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) directs an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding the weight given to non-controlling medical opinions.

Bonner v. Saul · filed 2020-07-17(c)

Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight, but permits less weight for good cause, including inconsistency with the evidence.

Franz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors when weighing medical opinions, including: (1) whether the physician examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. Id. § 404.1527(c). ... A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, while opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are not entitled to controlling weight or special significance.

Carswell v. Saul · filed 2020-07-20(c), (d)

When considering how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider a number of factors: ... Forsyth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 503 F. App’x 892, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c). ... Additionally, the Commissioner’s regulations require that the opinions of examining physicians be given more weight than non-examining physicians, the opinions of treating physicians be given more weight than non-treating physicians, and the opinions of specialists (on issues within their areas of expertise) be given more weight than non-specialists. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), (5). Under SSR 96-5p, the determination of disability regarding a Social Security claim is reserved to the Commissioner, and treating and other medical source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are never entitled to controlling weight or special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to opinions from non-acceptable medical and non-medical sources and to consider those opinions using the listed factors.

MacPhee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-20(f)(1)-(2)

The ALJ is only required to “explain the weight given to opinions from” non-acceptable medical sources and non-medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2) (2017). Still, the ALJ must consider all relevant evidence in an individual’s case record. ... Accordingly, the ALJ was only required to explain what weight she gave to Brager’s opinion and consider the opinion based on the factors. ... Because the ALJ explained what weight she gave to Brager’s opinion and why she did so—based on the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency factors—there is substantial evidence to support her treatment of Brager’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion.

Helms v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-21(c)

To determine the weight given to any medical opinion, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the evidence presented to support the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence, and the specialization of the medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to an examining source than to a non-examining source, but an examining source need not necessarily receive more weight; sections (c)(3) and (c)(4) allow weight to be limited when the opinion is not supported by other medical evidence.

Elfert v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-22(c)(1)

Social Security regulations provide that “[g]enerally, [the Commissioner] give[s] more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). It is true that all else being equal, the opinion of an examining medical source should be given more weight than that of a non-examining medical source. See id. However, nothing in the regulations require an examining source’s opinion to necessarily be given more weight than a non-examining source’s opinion. See id. Here, the ALJ gave Dr. McGibbon’s opinion limited weight because she found that it was not supported by other medical evidence (R. at 32), and the ALJ was entitled to do so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) & (4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives greater weight to a medical opinion supported by relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Largaespada v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-22(c)(3)

“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the mote weight we will give that opinion.” 20 CER. § 404.1527(c). Here, though the opinion did include Plaintiff's blood pressure readings from her last six encounters, the opinion merely states that Plaintiff's blood pressure remains low and does not describe the examination findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors when weighing medical opinions, including treating-source opinions, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned when a treating opinion is not given controlling weight.

Tolle v. SSA · filed 2020-07-23(c)

Additionally, as part of the good-reasons requirement, the ALJ “must provide an analysis of the [previously-noted] factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the regulation's factors, explain the weight assigned, and may discount an opinion that lacks support or conflicts with the record.

Vargas v. Saul · filed 2020-07-23(c)

It is clear beyond peradventure that the ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations. Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361. The ALJ is charged with a duty to evaluate all the medical opinions in the record under the factors set forth in the regulations and to resolve any conflicts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. An ALJ may give an opinion less weight or no weight if it does not present relevant evidence or a sufficient explanation to support it, or if it is inconsistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ may choose which medical evidence to credit and which to reject as long as there is a rational basis for the decision. Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh treating-source opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Henry v. Saul · filed 2020-07-27(c)

Medical opinions from treating sources, like Dr. Germscheid, are given substantial, weight so long as they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Typically, such opinions are weighed using several factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, such as the (i) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination and the (ii) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to consider how well-supported a medical opinion is, giving more weight to better explanations, but a lack of a narrative explanation alone is not fatal; it also generally favors specialist opinions on issues within their specialty without making a primary-care physician unqualified merely because she is a generalist.

Gines v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-29(c)(3), (c)(5)

When evaluating how much weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider, among other factors, how well-supported the opinion is. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). However, that an opinion itself is unaccompanied by a narrative explanation is not fatal; what matters is whether it was based on treating experiences and treatment records. ... The regulations state the Commissioner generally gives “more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. This logically applies when a specialist and a generalist give potentially conflicting opinions—in that situation, an ALJ may properly give more weight to the specialist’s opinion. See Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1285 (9th Cir. 1996). It does not, however, mean that a PCP is unqualified to render a medical opinion by virtue of her generalist practice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a medical opinion, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Privett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-29(c)

Nevertheless, the ALJ was required to properly consider Dr. Crall’s opinion utilizing certain regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In applying these factors, the ALJ’s findings must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight [he] gave to the … medical opinion and the reason for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion that is inadequately supported by the record as a whole.

Stahl v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(c)(3)

An ALJ need not accept an opinion which is inadequately supported “by the record as a whole.” See Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). But it is error for an ALJ to selectively focus on evidence that tends to suggest a plaintiff is not disabled. See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain why a treating physician’s opinion is not followed when contradicted by substantial evidence, to review evidence supporting a disability opinion, and permits no weight for a bare disability conclusion or extra weight for a specialist.

Saunders v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-05(c)(2), (d)(1), (c)(5)

While plaintiff is correct that the ALJ has a heavier burden to discount the opinion of a treating physician like Dr. Liberman, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996), the ALJ here reasonably explained why she did so. An ALJ need not treat a treating physician’s opinions as controlling if they are contradicted by substantial evidence and the ALJ explains why she is not following them. See Jones v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 350, 355 (D.C. Cir. 2011); Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1993). ... An ALJ must “review all of the medical findings and other evidence that support a medical source’s statement that [a claimant is] disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). However, the ALJ need not give any weight to a pure opinion that a claimant is disabled, as that is a finding reserved for the Commissioner. See id. ... Of course, the Commissioner generally may “give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). However, nothing requires the ALJ to give extra weight to the opinion of a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, and supportability.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-05(c)(1)-(6)

The ALJ’s findings addressing the weight assigned to the opinion rendered by Dr. Mukherjee are supported by substantial evidence in the record and comport with applicable law. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (opinions from non-examining sources are weighed based on factors such as the lack of an examining relationship, specialization, consistency, and supportability).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires considering specified factors when weighing medical opinions and generally gives more weight to examining, well-supported, and record-consistent opinions.

Gonzales v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-05(c)

Thus, to adopt the “conclusions” of Drs. Simutis and Cherry, non-examining State agency consultants, over the finding of consultative examiner Dr. LaCourt, the ALJ would have had to explain not only why he was according greater weight to the opinions of non-examining State agency consultants over those of a consultative examiner but also how the evidence on the whole supported finding a less restrictive RFC in line with Drs. Simutis and Cherry’s “conclusion.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (setting forth the factors that are to be considered in weighing medical opinions and providing, in relevant part, that more weight is generally given to an examining source’s opinions, opinions that are supported with explanations about how the objective medical evidence supports the opinion, and opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole). His decision plainly fails to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise weigh opinions using specified factors.

Walker v. Saul · filed 2020-08-06(c)

The ALJ must evaluate “every medical opinion” in the record and assign 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). If a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight,5 the ALJ evaluates all of the medical opinions according to the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion; and the physician’s specialty. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) identifies the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examinations as factors in weighing a medical opinion.

