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) requires the Commissioner to evaluate any medical opinion based on the examining or treating relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-02-07(c)

Social Security regulations provide that, when considering the weight to be given any medical opinion (regardless of whether it is from a treating or non-treating physician), the Commissioner should evaluate: the extent of the examining or treating relationship between the doctor and patient; whether the doctor’s opinion can be supported by medical signs and laboratory findings; whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; the doctor’s specialization; and other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Accordingly, the court concludes that the ALJ did not provide good cause for discounting the mental health source opinions of claimant’s work-related limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six enumerated factors when weighing a medical opinion, but it does not require express discussion of every factor.

Padilla v. Social Security Administration · filed 2025-08-06(c)

Under those regulations, the ALJ was required to consider PA Dountas’s opinions using six factors: (1) the examining relationship, if any, between the medical source and the claimant; (2) the treatment relationship, if any, including its nature, length, and extent and the frequency of examination; (3) supportability, or the degree to which the medical source presents and explains evidence to support a medical opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is from a specialist and is about an issue related to the medical source’s specialty; and (6) other factors that are brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6). Notably, the ALJ was not required to “address each factor expressly or at length.” Mounts v. Astrue, 479 F. App’x 860, 866 (10th Cir. Cir. 2012) (citing Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007)). ... Absent any explanation for the variations in assessed limitations, these inconsistencies constitute a reasonable basis for discounting PA Dountas’s opinions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(4), and one the Court can easily follow.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing a non-treating source’s medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization, but does not require a step-by-step discussion of every factor.

Jackson v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2025-08-22(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527,9 when considering a medical opinion of a non-treating source like Dr. Jones here, an ALJ considers several factors in deciding how much weight to give the opinion. These factors include whether the physician examined the plaintiff, the nature and extent of the relationship, how well medical evidence supports the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record, and the physician’s specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... So it is evident the ALJ sufficiently considered the right factors, particularly whether the opinion was supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record. And so the Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give “little weight” to Dr. Jones’ opinion. The ALJ made no error here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(6) allows medical opinions to be weighed by their supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and the physician’s familiarity with agency programs.

Anderson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-20(c)(3)-(6)

As the government points out, consideration of such factors is proper considerations when weighing the opinions of non-treating physicians. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(6) (agency considers factors of supportability and consistency with the record, specialization, and familiarity with agency programs are factors in weighing medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may give a medical opinion little weight based on several factors without requiring objective proof of fibromyalgia.

Hargett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)

This Court finds that the Report and Recommendation’s findings regarding the weight given to Sarn’s opinion is not an imprimatur requiring objective proof of Hargett’s fibromyalgia. Rather, the Report and Recommendation simply recognized that Hargett has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ’s evaluation of these opinions are unsupported by substantial evidence or based on an incorrect application of the law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Buchanan v. Colvin · filed 2021-08-26(c)

As discussed above, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 provides the factors that an ALJ must consider when deciding the weight to give a medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions under the regulatory factors and explain the weight assigned to each opinion.

Birkinshaw v. Astrue · filed 2007-05-22(d)

Remand is necessary for the Commissioner to properly evaluate the medical opinions, explain the relative weight to be accorded each opinion, and support the evaluation with substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) does not require an ALJ to list each factor for weighing a medical opinion when the decision shows the relevant factors were considered.

Bryant v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-02(d)

In addition, although the ALJ did not list the factors stated in § 404.1527(d), the decision indicates that he considered those factors in evaluating Dr. Cindrich’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give reasons for the weight assigned to medical opinions.

Manuel v. Astrue · filed 2010-03-24

Thus, the ALJ properly weighed the medical evidence and gave reasons for her determination in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527’s weighing criteria, including support and consistency with other evidence, apply to a therapist’s opinion under SSR 06-03p.

Dunmore v. Colvin · filed 2013-03-04(c)

Moreover, under SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, 2006 SSR LEXIS 5, the opinions of “non-medical sources,” like those of “acceptable medical sources” must be weighed and evaluated with the criteria set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527, as further amplified in Social Security Rulings 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9 and 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, 1996 SSR LEXIS 2. The factors the ALJ must consider include the consistency of the opinion with the other evidence of record, and the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions and discuss the weight assigned to each under the rules applicable to claims filed before March 27, 2017.

Russell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-01-29

Under the version of the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim, the ALJ must consider all the medical opinions in the record and discuss the weight assigned to each opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount medical opinions when they lack support from the source’s findings and conflict with the record.

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

Here,the ALJ followed the standards set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. The ALJ analyzed the medical opinion evidence and supported his determinations with substantial evidence from the record. Accordingly, the ALJ gave good reasons for discounting the medical opinions and minimally articulated his reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the applicable factors when weighing medical opinions.

VanNorman v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-02-27(c)

The court acknowledges that there are many factors which affect the weight assigned to opinion evidence. It is the ALJ’s duty to evaluate those factors and assess the weight accorded to each opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion; failing to assign a specific weight can be harmless when the opinion is consistent with the ALJ’s findings.

