical opinion; treatment notes alone do not qualify for controlling weight.

Peacock v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(a)(2), (c)(2)

Accordingly, Peacock provided the Court with no medical opinion offered by a treating physician that qualifies for controlling weight under the Treating Physician Rule. Thus, the ALJ did not err in failing to apply the rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence; an ALJ may give it less weight for good reasons.

Shiwbodh v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(d)(2)

The ALJ thus provided good reason for determining that Dr. Martin’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. As such, the ALJ did not violate the treating physician rule by according Dr. Martin’s opinion little weight and affording greater weight to state agency physicians and the consulting examiner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that “the opinion of a [plaintiff’s] treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... All in all, I conclude that the ALJ traversed the treating physician rule in his consideration of Russell’s mental limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with the other substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when assigning less weight.

Dais v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(d)(2)

The SSA has mandated specific procedures an ALJ must follow when considering the weight to assign to a treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The ALJ improperly considered the second, third, and fourth factors in assigning weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating sources and the SSA’s consultative examiner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) requires an ongoing treatment relationship for a medical source to qualify as a treating physician.

Wells v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-30(a)(2)

At the outset, Dr. Perla was not a treating physician whose opinion was entitled to controlling weight. ... The record reflects that Dr. Perla only examined plaintiff on two occasions during the alleged disability period – once for an initial examination, and again for a follow-up evaluation after a procedure performed by a different cardiologist. ... Thus, despite the ALJ’s passing reference to Dr. Perla as plaintiff’s treating cardiologist, the treating physician rule was not implicated because Dr. Perla did not meet the requirements to be a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Garcia v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-28(d)(2)

Here, Dr. Sharon’s opinion that Garcia would be unable to work due to severe pain, and that she had an RFC for less than the full range of sedentary work, was owed controlling weight under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with other substantial evidence, and good reasons when the ALJ gives it less weight.

Samaru v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2)

The ALJ’s decision need not explicitly discuss the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c)(2) as long as good reasons are given to disregard the rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rasin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-13(c)(2)

For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that the ALJ erred in her failure to assign controlling weight to Dr. Shusterman’s opinion, or failing that, to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable medical techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Cobbins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-21(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to explicitly consider the regulatory factors in assigning lesser weight, but failure to do so is harmless when the ALJ otherwise applies the substance of the treating physician rule and gives good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Hayes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(c)

If the ALJ proceeds to step two, she must explicitly apply the factors listed in [20 C.F.R.] § 404.1527; the failure to do so is procedural error and subject to harmless error analysis. ... Accordingly, even though ALJ Eldred should have proceeded more methodically through the factors enumerated in [20 C.F.R.] § 404.1527(c)(2), it is evident that he ‘applied the substance of the treating physician rule.’ ... Therefore, even though Plaintiff is correct that ALJ Eldred failed to discuss on the record each of the factors mandated by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), such a failure is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the treating physician rule, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(c)(2)

If the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, 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. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). The ALJ must give “good reasons” for not crediting the plaintiff’s treating physician. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (explaining that Appeals Council had “an obligation to explain” the weight it gave to the opinions of the non-treating physicians). After considering these factors, the ALJ must fully set forth his reasons for the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion. See Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129. ... The Court finds that ALJ Banks properly applied the Treating Physician Rule in weighing the opinion evidence, and that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determinations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and record-consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and, if controlling weight is withheld, to give good reasons after considering the prescribed factors.