Vidales v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-22(c)(2)

The length of treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations is a factor relied upon in determining how to weigh medical opinions, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), and Dr. Billings only saw Plaintiff for the single evaluation, Tr. 546-52. However, Dr. Billings’ status as an examining physician dictates the standard the ALJ must meet to reject the opinion, Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1201-02 (Setting forth the three types of physicians: “(1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians),” and only extending the clear and convincing or specific and legitimate standards to treating and examining physicians), and does not rise to the level of specific and legitimate itself.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Osborne v. SSA · filed 2021-07-22(c)(4)

The ALJ reasonably gave these opinions significant weight because he found them consistent with the record as a whole. [Tr. 64]; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions supported by more relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings.

Dixon v. SSA · filed 2021-07-23(c)(3)

The ALJ provided ample reason, supported by specific evidence for discounting these opinions. As such, the Court finds no error in this regard. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)( “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) and (d) permit an ALJ assessing residual functional capacity to weigh medical opinions against other evidence in the record.

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

In assessing RFC, the ALJ is entitled to weigh medical opinions against other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (d); Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Ruditsky v. Saul · filed 2021-07-26(c)(4)

Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight the ALJ will give to that medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Jurani’s opinion less weight was supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Jurani was a nonexamining physician who reviewed an incomplete record. And Dr. Jurani’s opinion that Plaintiff was limited to sedentary work is inconsistent with Plaintiff’s own statements of exercising, lifting furniture, and the improvement of her ability to function.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions and gives a treating physician's opinion substantial or controlling weight unless good cause supports otherwise.

Snyder v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-28(c)(2)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; 3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; 4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). ... Overall, the Court finds that good cause exists and the ALJ did not err in assigning “little weight” to Dr. Arcand’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s area than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Wilson v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-07-30(c)(5)

Agency regulations support the ALJ’s grounds for discounting these opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (agency regulation explaining that it generally gives “more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her areas of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) requires an adjudicator to explain the weight assigned to each medical source opinion and why.

Benavidez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-27(e)(2)(ii)

Although ALJs5 need not discuss every piece of evidence, they are required to discuss the weight assigned to each medical source opinion. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii), 416.927(e)(2)(ii) (2012)6). That is, when assessing a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must explain what weight she assigns to each opinion and why.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions in the record, assign each opinion a weight, and consider the listed factors in determining that weight.

Gentry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-05(b)–(c)

In formulating the RFC, the ALJ evaluates all medical opinions in the record and assigns a weight to each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b)–(c). ... The weight the ALJ gives an opinion depends on a variety of factors, namely: whether the physician examined the claimant; the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship (if any); the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from medical signs and laboratory findings; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; the physician’s specialization; and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)– (c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner rather than medical opinions, while subsection (c)(3) permits the ALJ to assess whether a medical opinion is supported by record evidence.

Linam v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-11(c)(3), (d)(2)

Notably, “[a] statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the SSA] will determine that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). In fact, such a statement is “not a medical opinion” but is instead an “opinion[] on [an] issue[] reserved to the Commissioner because [it is an] administrative finding[] that [is] dispositive of [the] case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Even if Dr. Koltuska-Haskin’s opinion were not an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ was permitted to consider whether her opinion was supported by the evidence in the record and whether her opinion was otherwise consistent with “the record as a whole.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and weigh it using factors including the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Morgan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(c)

Regardless of the source, Social Security Regulations require an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In deciding what weight to assign an opinion, an ALJ must consider certain factors such as the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization and other factors. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (4) allow an administrative law judge to give less weight to a medical opinion when it conflicts with other medical evidence and the record documents the effectiveness of the claimant's treatment.

Kaminski v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3), (4)

The ALJ rejected consultative examining psychiatrist Charles DeBattista, M.D.’s opinion that Kaminski had marked and moderate-to-marked limitations in the relevant areas because these conclusions conflicted with other medical evidence and with the documented effectiveness of Kaminski’s mental health treatment. On the record presented in this case, any argument that the ALJ erred by giving Dr. DeBattista’s opinion only some weight fails. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and the medical source’s specialization.

Harris v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-08-18(c)(5)

To determine the weight given to any medical opinion, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the evidence presented to support the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence, and the specialization of the medical professional. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c); see Davis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 449 F. App’x 828, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (stating that the ALJ will give more weight to the medical opinions of a source who has examined the plaintiff and opinions that are supported by medical signs and findings and are consistent with the overall “record as a whole”). ... The ALJ also appropriately considered that Dr. Teschner, a primary care provider, lacked a specialty in mental health. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(5) (Commissioner should consider the specialization of the medical professional when determining how much weight to assign the provider’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating and examining physicians' opinions, gives controlling weight to a supported treating physician's opinion that is consistent with the record, and requires specific standards for rejecting medical opinions.

Love v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-18(c)(1), (c)(2), (d)(2)

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); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), (2); 416.927(c)(1), (2). If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, a court gives the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). A court may reject a treating doctor’s uncontradicted opinion only for “clear and convincing” reasons. Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). If the opinion of another physician contradicts a treating doctor’s opinion, the ALJ must provide “specific and legitimate reasons” for discrediting the treating doctor’s opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, assign it weight, and explain the reasons for that weight.

Anderson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-24(c)

Although the “regulations establish a hierarchy of medical evidence, entitling the opinions of treating physicians the greatest deference, followed by those of examining physicians, then non-examining physicians, and finally, other medical sources,” Gorham v. Astrue, No. 1:11-CV-3555-CAP-JSA, 2012 WL 5507306, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2012) (citation omitted), the ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and “state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam)). ... For both opinions, she laid out their contents, expressly afforded weight to them, explained why she gave them the weight that she did, and provided examples. Nothing more was required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an adjudicator to explain the weight given to opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources, or otherwise make the reasoning traceable when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Motuzas v. P Andrew Saul, Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-25(f)(2)

The adjudicator generally should explain the weight given to opinions from [medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources] or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case. ... Pursuant to S.S.R. No. 06-03p and Section 404.1527(f)(2), it would have been error for the ALJ to ignore Nurse Shipley and Social Worker Mahoney’s opinions. ... Neither Social Security Ruling 06-03p nor Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires more.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) sets the framework for weighing medical opinions, generally favoring examining, treating, and specialist opinions and allowing a treating physician's opinion to be discounted for good cause when the reasons are clearly articulated.

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

Relevant here, the opinions of examining physicians are generally given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1-5), 416.927(c)(1-5). ... This rule – the “treating physician rule” – reflects the regulations, which recognize that treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most likely to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of . . . medical impairment.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... With good cause, an ALJ may disregard a treating physician’s opinion but “must clearly articulate the reasons for doing so.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 at 1240 n.8). ... Dr. Addis was a one-time consultative examiner and not a treating physician; the ALJ was not required to articulate good cause for discounting it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical-source opinion using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Lara v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-31(c)(1)-(6)

Moreover, the ALJ was not only permitted to, but was required to, consider the nature of the treatment relationship between Dr. Campbell and Ms. Lara in evaluating the proper weight to assign to Dr. Campbell’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that the SSA generally gives controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians and gives more weight to the opinions of examining physicians than non-examining physicians).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating than examining opinions and to examining than non-examining opinions, and an examining opinion may be rejected only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Taylor v. Saul · filed 2021-09-07(c), (d)(2)

In evaluating medical opinions, the regulations distinguish among three categories of physicians: (1) treating physicians; (2) examining physicians, who examine, but do not treat the claimant; and (3) non-examining physicians, who neither examine nor treat the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); (e)2; see also Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996). ... “The opinion of an examining doctor, even if contradicted by another doctor, can only be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31 (citing Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d at 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 1995)). ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not provide specific and legitimate reasons, based on the record, for discounting Dr. Hailey’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, apply the listed factors when weighing it, and explain the weight assigned and the reasons for that assignment.