Dicks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-09(c)

The ALJ did not assign a specific weight to the opinions expressed in the records from Advanced Pain Medical Center, but it is clear from the Decision that the ALJ accepted the impressions and diagnoses in the Advanced Pain Medical Center treatment notes. See Tr. at 31. These treatment notes are consistent with the ALJ’s analysis and do not contradict the assessed RFC. See supra pp. 13-14 (discussing Advanced Pain Medical Center treatment notes). Accordingly, any error in the ALJ’s failure to specifically assign weight to the opinions expressed in the treatment notes is harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) provides factors for weighing medical opinions, including the treatment relationship and support for the opinion.

Smith v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c)

The Commissioner may consider several factors, including the examining relationship, length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of treatment, and supportability of the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Accordingly, after giving due consideration to Smith's objection regarding the weight attributable to the physician opinions, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source.

Pelt v. Saul · filed 2020-04-14(c)

Regardless, even if Dr. Saad’s March 30, 2017 opinion was from a non-treating source, it was still a medical opinion that should have been weighed by the ALJ in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to assign weight to medical opinions, but examination findings without a medical opinion do not require an assigned weight.

HARRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-05-07(a)(1), (c)

As pointed out by Defendant, 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), 416.927(c) (providing that the Commissioner weighs “medical opinions”). ... Consequently, the ALJ did not err by not providing any “weight” to Dr. Anthony’s report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to consider factors including supportability, consistency with the record, and understanding of disability programs when weighing medical opinions.

Hamm v. Saul · filed 2020-05-13(c)

Second, the ALJ did not err in assigning significant weight to the opinion of Dr. Metcalf, a nonexamining medical advisor, because the ALJ properly considered the requisite factors and explained how they weighed in favor of Dr. Metcalf’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, and consistency with the record.

Dieter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-01(c)

In deciding what weight to accord competing medical opinions and evidence, the ALJ is guided by factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Furthermore, the ALJ’s decision to afford significant weight to the temporally remote, non-treating, non-examining state agency opinion of Dr. Potera without considering the intervening medical events which took place after that opinion was rendered in September of 2016 has not been adequately justified or supported on the record of these proceedings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the ALJ to consider factors including the treatment relationship when weighing medical opinions.

Randall v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-19(d)

The ALJ reasonably accorded more weight to the opinions of Drs. Gavirneni and Canale, plaintiffs treating psychiatrists who had seen plaintiff many times, than the opinion of Dr. Lipsitz, a consultative psychologist who had seen plaintiff on three occasions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)'s frequency-of-examination factor matters when weighing a treating source's opinion but plays little to no role when weighing a consultative examiner's opinion.

Carroll v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-04-04(c)(2)(i)

“The frequency of examination is a relevant consideration in determining the weight to accord a treating source's opinions,” but it plays little to no role in determining what weight to give to a consultative examiner's opinion. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (providing that “the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source's medical opinion”)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) generally gives more weight to a medical opinion when it is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Wingerter v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-04-21(c)(4)

Substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. French’s opinion less weight, because Wingerter’s improvements were not consistent with Dr. French’s assessments. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)1 (“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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and permits the ALJ, after giving specific and legitimate reasons, to determine the relative weight of conflicting opinions.

Schiaffino v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-05-01(c)

Schiaffino also argues the ALJ improperly discounted his examining physician’s opinion. But his position is contrary to our precedent regarding the ALJ’s power to weigh medical professionals’ testimony. Provided an ALJ evaluates all the medical opinions in the administrative record and provides “specific and legitimate reasons” for her choices, she is the final arbiter of how much relative weight to give opinions that are in tension with or contradict each other. Smartt, 53 F.4th at 494; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here, the ALJ incorporated into her RFC those parts of that examining physician’s report—both those favorable to and those adverse to a disability finding—that were consistent with Schiaffino’s subsequent medical records. Only those parts of the physician’s assessment that conflicted with four other medical opinions, the medical records, and Schiaffino’s activities were discounted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight to meaningfully consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors, without necessarily providing a detailed factor-by-factor analysis.

Howard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-21(c)

Additionally, in evaluating and weighing medical opinions that are not entitled to controlling weight under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must consider: “(1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician's opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... While the ALJ is “not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion . . . it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.” ... Here, the ALJ adequately assessed the factors in weighing Dr. Lapp’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, when no opinion receives controlling weight, to weigh the opinions using the regulatory factors, including supportability and consistency.

Lambakis v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-29(c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(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). ... Accordingly, we find that the ALJ considered all of the medical evidence and adequately explained his reasoning for the weight given to the various medical opinions in this case to determine the range of work Lambakis could perform. Moreover, our independent review of the record discloses that substantial evidence; that is, “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,” Pierce, 487 U.S. at 565, supported these ALJ findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion that lacks support from medical signs or clinical findings or is inconsistent with the record.