Akey v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(c)

The regulations also explain how an ALJ must weigh medical opinions. See § 404.1527(c). “A treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Roddy, 705 F.3d at 636 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Skarbek, 390 F.3d at 503). “When controlling weight is not given, an ALJ must offer ‘good reasons’ for doing so, after having considered” several factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the claimant’s relationship with the treating physician; the frequency of examination; whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; whether the physician is a specialist; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 252 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010)); see also § 1527(c). Courts review an ALJ’s weighing of a treating-source opinion for substantial evidence. See Karr v. Saul, 989 F.3d 508, 511 (7th Cir. 2021). ... In sum, the ALJ failed to offer good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Zoltan’s February 2019 opinion that Akey had significant limitations standing and walking in August 2009.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Devers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)

Here, ALJ Walters failed to properly assess the treating physician’s opinion according to the treating physician rule. The treating physician rule instructs an ALJ to give controlling weight to the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician, as long as the opinion is well-supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent with the other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion using the prescribed treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Loverso v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(c)(2)–(c)(6)

Where, as here, the ALJ does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ analyzes the opinion in accordance with a number of factors: the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the “[s]upportability” of the opinion, the “[c]onsistency” of the opinion with the record as whole, the “[s]pecialization” of the treating source, and any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Capuano v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-30(c)(2)

Dr. Stiller, Dr. Weiner and Dr. Reilly’s opinions were all entitled to controlling weight because they are all supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are consistent with one another and the other substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ’s error in failing to give the treating physicians opinions controlling weight, failing to provide a good reason for not giving controlling weight, and failing to properly apply the Burgess factors requires remand for proper application of the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Tention v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-09(c)(2)

An ALJ who does not accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion must consider the following non-exclusive Burgess factors in determining how much weight to give to the opinion: (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. ... Here, because the ALJ did not apply the treating physician rule properly, remand is appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to explicitly consider the Burgess factors if controlling weight is denied.

Zwelsky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-21(d)(2)

The treating physician rule dictates that the opinion of a treating physician as to the nature and severity of an impairment is given “‘controlling weight’ so long as it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence ... in [the] case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Since the ALJ found that Dr. Marcus’s opinion was not entitled to controlling weight, he was obligated to explicitly consider his reasoning under the four Burgess factors. Instead, the ALJ resigned his reasoning to justifications outside of this framework. This constitutes “procedural error.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rastetter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-30(c)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), the ALJ is required to provide “good reasons” for the weight that she assigns to medical opinions from treating sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence, and an ALJ must adequately explain a decision to discount such an opinion.

Montes v. Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-17(c)(2)

An opinion from a treating physician is afforded controlling weight as to the nature and severity of an impairment, provided the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(d)(2). ... The ALJ discounted the treating physicians’ opinions generally as inconsistent with physical examinations and Plaintiff’s activities of daily living. (T at 814). ... To the extent the Commissioner points to the general reasons offered by the ALJ for giving little weight to the treating opinions, those reasons are insufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, but a failure to do so may be harmless.

Swett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2012-03-20(d)(2)

In rejecting a treating source opinion, the ALJ is required to give “good reasons” for the weight given to that opinion. ... An ALJ’s failure to do so is reversible error unless the Court finds the error harmless. ... Thus, ALJ Knapp’s error, in disregarding Dr. Goodall’s opinion without any analysis, was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) gives no special significance to a treating source’s conclusion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work, but an ALJ may not disregard the source’s opinion solely on that basis.

Brandt v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-07(d)

Under the old regulations, a statement that the claimant was “disabled” or “unable to work” did not qualify as a “medical opinion” at all, as this was an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The Seventh Circuit held that while the ALJ need not give any special significance to a treating source’s conclusion on the ultimate issue, the ALJ could not simply disregard the opinion on that basis. See, e.g., Kelham v. Berryhill, 751 Fed. Appx. 919, 923 (7th Cir. 2018). The ALJ did not violate that rule here, providing several additional reasons for discounting Dr. Zhou’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion using specified factors, give controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and explain the weight assigned.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-12(d)

In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ was required to consider: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; ... (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d). Further, the ALJ was required to articulate his reasons for assigning the weight that he gave to a treating physician’s opinion. ... The ALJ’s failure to apply these factors and provide reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s report is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating source’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight, and the ALJ must consider the treating relationship and the opinion’s support and consistency before giving it less weight.