Santiago-Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(c)(2)-(5)

The Regulations establish a hierarchy among medical opinions that provides a framework for determining the weight afforded each medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Essentially, “the opinions of a treating physician are entitled to more weight than those of a consulting or evaluating health professional,” and “[m]ore weight is given to the medical opinion of a source who examined the claimant than one who has not.” ... The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability”; (4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and (5) “[s]pecialization.” ... An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). ... “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” ... With respect to the medical opinions of record, the ALJ did generally summarize the medical evidence, including some of the notes from the medical sources at issue. See Tr. at 27-28. But, when addressing “opinion evidence,” Tr. at 29, the ALJ failed to assign weight to three treating physicians’ opinions (Dr. Fernando Gonzales-Portillo, Dr. Izquierdo, and Dr. Ramos) and a treating physician’s assistant (Mr. Lugo). This error necessitates remand. See, e.g., Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted) (stating that “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor”); Simon, 7 F.4th at 1105 (“It is the responsibility of the agency, not the reviewing court, to supply the justification for its decision and to sufficiently explain the weight it has given to obviously probative exhibits”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization.

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

The method for weighing medical opinions under the Social Security Act is in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ considers many factors when weighing a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). For instance, the Social Security regulations command that the ALJ consider (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length and nature of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the medical opinion is amply supported by relevant evidence; (4) whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to assign weight to the medical opinions in the record when evaluating a claim governed by that regulation.

Bolz v. SSA · filed 2021-09-27

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to assign weight to the medical opinions in the record, while § 404.1520c specifically prohibits the ALJ from giving any specific evidentiary weight to any medical opinions or prior administrative findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and state the weight given, applying the listed factors unless a treating source opinion receives controlling weight.

GEPNER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-29(c)

An ALJ is required to state what weight he ascribes to a medical opinion, but not to other forms of medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“How we weigh medical opinions. Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive. Unless we give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the examining and treating relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and the source's specialty.

Easley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-30(c)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ’s accurate recitation of the foregoing evidence supports a finding contrary to the extreme limitations Dr. Tariq expressed. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in rejecting Dr. Tariq’s opinions. See Bloodsworth, 703 F.2d at 1240.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using specified factors, resolve conflicts, and justify giving an opinion less or no weight when it lacks support or is inconsistent with the record.

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

The ALJ is charged with a duty to evaluate all the medical opinions in the record under the factors outlined in the regulations and to resolve any conflicts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. An ALJ may give an opinion less weight or no weight if it does not present relevant evidence or a sufficient explanation to support it, or if it is inconsistent with the record as a whole. Id. The weight that the ALJ gives to a medical opinion is based on a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and the extent of the treatment relationship, the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence, the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, the extent to which the opinion relates to the medical source’s specialty, and any other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using relevant factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source's specialization.

Page v. Saul · filed 2021-10-08(c)

An ALJ must consider various factors when weighing medical opinions, including: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability of the medical source’s opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record; and the source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Ephrain S. v. Berryhill, 355 F. Supp. 3d 738, 746 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider the length of the treating relationship and the provider’s specialty when weighing medical opinions.

Messerle v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-08(c)

An ALJ may consider the length of the treating relationship and the provider’s specialty in weighing medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and generally give more weight to an opinion from a provider who has treated the claimant longer and has greater knowledge of the claimant’s impairment.

Iglesias v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-14(c), (c)(2)(i), (ii)

In determining the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ evaluates every medical opinion received and assigns it a particular amount of weight. See 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c). The ALJ generally grants more weight to a medical opinion the longer a medical provider has treated a claimant and the more knowledge that the provider has about a claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (ii). When the ALJ articulates specific reasons for failing to give a medical opinion controlling weight, and those reasons are supported by substantial evidence, the Court will not reverse the ALJ’s decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all enumerated factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Maragh v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-20(c)

“However, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) requires ALJs to consider all of the enumerated factors in deciding what weight to give to a medical opinion.” Arakas v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 107 n.16 (4th Cir. 2020). The ALJ’s apparent failure to do so thus warrants remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) and (c)(4) support giving more weight to opinions from examining sources and to opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Grieshop v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-20(c)(1), (c)(4)

The ALJ assigned Dr. Bonds’ opinions “significant weight.” Id. at 45. She noted that Dr. Bonds was able to personally examine Plaintiff. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.”). Additionally, Dr. Bonds’s opinions were consistent with Plaintiff’s counselor’s treatment notes and Plaintiff’s subjective reports. (Doc. #9, PageID #46); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). The ALJ included reasonable limitations in her RFC assessment to account for the limitations opined by Dr. Bonds.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) directs an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

COLUCCI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-22(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require an administrative law judge to consider all medical opinions in the record for the claim period.

Iacouzzi v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-11-04(b), (c)

But a judge must consider all medical opinions in the record for the claim period. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and explain the weight assigned using the specified factors, with a narrative discussion supporting that explanation.

Kempton v. Saul · filed 2021-11-10(c)

Under § 404.1527(c), the greatest weight is ordinarily given to the medical opinion of treating physicians because these professionals have actually examined the claimant—often on numerous occasions. ... But “[a]n ALJ may, however, credit the opinion of a non-treating, non-examining source where that opinion has sufficient indicia of ‘supportability,’” and the ALJ’s explanation demonstrates careful evaluation of the § 404.1527(c) factors. ... An ALJ must also demonstrate consideration of the factors contained in § 404.1527(c)(3)-(6) when determining “the weight to be given to any medical opinion, whether from a treating or nontreating source.” ... To show consideration of the required factors, an ALJ must “include ‘a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports’ his ‘explanation of the varying degrees of weight he gave to differing opinions concerning [the claimant’s] conditions and limitations.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally favors giving greater weight to a medical opinion from a source who examined the claimant.

Alston v. Saul · filed 2021-11-16(c)(1)

Relatedly, Arakas also makes clear that greater weight is generally given to the medical opinion “of a source who has examined the claimant.” 983 F.3d at 110-111 (citing to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)). If an ALJ decides not to assign “controlling” weight to that examining physician’s opinion, then the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight to assign to that opinion, and must also “build and accurate and logical bridge” in writing between that opinion and the ALJ’s conclusion. Arakas, 983 F.3d at 95. In this case, Dr. Parente was, in fact, an examining physician. (Tr. 556-574). Thus, the ALJ should have given some weight to Dr. Parente’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and consistent with the record as a whole.

FAGAN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-11-29(c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ did not err in his evaluation and weighing of PA Doviak’s service animal opinion. In accordance with the applicable regulations, the ALJ discounted PA Doviak’s opinion because 1) her own treatment notes did not reference Plaintiff’s need for a service animal prior to the hearing, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [the ALJ] will give that medical opinion.”); see also Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (holding that, “if a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence . . ., it should be accorded significantly less weight”), and 2) the opinion lacked consistency with Plaintiff’s other mental health treatment, which reflected largely normal mental status examinations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ] will give to that medical opinion.”); see also Craig, 76 F.3d at 590 (finding that, “if a physician’s opinion . . . is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider and address medical source opinions and give good reasons for the weight accorded to a treating physician’s opinion.

Vargas v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-15(b)

The ALJ must consider and address medical source opinions and give good reasons for the weight accorded to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b)11; SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) supports giving a treating source’s opinion greater weight over an inconsistent opinion from a source without the same treating-source status.

Michael v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-29(c)(2)

Because Dr. Buck did not hold the same treating source status that Dr. Anderson held, and her assessments were inconsistent with Dr. Anderson’s assessments, the ALJ permissibly favored Dr. Anderson’s treating source opinion over Dr. Buck’s opinion. Tr. 61-62, 492-96; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh non-controlling opinions using applicable factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-12-03(c)

Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) treats record-wide consistency as a relevant factor in weighing a medical opinion, while § 404.1527(d) gives no special significance to a statement that a claimant is unable to work but still requires the opinion to be considered under the applicable factors.

Edwards v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-12-07(c), (d)

However, the fact that a claimant fails to pursue treatment is not directly relevant to the weight of a medical provider’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole is also a relevant factor in evaluating a medical opinion. ... A statement by a medical source that a claimant is “unable to work” is not a medical opinion and is not due “any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). Nevertheless, the ALJ is required to consider medical source opinions about any issue, including issues reserved to the Commissioner, by evaluating the opinion in light of the evidence in the record and applying the applicable factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions from specialists than to opinions from non-specialists.

Alexander v. Saul · filed 2021-12-13(c)(5)

The ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Blumen’s opinion in a field he does not specialize in is not patently erroneous, especially given that the state agency doctors were psychologists. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (stating that judges give more weight to medical opinions of specialists rather than non-specialists).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of source and consider specified factors when assigning weight to the opinion.

Renaldo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-14(c)

When determining a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received “[r]egardless of its source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). That evaluation requires the ALJ to resolve “[g]enuine conflicts” among the sources. Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). And before an ALJ may deny a claimant’s application, he must “confront the evidence in [the claimant’s] favor and explain why it was rejected.” Thomas v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 953, 961 (7th Cir. 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Lacasella v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-16(c)(2)-(6)

The applicable regulations and case law require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and discuss the weight assigned to those opinions.14 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); see also Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1215 (“[a]n ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional.”). “An ALJ must also consider a series of specific factors in determining what weight to give any medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider inconsistency when discounting a medical source’s opinion.

Wright v. Saul · filed 2021-12-16(c)(4)

When good cause is shown, an ALJ may give less weight, little weight, or even no weight to any physician’s opinion. See Perez v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 457, 465- 66 (5th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (ALJ may consider inconsistency in discounting a medical source’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the relationship with the claimant, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Glacken v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-21(c)

Medical opinions are weighed according to several factors, including whether the examiner had an examining or treatment relationship with the plaintiff, the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence, the consistency of the opinion “with the record as a whole,” the specialization of the medical professional, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In this case, while Dr. Kwock did not have an examining or treating relationship with Plaintiff, the ALJ assigned his opinion “mostly great weight” because it was supported by the evidence in Plaintiff’s record and consistent with the record as a whole, and because Dr. Kwock was an expert “in the field of orthopedic surgery and reviewed the record in light of the specialized knowledge he possesses of the standards for determination of disability under the SSA.” Tr. 31. Accordingly, the ALJ properly assigned weight to the various medical opinions in Plaintiff’s record and thoroughly explained why he applied such weights. Therefore, remand is not warranted on this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(4) permits an ALJ to decline deference to an opinion that is unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence and to weigh it under the remaining factors.

Harper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-13(c)(2)-(4)

When an opinion is unsupported, or when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the ALJ is not required to afford deference to that opinion and may use his or her discretion in weighing the medical evidence as a whole, based on the remaining factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), (4), 416.927(c)(3), (4) (which also include supportability and consistency).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to apply the regulatory factors when weighing an opinion from an otherwise unacceptable medical source and to explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Santorelli v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-14(d)

“In weighing the opinions of ‘other sources’, the ALJ must use the same factors for the evaluation of the opinions from ‘acceptable medical sources’ enumerated in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d).” ... “The ALJ was also not required t give Ms. Atkinson’s opinions controlling weight as she is not an “acceptable medical Source,” but was required to explain her reasons for giving “limited weight” to the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider several factors when weighing a medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight, but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss every factor in the written decision.

James Carter, Jr. v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-01-21(c)

An ALJ must consider several “factors in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion[s]” that are not controlling. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... But an ALJ need not expressly address all the § 404.1527(c) factors in its written decision. Here, the ALJ first “considered [the] opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. 404.1527.” ... The ALJ therefore did not err because his reasons for discounting the treating and examining physicians’ opinions were “specific and legitimate.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh all medical opinion evidence when deciding whom to credit and explain the rationale for doing so.

WALTERS v. KIJAZAKI · filed 2022-01-21

Additionally, in accordance with the Regulations, an ALJ is charged with the responsibility of weighing all of the medical opinion evidence in determining whom to credit and he must explain his rationale for doing so. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradictory factors.

PERNA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-01-31(c)

As a preliminary matter, the opinion of an examining provider is ordinarily entitled to greater weight than non-examining providers, and the opinion of treating providers are entitled to the greatest (and possibly controlling) weight under certain circumstances. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Therefore, “an ALJ should give treating physicians’ reports great weight, especially when their opinions reflect expert judgment based on continuing observation of the patient’s condition over a prolonged period of time.” Brownawell v. Comm’r, 554 F.3d 352, 355 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted). An ALJ must evaluate these factors when determining what weight to assign an opinion: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record, the specialization of the provider, and any other factors which support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give greater weight to medical opinions from treating physicians.

McGillem v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-08(c)(2)

By citing these records, the ALJ appropriately relied on the medical opinions of treating physicians—opinions that are owed considerable weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Brown v. Colvin, 845 F.3d 247, 251–52 (7th Cir. 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions; it gives controlling weight to a well-supported, record-consistent treating-physician opinion and permits greater weight for a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s field.

Knapp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-10(c)(2), (c)(5)

The regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s case require the ALJ to weigh medical opinions regardless of the source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Under these regulations, the ALJ is required to 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 [claimant’s] case record.” ... The regulations provide that the ALJ may “give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues related to the specialist’s area than to a nonspecialist’s opinion.

Plumb v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-11(c)(5)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5), the SSA “generally give[s] more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in determining that Dr. Retay was not a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the source's opportunity to examine the claimant, the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the other evidence.

Delgado v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-18(c)

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (each, in the context of assigning weight to medical opinions, discussing the importance of considerations such as the opportunity for the medical source to conduct an examination, the treatment relationship, to supportability of the opinion, and its consistency with other evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs ALJs to weigh medical opinions using specified factors, including the source’s treatment or examination relationship and the opinion’s consistency with the record.

Ramirez v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-16(c)

When determining how much weight to give a physician’s opinion, ALJs look to the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). These factors identify three types of physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). Treating physicians are “those who treat the claimant.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012. Examining physicians are “those who examine but do not treat the claimant.” Jd. And nonexamining physicians are “those who neither examine nor treat the claimant.” Jd. Generally, the opinions of treating physicians receive greater weight than those of examining physicians, which in turn receive greater weight than the opinions of non-examining physicians. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all relevant factors for each medical opinion, including supportability and consistency, and explain the weight assigned.

Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-17(c)

However, she failed to comply with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) insomuch as she did not consider all the relevant factors with respect to each opinion and ignored evidence in assessing the supportability and consistency of the opinions. The ALJ failed to adequately evaluate the supportability of Dr. Butler’s opinion in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion” and “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other considerations that support or contradict the opinion.

Pena v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-21(c)

In deciding the weight to give to any medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors such as the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion, including the source’s understanding of the agency’s disability program and evidentiary requirements, and the source’s familiarity with the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Hymoff’s extreme degree of limitations pertaining to Plaintiff’s ability to deal with the general public, sustain day-to-day employment, and work a regular schedule. AR 2835. The ALJ found that these limitations were inconsistent with and unsupported by Plaintiff’s overall objective medical evidence of record, inconsistent with Plaintiff’s ability to engage in robust activities, and inconsistent with Plaintiff’s lack of mental health counseling and conservative overall mental health treatment. AR 2835–36. The ALJ gave weight to Dr. Hymoff’s limitations pertaining to Plaintiff’s ability to perform simple, repetitive work, interact with others, handle workplace changes, and handle production requirements as consistent with the overall objective medical evidence of record. AR 2836.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain the evidentiary weight assigned to medical opinions when the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion.