Yuhnke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-13(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... But in reaching that conclusion, the ALJ did not address any findings that “support[ed] [Dr. Bassig’s] opinion[s],” thus omitting a required Burgess factor. See Greek, 802 F.3d at 375.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating source’s medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned when it does not receive controlling weight.

Schrichten v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-19(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight if it is: (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques[,]” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... If a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the following factors in determining what weight to give the opinion: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the specialization of the treating source. ... In addition, an ALJ must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), the ALJ reasonably found that Dr. Massoud’s opinion was not well-supported and not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ here explained that she discounted Dr. Massoud’s opinion because it overstated plaintiff’s limitations when compared to the record as a whole and parts of the opinion were wholly unsupported, and her decision elsewhere provides the specific evidence discussed above that support this conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion, good reasons for discounting it, and consideration of the listed factors when controlling weight is denied.

Ford v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2022-01-24(c)(2)

Under the rules applicable at the time Plaintiff filed his claim, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but he must “comprehensively set forth his reasons” for doing so. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (the SSA “will always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s opinion). When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ considers the following factors to determine how much weight it should receive: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the source presented relevant evidence to support the opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether a specialist rendered the opinion in his or her area of expertise; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an administrative law judge to give good reasons for rejecting a treating provider’s opinion, but an unsupported, bare-bones opinion does not require reversal.

Barber v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-24(c)(2)

Even under the pre-March 27, 2017, regulations—which calls for a more stringent level of scrutiny requiring the ALJ to delineate “good reasons” for rejecting a treating provider’s opinion5—such a bare-bones medical opinion does not give rise to a finding of reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

LAROQUE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-26(c)(2)

However, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Hubert v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 746 F. App’x 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); ... In the instant case, the Court finds the ALJ’s RFC analysis deficient for two reasons: (1) the ALJ misreported and discounted Plaintiff’s primary care physician, Dr. Lupicki’s opinion, without sufficient explanation, and (2) the ALJ failed to adequately address Plaintiff’s use of a cane.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Deloatch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-28(c)(2)

This failure violated 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)’s requirement that an ALJ “always give good reasons” in a decision for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when the opinion is discounted.

Howe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-28(c)(2)

Under the rules applicable at the time Plaintiff filed his claim, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)5; see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but he must “comprehensively set forth his reasons” for doing so. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (the SSA “will always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s opinion). ... The Court concludes that the treating physician rule was not traversed here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. “[T]he opinion of a claimant's treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” [Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008)] (third brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source's [medical] opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) . . . . An ALJ's failure to “explicitly” apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight at step two is a procedural error. Selian, 708 F.3d at 419-20. ... Here, the ALJ erred in misapplying the treating physician rule. ... However, the ALJ failed to weigh the Burgess factors in assigning the opinion’s weight. ... The ALJ’s failure to consider these two factors constitutes reversible error if the record does not provide other “good reasons” for the ALJ’s assignment of “little weight.” ... Because the ALJ failed to consider the Burgess factors and this court’s searching review of the record reveals no “good reasons” for according “little weight” to the opinion of Janette’s treating physician, the ALJ “traversed the substance of the treating physician rule.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by medically acceptable evidence; if it is not given controlling weight, the opinion is evaluated under the regulation’s factors and the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Burns v. SSA · filed 2022-02-07(c)(2)

However, a treating physician’s opinion is accorded controlling weight only where it is supported by medically acceptable evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Bogle v. Sullivan, 998 F.2d 342, 347-48 (6th Cir. 1993); Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529-31 (6th Cir. 1997). Where a treating physician’s opinion is not assigned controlling weight, the ALJ considers the typical factors, including the opinion’s supportability, consistency with the record, and degree of explanation, and the source’s treatment relationship with the claimant and his specialty. See Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009). The ALJ must provide good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ assigning less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors; failure to do so is reversible error.