Lujan v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-21(c), (e)

The ALJ also discussed these physicians’ opinions and explained his reasoning for the evidentiary weights he assigned to them, see id., as he was required to do because he did not give controlling weight to a treating source’s medical opinion, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other listed factors when determining the weight of a medical opinion, and recognizes particular deference for treating-physician reports based on continuing observation.

LEAHEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-15(c)(1)–(6), (d)(2)

In general, ALJ should accorded great weight to treating physicians’ reports, especially “when their opinions reflect expert judgment based on a continuing observation of the patient’s condition over a prolonged period of time.” Rocco v. Heckler, 826 F.2d 1348, 1350 (3d Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “An ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, but may afford a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.” Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429 (citing Newhouse v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 283, 286 (3d Cir. 1985)). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1–6) provides a list to consider in determining the weight afforded to opinions, including the treatment relationship, length of relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationships, supportability of the opinion afforded by the medical evidence, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the treating physician. Russo v. Astrue, 421 Fed. Appx. 184, 191 (3d Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence receives controlling weight and requires an ALJ to consider listed factors when assigning weight to medical opinions.

Reilly v. Comm'r of Soc. SEC. · filed 2022-03-17(c), (d)(2)

“[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2017)). But the opinion of a treating physician need not be given controlling weight when it is “not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). In determining the amount of weight to give to medical opinions, ALJs consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions based on the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and source specialty, with generally greater weight given to treating-source opinions than to non-treating and non-examining opinions.

Plier v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-23(c)

The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The regulations and case law establish a general preference for assigning greater weight to the opinions of treating medical sources than the opinions of non-treating medical sources, and greater weight to the opinions of non-treating medical sources than the opinions of non-examining medical sources. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2); Ryan v. Heckler, 762 F.2d 939, 942 (11th Cir. 1985). ... Because Dr. Goyal’s opinion was conclusory and unexplained and not supported by his own treatment or Mr. Plier or the record as a whole, the ALJ could properly reject his opinion. Additionally, the ALJ stated the reasons why she discounted the opinion, thus satisfying the “good cause” requirement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good, sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned to each medical opinion.

Wright v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-25(d)(2)

The ALJ must provide good reasons for the weight he ultimately assigns to each opinion. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300-01 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The reasons must be specific enough to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the ALJ assigned to the opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions consistent with the record as a whole and to discount opinions that are conclusory, unsupported by objective medical evidence, inconsistent with the record, or contradicted by other evidence.

Reynolds v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-23(c)

See Sryock v. Heckler, 764 F.2d 834, 835 (11th Cir. 1985) (an ALJ is free to reject any physician’s opinion when the record as a whole supports a contrary conclusion); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it is given). ... An ALJ may discount a physician’s opinion when the opinion is conclusory, the physician fails to provide objective medical evidence to support his or her opinion, the opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole, or the evidence otherwise supports a contrary finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a non-treating medical opinion using factors including examination, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors brought to the ALJ's attention.

Huber v. Saul · filed 2022-03-29(c)

An ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of the source of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Because state agency medical and psychological consultants are “highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation,” the ALJ must consider their findings as opinion evidence. Soc. Sec. Ruling 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *4; see also Poulos v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 474 F.3d 88, 93 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007). In determining the appropriate weight to which a non-treating source’s medical opinion is entitled, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) whether the medical source actually examined the claimant; (2) the degree to which the medical opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (3) the degree to which the medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (4) the medical source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) & (3)–(5). In addition, the ALJ must consider any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion, but only if brought to his attention. See id. § 404.1527(c)(6). Here, the ALJ clearly articulated his consideration of factors (1), (2), and (3), and there is nothing in the record to indicate the specialization of the state agency medical consultant. (See Tr. 14.) Thus, we find the ALJ’s discounting of Dr. Grutkowski’s opinion, which he assigned only “partial weight,” was supported by substantial evidence and was reached based upon a correct application of the relevant law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions according to their source relationships and generally gives greater weight to treating and examining opinions than to non-examining opinions.

Blanco v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(c), (e), and (c)(1)-(2)

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). The ALJ is not bound by the opinion of an examining physician. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. If an examining physician’s opinion is uncontradicted, the ALJ must provide clear and convincing reasons for giving it less weight. Id. (citation omitted). If the opinion is contradicted by other opinions, the ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, to discount it. Id. at 830-31 (citation omitted). The opinion of a non-examining source alone is not substantial evidence to discount an examining opinion. Id. at 831 (citations omitted). Additionally, the opinions of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of expertise are entitled to more weight than the opinions of a non-specialist. Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1285 (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using listed factors and generally to explain the weight assigned to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources when they may affect the outcome.

Gorman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-30(c), (f)(2)

The weight given “to any medical opinion” depends on a number of factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (listing factors); accord Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1068-69 (8th Cir. 2020). In assigning weight, an “ALJ must give good reasons to explain” the weight they give. ... The same is true for Wilken’s opinions regarding Pamela’s mental limitations. The ALJ properly noted Wilken, as a nurse practitioner, “is not an acceptable medical source” yet still considered his opinion “with regard to the severity of [Pamela’s] impairments and associated limitations.” See, e.g., Cypress v. Colvin, 807 F.3d 948, 950-51 (8th Cir. 2015); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). Under §§ 404.1527(f)(2) and 416.927(f)(2), an ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” The ALJ did that in this case. ... The Court finds the ALJ’s evaluations of Dr. Navarette’s and Wilken’s opinions were both “appropriate and sufficiently explained.” Kraus, 988 F.3d at 1026.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, but need not discuss each factor individually when the rationale is clear.

Piscitello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(f)(2)

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 length, 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. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (f)(2). The factors to be considered in evaluating opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, except that consideration of the treatment relationship is replaced with consideration of whether the non-treating source examined the plaintiff. ... So long as the ALJ’s rationale is clear, however, the ALJ need not address each factor individually.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a non-controlling medical opinion to consider the listed factors and give good reasons tied to those factors, but it does not require a factor-by-factor discussion if the decision clearly explains the weight and reasons.

Kaczmarek v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-31(c)

However, although the six factors listed above are to be considered in weighing medical opinions, the Court does not insist on a factor-by-factor analysis so long as the “ALJ’s decision [is] ‘sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, and permits the ALJ to minimally articulate the reasoning without explicitly discussing and weighing each factor.

Roberts v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-21(c)

In general, a “treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘well-supported’ by medical findings and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.” ... “If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must determine what weight it merits by considering the following factors: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; and (4) the consistency and supportability of the opinion.” ... However, while the ALJ must “consider the factors found in found in 20 C.F.R. §. 404.1527(c),” he need only “minimally articulate” his reasoning, and the ALJ “need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assess the weight of a treating physician’s opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, medical support, consistency, and specialization.

Southard v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-27(c)

The ALJ must assess the appropriate weight to assign the opinion based on the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ was required to discuss the § 404.1527(c) factors to demonstrate good cause for assigning “little’ weight to Dr. Gonzalez-Scarono’s assessment of Southard’s limitations and did not.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner rather than a medical professional.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-02(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh each medical opinion by considering all of the factors listed in the regulation.

Markel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-02(c)

Instead, the ALJ must weigh each medical opinion by considering all of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). For the reasons discussed above, the ALJ provided good reasons for the weight assigned to Drs. Soin and Barth, and these reasons were supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion and directs the ALJ to weigh it using listed factors, while giving controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

DRUMM v. SAUL · filed 2022-05-03(a)(1), (c), (c)(2)

A medical opinion reflects “judgments about the nature and severity” of an impairment. 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). The ALJ is generally not “bound to accept” such an opinion and can “weigh the medical evidence and draw [his] own inferences.” Brown, 649 F.3d at 196 (quoting Kertesz v. Crescent Hills Coal Co., 788 F.2d 158, 163 (3d Cir. 1986)). ... The weight a medical opinion receives turns on several factors, including whether the physician has examined or treated the claimant, the amount and type of support provided and the opinion’s consistency with the “record as a whole.” §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The ALJ gives an opinion “controlling weight,” however, if it is from a “treating source” and is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s decisions to place “limited weight” on the opinions of Drs. Kneifati, Kabbani, Kcomt and Othmer were supported by substantial evidence. See Hagans, 694 F.3d at 292.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when assigning weight.

Mullen v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-05(c)

The ALJ is obligated to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Relevant factors for the ALJ to consider in assigning weight to the opinion include the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the extent the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, consistency with the record as a whole, the specialization of the physician, and “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to use a two-step process: first determine whether the opinion merits controlling weight based on support and consistency, and, if not, weigh it using the regulation’s listed factors.

Quantrille v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-10(c)

When evaluating a treating physician’s opinion under § 404.1527, “the ALJ must complete a sequential two-step inquiry, each step of which is analytically distinct.” ... First, the ALJ must determine whether the medical opinion qualifies for “controlling weight.” ... A treating physician’s medical opinion is given controlling weight if, on the issues of the nature and severity of the plaintiff’s impairments, 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.” § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ’s analysis of the weight of that opinion is complete. ... However, if the ALJ determines that the medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, or if the ALJ is evaluating a non-treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must move onto step two and apply the following factors to determine how much weight to give the medical opinion: ... The ALJ considered Dr. Lee’s opinion and gave it “some weight,” but the Court agrees with plaintiff that the ALJ did not expressly engage in the required two-part analysis. ... The Court finds that the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Lee’s opinion was legally sufficient and does not provide a basis to remand the case for further administrative proceedings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For disability applications filed before May 27, 2017, § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions under the regulatory hierarchy and consider factors including supportability, consistency, and relevant specialty or expertise.

Tittle v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-11(c)

For disability applications (like Mr. Tittle’s) that are filed before May 27, 2017, medical opinions are weighed by the process set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). The regulations establish a hierarchy of medical opinions where an opinion from a medical source who has examined a claimant is given more weight than that from a source who has not performed an examination, §§ 404.1527(c)(1) and 416.927(c)(1), and an opinion from a medical source who regularly treats the claimant is afforded more weight than that from a source who has examined the claimant but does not have an ongoing treatment relationship, §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2). In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, as is the case here, an ALJ must “evaluate all medical opinions” with regard to the factors set forth in §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). Walton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 97-2030, 1999 WL 506979, at *2 (6th Cir. 1999). These factors include supportability, consistency of the opinion with other evidence, and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairments. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the opinion's supportability and consistency with the record.

Pruett v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-16(c)(3)-(4)

When weighing medical opinions provided by a medical source such as a consultative examiner, the ALJ must consider multiple factors, including the extent to which the source’s opinions are supported by relevant evidence and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527's treating-physician standards do not give a chiropractor's opinion special weight because a chiropractor is an 'other source,' not an acceptable medical source.

Harley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(a)(2), (c)(2)

A chiropractor, however, is not an acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502, 404.1513(a),(d). The treating physician rule does not apply. Instead, a chiropractor is considered an “other source.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a),(d), 404.1527(a)(2); SSR 06-3p. An ALJ does not have to articulate his or her reasons for discounting opinions offered by non-medical sources. Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (requiring ALJs to provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to opinions from treating acceptable medical sources).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight given, and consider factors including the opinion's consistency with the record and with other treating opinions.

Koch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-13(c)

An ALJ has an obligation to evaluate every medical opinion and explain the weight given to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... While the ALJ used the same treatment notes and the same reasoning to reject both opinions, he never discussed or analyzed how the opinions were consistent with each other as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). As both Dr. Hammoud and Ms. O’Leary treated Plaintiff, the consistency of their opinions is relevant to consider, yet the ALJ failed to discuss this factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider its consistency with the evidence in the record.

Bradford v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-08-01(c)(4)

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff. Mr. Bradford presented evidence in the form of the opinion of Dr. Tieszen. The ALJ rejected that opinion without fully and fairly investigating Plaintiff’s claim by seeking further evidence to analyze the “consistency” factor as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. The ALJ committed error by failing to fully and fairly develop the record, and Plaintiff’s claim is due to be remanded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-11(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives more weight to an examining medical source's opinion than to a non-examining source's opinion, while requiring all medical opinions to be evaluated using relevant factors such as consistency, specialization, and the source's understanding of Social Security disability requirements.

Khamo v. Saul · filed 2022-08-16(c)

The regulations that govern plaintiff’s application state that an ALJ will generally give more weight to the opinion of an examining medical source than to that of a non-examining source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, they also direct ALJs to evaluate all medical opinions in accordance with a number of factors, including how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, whether the opining source is a specialist, and how well the opining source understands the SSA’s disability programs and evidentiary requirements. Id. Because the ALJ considered the medical opinions in accordance with these factors, his decision to accord Dr. Monis’s opinions more weight than those of Dr. Samardzija is not a basis for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally favors treating-source opinions but permits an ALJ to give greater weight to state-agency opinions when the treating opinion is not well supported and the state-agency source has greater knowledge of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements.

Harvin v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-17(c), (c)(2), and (c)(6)

As for the state agency opinions, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not err by assigning the state reviewing physicians’ opinions greater weight than the treating source opinions. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (listing factors to consider in deciding the weight to give a medical opinion). The social security regulations simply state that the ALJ will “generally” give more weight to treating source opinions. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). However, when an ALJ finds that a treating source opinion is not well-supported by the medical record, the social security regulations specifically state that a relevant factor in determining the weight of an opinion is “the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(6). Thus, contrary to Harvin’s argument, the ALJ was entitled to rely on the state agency consultants’ expertise in determining the weight to give their opinions. Moreover, assigning the state agency opinions more weight was not a per se error, so long as the ALJ gave good reasons—supported by substantial evidence—for failing to assign the treating physicians’ opinions controlling weight. The ALJ did exactly that.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider its consistency with the other evidence when deciding how much weight to give it, while treating-source opinions are not automatically entitled to controlling weight.

Roberts v. Commissioner of SSA · filed 2022-08-26(c)(4)

The ALJ is required to “evaluate every medical opinion” in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Not all medical opinions, however, are treated equally. The opinions of treating physicians, “medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture,” are generally afforded the greatest deference. ... A primary factor relevant to the weight due a medical opinion is its consistency with other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Here, the ALJ found Dr. Suthar’s opinions were ever-changing. ... The ALJ reasonably found that this inconsistency rendered Dr. Suthar’s medical opinion due little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider a medical source's specialization and treating relationship when evaluating the source's opinion, but does not require the ALJ to explain how those factors were considered.

(SS) Lamb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-30(c)

Although the ALJ ... did not explicitly state as much, nor acknowledge the 14-year length of the treating relationship or the frequency of examination, the regulations only require the ALJ to consider specialization and treating relationship, not to articulate how those factors were considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues related to the specialist’s area than to a non-specialist’s opinion.