Black v. Saul · filed 2022-02-08(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Frishberg’s opinion was error. First, he erred by failing to consider all the factors he was required to consider in assigning less than controlling weight to that opinion. Specifically, there is no indication that he considered: (1) the length of the treating relationship, (2) the frequency of examination, (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, or the specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(C)(2)-(6). The failure to consider these factors is error. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the regulations effective March 27, 2017, the treating-physician rule in § 404.1527(c)(2) no longer applies and the treating physician’s opinion receives no special deference.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-11(c)(2)

The rules went into effect on March 27, 2017, and therefore, apply to the instant case. Under the new regulations, the treating physician rule no longer applies. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Therefore, no special deference is given to the treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a), 416.920c(a).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

WILSON v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-02-14(c)(2)

However, if a treating source’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” it is not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4; Brown, 873 F.3d at 256; Craig, 76 F.3d at 590; Mastro, 270 F.3d at 178.5 Instead, the opinion must be evaluated and weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)- (c)(6), including (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) the frequency of examination, (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) the supportability of the opinion, (5) the consistency of the opinion with the record, (6) whether the soutce is a specialist, and (7) any other factors that may support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons when declining to do so.

Rossiello v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-15(c)(2), (d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments is given “controlling weight” so long as it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 106 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); ... Where the Commissioner determines that the opinion of a treating physician should not receive controlling weight, she must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] gives [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... An ALJ’s failure” to provide good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is ground for a remand.” Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 134 (2d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... As explained below, the ALJ mischaracterized the substance of one of Dr. Fandos’s opinions—an error that necessitates remand here. ... Upon remand, the Commissioner must consider all of the relevant evidence in the record, including the document containing Dr. Fandos’s November 2014 Opinion found at Exhibit 7F. Based on all the relevant evidence, including Exhibit 7F, the Commissioner must determine the proper weight to be accorded to each of the medical opinions in the record, including Dr. Fandos’s November 2014 and April 2017 Opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable techniques and consistent with the substantial evidence in the case record.

Hupp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-27(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and requires good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Drust v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-25(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-25(c)(2)

Under the Regulations, a treating physician's opinion is entitled to "controlling weight" when it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in [the] case record." 20 C .F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015). However, the opinion of a treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where the treating physician's opinion contradicts other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). ... The ALJ did not, however, "explicitly consider" several of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)—such as the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment, or whether the physician was a specialist—and fell short of "comprehensively" setting forth her reasons for affording Dr. Touchstone's opinion only "some weight." Greek, 802 F.3d at 375.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to explicitly consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and whether the physician is a specialist.

Saposnick v. Saul · filed 2022-02-28(c)(2)

“Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95. “In doing so, it must explicitly consider” (1) “the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment;” (2) “the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion;” (3) “the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence;” and (4) “whether the physician is a specialist.” Id. at 95–96; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Chaney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-01(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons and consideration of the listed factors when the ALJ assigns it less weight.

EVANS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-03(c)(2)

Where an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating source opinion, he must “give good teasons in [his] . . . decision for the weight” assigned, taking the above factors into account. 20 C-F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Overall, the ALJ failed to properly consider the consistency and suppottability of Dr. Amao’s findings, let alone consider these factors in the context of Dr. Amao’s position as Plaintiff's treating provider throughout 2018.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rosewall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-08(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with substantial evidence, and directs the ALJ to weigh factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and specialty when assigning weight.

Colter v. Saul · filed 2022-03-10(c)(2), (c)

A treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2); see also Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (“A treating physician’s [opinion] is binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.”). Generally, the ALJ will also give more weight to a physician if the physician has had a longer treatment relationship with the plaintiff, a higher frequency of examination of the plaintiff, or a specialty in a relevant medical area. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Accordingly, because the ALJ provided “a logical bridge” from the record evidence to the limited weight he gave to the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in discounting the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires an ALJ to explain why it assigns the opinion less weight.