(SS) Ervin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-12(c)(5)

As to Dr. Tubis’s opinions on plaintiff’s physical impairments, the ALJ was authorized to give this less weight given that it was outside the doctor’s specialty and given its inconsistency with the medical record already cited. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist”); Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041 (inconsistency).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider six listed factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Dockery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)(1)–(6)

When evaluating and weighing medical opinions an ALJ must consider multiple factors, including (1) the examining relationship, (2) the treatment relationship, including the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination and the nature and extent of the relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. ... The regulations require “ALJs to consider all of the enumerated factors in deciding what weight to give to a medical opinion.” ... While the frequency of examination is a factor in weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ failed to address the factors of examining supportability and consistency, as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the source’s relationship to the claimant and the opinion’s consistency with the record.

ROCKWOOD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-09-27(c)

Instead, an ALJ gives medical opinions varying weight based on a variety of factors, including the relationship the source has to the claimant and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider applicable factors when assigning weight to a treating source’s medical opinion and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Swartz v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(c)

If controlling weight is not given to a treating source’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider certain factors when deciding what weight to give the medical opinion. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Regardless of the weight afforded a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “give good reasons” explaining why the ALJ gave said weight to a treating source’s medical opinion. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... After careful review of the record, the Court finds the ALJ’s evaluation of opinions provided by Dr. Haynes, Dr. Orth, and Dr. Rack is consistent with the regulatory requirements discussed above. The ALJ addressed both the supportability and consistency factors and provided “good reasons” for giving each opinion less than substantial weight related to their evaluation of migraines, headaches, and fatigue, and/or the potential work absences resulting from the same.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs ALJs to give more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and better explanations, while subsection (c)(4) favors opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Perkinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-29(c)(3), (c)(4)

In fact, it was his obligation to do under the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). The ALJ discounted Dr. Noia’s opinion about Plaintiff’s marked limitation on tolerating stress for the same reason, as well as the fact that “[f]inding more than a moderate limitation in any area is also inconsistent with the other medical notes that generally show normal findings.” Id. at 22; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six factors when weighing medical-opinion evidence, but the decision need not discuss every factor if its analysis sufficiently explains the weight assigned.

Campos v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-03(c)

In sum, the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to accord Dr. Rodriguez’s moderate weight. Although the ALJ did not discuss all six of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), her analysis was sufficiently specific to identify the reasons why she gave less weight to Dr. Rodriguez’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion, consider the listed factors when determining the weight of a non-examining source opinion, and explain why conflicting aspects of the opinion were rejected, but it does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Falkosky v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-27(c), (f)(2)

At Step Four, the ALJ must weigh every medical opinion that the SSA receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Under the regulations applicable to Falkosky’s claim, the ALJ must determine the weight due to an non-examining source opinion by considering the examining and treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the opinion was issued by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(5); see SSR 06-03p, 2006 SSR LEXIS 5, at *6–7 (2006). However, the ALJ need not give an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis. See Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir. 2011). It is enough that the ALJ consider the opinion, assign weight, and give an explanation as to why the conflicting aspects of the opinion were rejected. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2); see also SSR 96-6p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 3, at *6 (July 2, 1996); SSR 96-8p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 5, at *20 (July 2, 1996); SSR 06-03p, 2006 SSR LEXIS 5, at *15–16.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned, and account for the applicable factors when weighing it.

Staton v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-21(c)

The applicable regulations and case law require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and discuss the weight assigned to those opinions.16 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); see also Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1215 (“[a]n ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to apply the opinion-weighing factors, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Jackson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-23(c)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). ... However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned, and account for the applicable factors when weighing it.

Penix v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-06(c)

The applicable regulations and case law require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and discuss the weight assigned to those opinions.12 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); see also Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1215 (“[a]n ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before revised medical-evidence rules took effect, § 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions hierarchically, giving treating physicians’ opinions the most weight, followed by examining and then non-examining physicians.

Ernest Brito, III v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-13

Plaintiff filed his disability claim before revised rules regarding the weighing of medical evidence took effect. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Thus, the ALJ had to weigh medical opinions on a hierarchy: treating physicians’ opinions receive the most weight, then examining physicians, and then non-examining physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence and to treat a medical source's familiarity with the claimant's case record as relevant when weighing the source's opinion.

Smethers v. O'Malley · filed 2023-02-14(b), (c)(6)

The ALJ is required to consider “all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). Additionally, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6). Here, although Dr. Abbott provided his opinions many years after Plaintiff’s date last insured, he indicated he was her treating provider during the period at issue and he explained on the form he provided that his opinion was based on his treatment records from that time. Tr. 862-63, 2658-60. Dr. Abbott is her primary care provider who has treated her from 2006 through present, including during the period at issue, and on this record the fact that his opinions were rendered 7 and 10 years after her date last insured was not a specific and legitimate reason to give his opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the listed regulatory factors but does not require the ALJ to recite every factor explicitly if the decision adequately explains the reasoning.

Donnellon v. O'Malley · filed 2023-02-27(c)

While the ALJ should consider the regulatory factors that go into the weighing of medical opinions—(1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization—the ALJ does not have to recite them chapter and verse. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); see, e.g., Ray v. Saul, 861 F. App’x 102, 105 (7th Cir. 2021) (“we will not vacate or reverse an ALJ’s decision based solely on a failure to expressly list every checklist factor”). The ALJ need only minimally articulate her reasons for rejecting a medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider and explain the weight given to every medical opinion using relevant factors such as support, explanation, consistency with the record, familiarity with the record, and specialization.

Cohen v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-27(c)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgements about the nature and severity of [claimants’] impairment(s), including [their] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [they] can still do despite impairment(s), and [their] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to consider and explain the weight afforded to every medical opinion in the record using certain factors, such as the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the quality of the doctor’s explanation, the consistency between the opinion and the medical record as a whole, and the doctor’s familiarity with the record as a whole. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an administrative law judge to weigh competing medical opinions under the regulatory considerations and give a state-agency opinion greater weight than a treating physician’s opinion when the choice is adequately explained and supported.

MUELLER v. SAUL · filed 2023-02-27(c)

While a treating physician’s medical opinion under the applicable regulations is expected to be afforded more weight than the medical opinion of a state agency doctor, the ALJ may assign greater weight to the latter so long as he explains why he did so See Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361. A treating physician’s “opinion may be afforded ‘more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.’” Brownawell v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 554 F.3d 352, 355 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d at 429 (3d Cir. 1999)). ... The ALJ accepted and adopted the findings of Dr. Legaspi because, as noted, Dr. Legaspi’s assessments were also supported by the treatment history and clinical records. See Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361 (stating that “[s[tate agent opinions merit significant consideration as well”) (citations omitted). These determinations made by the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence and are within his province to make. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Chandler, 667 F.3d at 356.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing medical opinions, the regulation gives more weight to examining sources than nonexamining sources, generally favors longer treating relationships, and permits consideration of a source’s specialty; an ALJ may not apply those factors inconsistently to favor nonexamining or one-time opinions over treating doctors.

Estes v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-02(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(5)

It was appropriate for the ALJ to consider the doctors’ specialties in weighing their opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). However, for the reasons that we explain here and that we previously explained (almost verbatim) in Daniel Lynn E. v. Saul, No. 19 C 7636, 2020 WL 5365971, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 8, 2020), it was not appropriate for the ALJ to reject the opinions of plaintiff’s treating doctors—one of whom is a spine specialist—in favor of the opinions of non-examining consultants who do not specialize in spines. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) (“[W]e give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.”); see also (R. 501, 503, 1528, 1542 (setting forth consultants’ medical specialty codes)); Social Security Commissioner's Program Operations Manual, DI 24501.004B, Medical Specialty Codes, available at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0424501004 (last visited October 28, 2022). Additionally, while it was proper for the ALJ to consider the length of each treater's relationship with plaintiff, the ALJ applied this factor inconsistently. For instance, she did not adequately explain why the opinion of the IME doctor, who examined plaintiff once, was entitled to more weight than those of the doctors who treated him for months or years (Drs. Bajaj and Ricca, respectively). (R. 342-46); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source's medical opinion. When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the medical source's medical opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ determining the weight due a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with other evidence, and the medical professional's specialization.

Horton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-03-31(c)

To determine the weight due a medical opinion, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the evidence presented to support the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence, and the specialization of the medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a non-treating medical opinion to consider all prescribed factors, including the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, and specialization; none may be omitted or disregarded.

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

When a non-treating medical source provides a medical opinion, the ALJ is required to consider it and decide what weight to give to it. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The following factors must be considered to determine the appropriate weight to which the opinion is entitled: (1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the opinion’s support by medical evidence; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) the treating physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(5), 416.927(c)(2)–(5). None of these factors may be omitted or disregarded by the ALJ in considering the weight of the opinion. See Casillas v. Astrue, 671 F. Supp. 2d 635, 643–44 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (stating that the ALJ “must consider” the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in determining what weight to give a medical opinion); Waldron v. Astrue, No. 1:07-CV-2040, 2008 WL 4452350, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2008) (same). In addition, the ALJ must consider any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion, but only if brought to his or her attention. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives an examining physician’s opinion more weight than a non-examining physician’s opinion.

(SS) Jimenez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-06(d)(2)

Further, an examining physician’s opinion is given more weight than the opinion of non-examining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). ... Accordingly, the Court declines to find the ALJ identified specific and legitimate reasons to reject the physical limitations identified by Dr. Fabella.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed by the source's examining and treating relationship, specialization, supportability, consistency, and other supporting or contradictory factors, and those factors apply to examining and non-examining physicians.

Harris v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-09-29(c)(1)-(6)

In addition to considering the examining and treating relationship of a medical source and any specialization of a medical source, the agency will also consider the supportability and consistency of the medical source’s opinion, along with any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). “These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.” ... Here, the record reflects that the ALJ properly considered Plaintiffs CTS during the relevant period in fashioning Plaintiff's RFC and gave sufficient reasons for giving certain weight to the various medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a claim under the pre-revision rules to give specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence before rejecting a contradicted treating or examining physician’s opinion.

Stockdale v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-15(c)

Claimant filed her disability claim before revised rules governing the weighing of medical opinion evidence took effect. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Accordingly, if the opinion of a treating or examining doctor is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, the ALJ could reject it only “by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, when none is controlling, to weigh the opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency, and specialization.

Jasinski v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-06(c)

Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). ... Finally, the ALJ’s decision shows that, in the absence of any significant body of clinical evidence, the ALJ carefully assessed and evaluated each of the medical opinions, and made detailed findings regarding the weight to be afforded to various aspects of those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the source relationship, its connection to the alleged disability, the length and frequency of treatment, supporting evidence, and medical specialization, generally giving specialists more weight on issues within their specialties.

Gresham v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-02-02(c)

In deciding the weight to give any medical opinion, the ALJ considers not only whether the source has a treating or examining relationship with the claimant, but also whether the treatment or examination is related to the alleged disability, the length of the relationship, frequency of examination, supporting evidence provided by the source, and medical specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist. Id. § 404.1527(c)(5). ... Because the ALJ appropriately weighed and considered the medical evidence, Plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ improperly ignored evidence fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all relevant factors when weighing medical opinions under the old rules, but expressly requires articulation for the weight assigned to a treating source, certain opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, and a decision to give such a source greater weight than a treating source.

BERUBE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2024-02-07(c), (c)(2), (f)(2)

While the old rules require consideration of all relevant factors, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), they require articulation of that consideration in three respects. First, the ALJ “will always give good reasons . . . for the weight” given to a claimant’s “treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Second, the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from providers” who are not acceptable medical sources “or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence” allows the reader to follow the ALJ’s reasoning “when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” Finally, the ALJ “must explain the reasons” for giving the opinion of a provider who is “not an acceptable medical source”—such as Ms. Hickey, a social worker—“greater weight than a medical opinion from a treating source,” id. §§ 404.1527(f)(2); 416.927(f)(2). Drs. Quinn and Gaeta are neither treating sources nor providers who are not acceptable medical sources. Nonetheless, the ALJ explained the weight accorded their opinions. See Record at 786, 790. He also detailed several reasons why he accorded the Hickey opinion significant weight, including its consistency of the opinion with LCSW Hickey’s notes and the record as a whole and the thoughtfulness of her analysis. See id. at 786. No more was required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the factors governing the weight of medical opinions, but the ALJ need not explicitly address each factor.

Whitehead v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-07(c)

The ALJ must consider: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s area of specialization. 20 C.F.R. ... §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). But the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of these factors. Lawton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App’x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (4) require consideration of a medical opinion’s supporting evidence and consistency with the record when assigning it weight.

Miller v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2024-06-05(c)(3), (4)

We reject Ms. Miller’s argument that the ALJ erred by dismissing Dr. Christensen’s dementia-due-to-headaches diagnosis. The ALJ gave several reasons for doing so, and each is supported by the record. First, the ALJ rejected the diagnosis based on testimony from Drs. Swaner and Gill that it was not supported by her medical records and was inconsistent with Dr. Christensen’s own evaluation, which showed that although Ms. Miller’s concentration was “off and on,” id., vol. 5 at 877, the results of her memory testing were largely normal. The ALJ appropriately considered these factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion . . ., the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”); id. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization, and the ALJ’s reasons for discounting the opinion must be supported by substantial evidence.

Barlet v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-07-12(c)

“The ALJ is to consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s ‘opinion is with the record as a whole’; and (5) the doctor’s specialization.” Forsyth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 503 F. App’x 892, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)). ... These records do not support a finding that Dr. Williamson’s opinions are overstated and inconsistent with other medical records. As a result, substantial evidence does not support affording Dr. Williamson’s opinions little weight. For this reason alone, remand is warranted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) and (c)(5) generally give greater weight to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole and to a specialist’s opinion about issues within the specialist’s field.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-16(c)(4), (c)(5)

Thus, considering the record as a whole, this finding by the ALJ lacked substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). All other things being equal, because Dr. Saperstein works for the Center for Complex Neurology, EDS & POTS, the ALJ should have given more, not less, weight to his opinion. (Doc. 12 at 9); see id. at § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the pre-March 2017 medical-opinion rules, § 404.1527(c)'s weighing factors apply to consultative examiners, but an ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Armstrong-Castrodale v. O'Malley · filed 2024-09-24(c)

Plaintiff’s claims were filed prior to the March 2017 regulation change concerning the evaluation of medical opinions and therefore, the previous regulation for evaluating medical opinions applies in this matter. ... The above factors also apply to the opinions of consultative examiners. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (factors apply in deciding weight “give[n] to any medical opinion”). ... In addition, and contrary to Plaintiff’s assertions, the ALJ was not required to rely on a particular treating physician’s opinion, ... and the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each factor when evaluating opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) requires consideration of a medical source’s specialization and generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion about issues related to the specialist’s area of expertise.

Shedd v. Commissioner of Social Security Adminstration · filed 2024-09-26(c)(5)

The regulations specifically state that specialization generally increases the weight, or persuasive value, given to a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5). ... Dr. Cox's opinion is the only treating medical source opinion in this case and the regulations explicitly required the ALJ to consider Dr. Cox's specialization. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ, when no medical opinion has controlling weight, to weigh non-controlling opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

De La Cruz v. Kijakazi · filed 2025-01-21(c)

Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c).