Powell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-14(c)(2)

Additionally, more weight is generally given to opinions of treating sources, who usually are most able to provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s alleged disability, than non-treating sources such as consultative examiners. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). When the opinion of a treating source regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,” it is given controlling weight. Jd However, “[i]f a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight.” Craig, 76 F.3d at 590. ... Dr. Evans’s treatment notes indicate that, as Claimant’s primary care provider, she treated Claimant’s obesity and other non-chronic health issues that arose, but referred Claimant to specialists for treatment of her back and lower extremity pain, which Dr. Evans repeatedly stated was the cause for Claimant’s functional limitations. ... Thus, the ALJ’s reliance on his prior explanation regarding this evidence and the “overall record” does not support his decision to discount Dr. Evans’s opinion. Because this evidence was most relevant to Dr. Evans’s opinion, which corroborates Claimant’s subjective complaints, the ALJ did not properly consider critical aspects of Claimant’s medical history when evaluating Dr. Evans’s opinion, and remand is required for the to re-weigh Dr. Evans’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight and to explain inconsistencies with sufficient specificity for meaningful review.

Bullington v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-17(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must consider “whether the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.’” ... “If the ALJ finds that the opinion is well-supported,” he must then determine whether “the opinion is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Id. If the opinion is both well-supported and consistent, he must give the opinion controlling weight. Id. Conversely, if the ALJ finds that the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, he must explain or identify the inconsistencies with sufficient specificity to allow for meaningful review. Langley, 373 F.3d at 1123.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-17(c)(2)

The treating physician rule does not provide that an ALJ can give controlling weight—or great weight—to a treating physician’s opinion if it is not inconsistent with the evidence of record. Instead, “Tajn ALJ is required to give controlling weight to ‘a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] 1mpairment(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)) (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Caldwell v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-17(c)(2)

Under the relevant regulations and controlling law, “an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the record.” Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Walker v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 911 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2018)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Reina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-22(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires consideration of the treatment relationship and related factors when controlling weight is not given.

Yoap v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-24(c)(2)

Generally, the ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the medical opinions of a treating physician on the nature and severity of an impairment if it is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” ... “If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... The reason for the treating physician rule is that a claimant’s treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In sum, when the opinion of a treating physician is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it is controlling. ... Because the ALJ properly articulated his reasons for giving Dr. Kiser’s opinion little weight, he was not bound by his opinions or findings and did not err in affording Dr. Durant’s opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to determine the weight of a treating source’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, and § 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Pickhover v. Saul · filed 2022-03-24(c)(2)

When an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he or she must determine the amount of weight to give the opinion based on factors such as (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) whether the treating source provided evidence in support of the opinion, (3) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and (4) whether the treating source is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives the] treating source’s opinion,” and should not discount that opinion entirely. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rifanburg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-24(c)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of an impairment is given controlling weight so long as it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Saunders v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-25(c)(2)

When, as here, a claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the treating physician rule applies. An ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician if: “(1) the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the]case record.’” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527)). This applies only when the opinion “is based upon sufficient medical data.” Miller v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 1991 WL 229979, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 1991). If the ALJ gives less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for doing so. The reasons must be “‘supported by the evidence in the case record, and … sufficiently specific to make clear … the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (citations omitted). This “ensures that the ALJ applies the treating physician rule and permits meaningful review of the ALJ’s application of the rule.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives more weight to treating physicians’ opinions than examining physicians’ opinions, and more weight to examining physicians’ opinions than reviewing physicians’ opinions.

Fry v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-25(c)

The regulations distinguish among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians; (2) examining physicians; and (3) non-examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), (e), 416.927(c), (e); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). “Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.027(c)(1)-(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, with explicit consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Munoz v. Saul · filed 2022-03-29(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,”3 an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... When the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, “[he] must explicitly consider the following, nonexclusive Burgess factors: (1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Id. at 95-96 (quoting McIntyre v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir. 2014)) (quotation marks omitted); see also Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008). “An ALJ’s failure to ‘explicitly’ apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight . . . is a procedural error.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Eberle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(2)

Generally, an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128); Smith v. Berryhill, 740 F. App’x 721, 724 (2d Cir. 2018) (holding that an ALJ “may set aside the opinion of a treating physician that is contradicted by the weight of other record evidence” or “is internally inconsistent or uninformative’). ... In doing so, the ALJ must “explicitly consider” the nonexclusive Burgess factors: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the nature and frequency of examination; (3) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; (5) whether the physician is a specialist; and (6) whatever other factors tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Failure to consider explicitly the “Burgess factors” is a procedural error. ... In addition, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the decision regarding the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. ... Here, the ALJ did not evaluate—or even acknowledge—the opinions of Plaintiffs treating physician Frederick McAdam, M.D. This was error warranting remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source medical opinion to be well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, but does not require support by the totality of the treatment records.

Kiser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(2)

Notably, the treating physician rule does not require that a treating physician’s opinion be supported by a totality of the treatment records; it requires the opinion be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Thus, to the extent that the ALJ required Dr. Singh’s opinion to be supported by the totality of treatment records in order to assign it controlling weight, the ALJ erred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) required an ALJ to consider a treating relationship, but it did not require crediting the treating source over a conflicting non-treating or non-examining opinion.

BONACCI v. SAUL · filed 2022-03-30(c)(2)

However, 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) and 416.927(c)(2) (applying to cases prior to the amendment of the regulations) with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a) and 416.920c(a) (applying to later cases). ... Even under the regulations governing cases filed prior to March 27, 2017, while an ALJ was required to consider the treating relationship between a claimant and an opining doctor, when the medical opinion of a treating source conflicted with that of a non-treating, or even a non-examining physician, “the ALJ may choose whom to credit.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally favors giving a treating physician’s opinion the most weight, but it does not bind an ALJ to that opinion when other record evidence conflicts.

Costner v. Saul · filed 2022-04-14(c)

The ALJ should generally give the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician the most weight. Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 255 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). Yet an ALJ is solely responsible for assessing a claimant’s RFC and is not bound by treating physician disability opinions in the face of other record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to provide good reasons when assigning less weight.

Cordeiro v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-22(c)(2), (d)(2)

“Pursuant to that [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527], the ultimate finding on the claimant’s [RFC] is reserved to the Commissioner. [Id., at] § 404.1527(d)(2). In making that finding, the agency ‘use[s] medical sources, including [the claimant’s] treating source, to provide evidence, including opinions, on the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s).’ Id. The agency must follow what is commonly called the ‘treating physician rule’ when considering the opinion of a claimant’s treating source: If the agency finds ‘that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the agency] will give it controlling weight.’ Id., [at § 404.1527(c)(2)].” ... “After a searching review of the record, it is evident that the ALJ applied the substance of the treating physician rule. Schillo, 2022 WL 1020381, at *10. Because ALJ articulated “good reasons” for assigning partial and little weight to Dr. Watson’s opinions and little weight to Dr. Selinger’s opinion, there was no violation of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Schillo, 2022 WL 1020381, at *10.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jamison v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-25(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, provided the opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider its factors when weighing treating-source opinions, but failure to expressly discuss each factor is harmless when the ALJ's reasoning adequately accounts for them.

De La Mora v. Saul · filed 2022-05-10(c)

The ALJ did not explicitly state that she considered the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), but even if this omission could be construed as error, any such error was harmless because she addressed most of the factors in her discussion of Dr. Chavez’s admission that she did not have enough of a treating relationship with Plaintiff to adequately complete the RFC form, and that she had only seen Plaintiff on four occasions. Given this justification by the ALJ, we find that she more than adequately articulated her reasons for giving Dr. Chavez’s opinion little weight. Ray v. Saul, 861 Fed.App'x 102, 105–06 (7th Cir. 2021) (stating that even where ALJ does not explicitly articulate consideration of regulations’ factors, court may affirm if it is “confident that the ALJ’s reasoning sufficiently accounted for the substance of [them].”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a qualifying treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight and requires the adjudicator to provide good reasons for discounting that weight.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-16(c)(2)

The source of the opinion therefore dictates the process by which the Commissioner accords it weight. Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Thus, the ALJ considered all the medical opinions in the record for their consistency with the longitudinal record and assigned weight respectively. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927, 416.929, 416.945(a), 416.946(c). ... While Plaintiff disputes the ALJ’s assignment of weight to the medical opinions, the actions taken throughout the ALJ’s decision are consistent with the applicable regulations and precedent.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must weigh the prescribed factors and explain the weight assigned.

Schmidt v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-16(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician rule,”3 the medical opinion of a treating source as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to “controlling weight,” where the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Cichocki v. Astrue, 534 F. App’x 71, 74 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... “An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various factors to determine how much weight to give to the opinion, including: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32). ... Here, the ALJ conformed her findings exclusively to the opinion of a non-examining expert who did not have the benefit of plaintiff’s entire medical record at the time his opinion was rendered. ... In sum, none of the treating physicians’ opinions support the ALJ’s RFC determination, and the opinion of a non-examining physician who did not have plaintiff’s complete medical record, plaintiff’s “conservative” treatment, and his daily functioning do not constitute substantial evidence. Accordingly, there is no substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s RFC determination, and remand is necessary.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions by the judgments they express about an impairment and its symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, or restrictions, and an unexplained treatment-note phrase such as “Use walker” does not require separate discussion when its medical-opinion status is unclear and the omission is harmless.

Pulis v. Saul · filed 2021-05-03(a)(1)

“Medical opinions” are defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” Id. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... “Thus, while medical records constitute evidence that the ALJ must consider, medical records are not necessarily ‘medical opinion’ evidence as contemplated by the regulations. Only those statements within the records that reflect judgments regarding a claimant's prognosis or limitations, or the severity of symptoms, constitute medical opinions.” ... Here, the treatment notes that Plaintiff cites are not clear in meaning, both within the sentence itself and also in the greater context. ... However, it is not clear from the treatment notes that that the doctor was stating a medical opinion. The phrase might refer to a medical conclusion that the patient must use a walker; however, the phrase could just as easily have another meaning, such as noting that patient self-reports use of a walker. ... This Court upon review does not find that the phrase “[u]se walker,” without explanation or elaboration, and without any further reference in the rest of the treatment notes, was not a medical opinion; therefore, the ALJ’s failure to mention it is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement reflecting a physician’s judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments.

Handel v. Saul · filed 2021-05-06(a)(1)

This statement falls under the “subjective” section of the physician’s notes and is thus not a “medical opinion” because it does not “reflect [the physician’s] judgments about the nature and severity” of Handel’s impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as a medical source’s judgment about the nature and severity of impairments and related functional restrictions, while a bare statement that a claimant cannot work is not itself a medical opinion.

Mireles v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-16(a)(1), (b)

The Commissioner is correct that a statement by a medical source that a claimant is unable to work is not a medical opinion. ... ALJ is instructed on remand to meaningfully consider Dr. Gloria’s medical opinions—her statements that reflect her judgments about the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s impairments, including Plaintiff’s symptoms, diagnoses and prognosis, what Plaintiff can still do despite her impairments, and her physical restrictions—and the relevant evidence that supports those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion by the judgments it reflects about an impairment’s nature and severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Martin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-07(a)(2)

A medical opinion is defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) as one “that reflects[s] judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” ... Ultimately, the Court agrees with the Commissioner that Dr. Johnston’s treatment note does not constitute a medical opinion under the applicable regulations, and thus the ALJ was not required to explain the weight it was afforded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a medical-source statement as a medical opinion when it reflects judgments about an impairment and what the claimant can still do despite it, including physical or mental restrictions.

Weatherspoon v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-14(a)(1)

In order for a medical source’s statement to constitute a medical opinion, it must “reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). ... These are clearly statements about what Weatherspoon “can still do despite impairment(s)[,]” described “in functional terms.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a statement by an acceptable medical source as a medical opinion when it reflects judgments about an impairment’s nature or severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, capabilities, or physical or mental restrictions.

Barnes v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-28(a)(1)

Dr. Ogunwo’s statement on this form that plaintiff “[c]annot walk 200 feet without stopping to rest” constitutes a “[m]edical opinion[]” under the meaning of the social security regulations because it “reflect[s] judgments about the nature and severity of [plaintiff’s] impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, [and] what [he] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his] physical . . . restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a source’s medical opinion using the regulatory factors, but not evidence that is merely the claimant’s recounting of her history and limitations.

Gilbertson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-12(c)

Thus, even if Dr. Horewitz’s disability conclusion had any relevance, but see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3), Dr. Horewitz did not render such an opinion so it is not significant. Likewise, the other information relied on by Plaintiff, (see Doc. 18 at 3), also regards Plaintiff's recounting of her history and limitations, and it is not a medical opinion from the provider. As a result, these records were not a “medical opinion” requiring evaluation. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s statement reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, capabilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

McLeod v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-18(a)(1)

The letter did not provide an assessment of Plaintiff's functional limitations and, therefore, does not meet the regulatory definition of a “medical opinion.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [his] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his] physical or mental restrictions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement from an acceptable medical source reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments, including what the claimant can still do and related physical or mental restrictions.

Collier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(a)(1)

Medical opinions are more than mere diagnoses, rather, medical opinions are defined under the Code as statements from acceptable medical sources that “reflect judgments about the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and importantly, what the claimant can still do despite the impairments, and physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927. Plaintiff offers no medical opinion evidence in support of her argument.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a source’s statement as a medical opinion when it reflects a judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment, including the claimant’s work-related functional abilities or restrictions; routine treatment recommendations without such judgments do not qualify.

DeHart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-03(a)(2)

First and foremost, the referenced treatment note - dated a full year prior to the alleged onset of disability - does not constitute a “medical opinion” about Plaintiff’s functional abilities to perform work activities during the relevant disability period. Social Security regulations have long drawn a clear distinction between “medical opinions” and routine treatment notes. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (defining medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”). ... Because the August 13, 2018 record is a routine treatment note that does not contain a medical opinion, the ALJ did not err by failing to discuss it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-04-18(a)(1)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... As mentioned, the ALJ found good cause to reject Dr. Biedo’s opinions because they were conclusory and offered no explanation for the purported limitations. Contrary to Perez’s claim, this is a valid basis to discredit a treating physician’s conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a statement as a medical opinion only when an acceptable medical source expresses a judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments, including resulting limitations.

Pond v. Saul · filed 2023-06-05(a)(1)

This is not a medical opinion about whether Ms. Pond meets the Paragraph B criteria. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(l), 416.927(a)(l) ("Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.") Therefore, the ALJ was correct in not relying on or evaluating Dr. Pandarinath's report with respect to the step-three analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a medical-source statement as a medical opinion only when it reflects judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including what the claimant can still do and the claimant’s restrictions.

(SS) Xiong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-15(a)(1)

The Court agrees with the Commissioner that Dr. Benck’s evaluation is not an opinion within the meaning of the regulations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Although Dr. Benck assessed Plaintiff’s right-hand weakness as “severe,” Dr. Benck’s evaluation does not present any statements “that reflect judgments about. . .what [Plaintiff] can still do despite impairment(s), and [Plaintiff’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (definition of medical opinion for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017). Additionally, Dr. Benck’s assessment of Plaintiff’s right-side sensory functioning is unqualified. Thus, the ALJ was not required to evaluate the persuasiveness of Dr. Benck’s assessment that Plaintiff experiences severe right-hand weakness and loss of sensation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a provider’s statement about what a claimant can or cannot do as a medical opinion when it is grounded in the claimant’s symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis.

McDonald v. Saul · filed 2023-06-26(a)(1)

Describing what a claimant can or cannot do—when grounded in the claimant’s symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis—squarely falls within the regulations’ definition of a “medical opinion,” and so Dr. Pillai was entitled to make statements to this end. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).