Hebert v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-11(c)(3)-(4)

First, the ALJ noted that Dr. Butt did not identify any objective findings or identify a clinical basis to support his opined limitations, including absenteeism, off-task time, or needing to lie down. [R. 1462-63]; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (ALJ may discount opinions unsupported by medical signs or clinical findings). Second, the ALJ found Dr. Butt’s opinion of extreme limitations regarding standing, walking, and carrying inconsistent with examination findings that consistently documented normal ambulation with no assistive device, no problems with balance, and full strength in all extremities. [R. 1462]; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (ALJ may discount opinions inconsistent with the record). ... Regardless, the Court finds the ALJ cited several valid reasons for discounting Dr. Butt’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a non-controlling treating-source opinion to consider the listed factors, including the physician’s treating relationship with the claimant.

Rivette v. Social Security · filed 2023-07-20(c)

As Magistrate Judge Patti sets forth in extensive detail (see ECF No. 25 at Pg ID 1406-28), the ALJ considered the various factors set forth in § 404.1527(c), as she was obligated to do under the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using relevant factors, assign weight to each opinion, and explain conflicts with the residual functional capacity; for claims governed by the treating-physician rule, a treating physician’s opinion is controlling unless it lacks adequate medical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Hudson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-06(b), (c)(2), and (d)

The ALJ must carefully weigh the opinions of the medical sources on file through considering several factors, including length of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ must consider all medical opinion given in the case, assess the weight given to each opinion, and explain any conflict between a medical opinion and the ALJ’s RFC. /d. at § 404.1527(b). ... A treating physician’s opinion is controlling “unless it is unsupported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.” Stephens v. Astrue, 533 F. Supp. 2d 598, 600 (E.D.N.C. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cozzitorto v. Saul · filed 2021-07-07(d)(4)

Here, the ALJ properly gave less weight to Dr. Khoury’s opinion that Plaintiff could walk and stand up to 4 hours in an 8-hour workday because it was not consistent with the medical record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(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.”), 416.927(c)(4) (same). ... Thus, the ALJ provided a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Khoury’s opinion about Plaintiff’s abilities to stand and walk.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with objective findings in the record.

Vavoukakis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-08(c)(4)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, each type is accorded different weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating source than the opinion of a doctor who did not treat the claimant. ... Thus, the ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Leon’s opinion because it was inconsistent with the objective findings in the record. See Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The ALJ need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.”); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) supports giving a medical opinion greater weight when it is consistent with the record as a whole.

Vargas-Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-08(c)(4)

The opinions of Dr. Queipó and Dr. Meléndez were consistent with other evidence in the record, thus, the ALJ properly gave them great weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while § 404.1527(c) supplies factors for evaluating opinions not given controlling weight.

(SS)Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-12(c)(2)

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that more weight is generally given to the opinion of treating physicians, which are given controlling weight when well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Regardless of source, all medical opinions that are not given controlling weight are evaluated using the following factors: examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider available medical evidence, including nonexamining opinions, and permits consideration of an opinion based on a partial record when weighing medical opinions.

James v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-15(b)–(c), (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6)

To begin, ALJ’s are required to consider all the available medical evidence when determining if a party is disabled, including the opinions of nonexamining physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)–(c). While an ALJ should take into account whether a physician has reviewed a full or partial medical record when weighing medical opinions, the opinions of a physician who has only reviewed a partial record may still be considered by an ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assign appropriate weight to a medical opinion after considering relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and the relationship between the opinion's author and the claimant, and to minimally articulate the reasons for the weight assigned.

Hester v. Saul · filed 2021-07-20(c)

When not entitled to controlling weight, as is the case with the opinion of a medical expert like Dr. McKenna in this instance because he was not Claimant’s treating physician, an ALJ must assign the medical opinion appropriate weight after considering relevant factors, such as whether the evidence supported the opinion, whether the opinion was consistent with the record as a whole, and taking into consideration the specifics of the relationship between the opinion’s author and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ is not required to discuss every factor listed in the regulation, Henke v. Astrue, 498 F. App’x 636, 640 n.3 (7th Cir. 2012), but rather the ALJ need only “minimally articulate” his reasons for the weight he assigns to a medical opinion. See Elder, 529 F.3d at 415.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves to the Commissioner the responsibility for deciding whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability, while § 404.1527(c)(4) directs greater weight to opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-06(d)(1), (c)(4)

It is well established that an ALJ is not required to attribute conclusory statements of ability to work any significant weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1) (reserving for the Commissioner the responsibility “for making the determination or decision about whether [a claimant] meet[s] the statutory definition of disability”). Further, Dr. Parks’ medical records were also inconsistent with her assessment because she had also noted the plaintiff’s orthopedic conditions were very mild and he was dramatic about his pain. (Tr. 586, 593). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) gives more weight to medical opinions that are explained than to those that are not.

Owings v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-06(d)(3)

In addition, the regulations give more weight to opinions are explained than to those that are not. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally requires substantial or considerable weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless good cause supports giving it less weight, including when the opinion is unsupported, contradicted, conclusory, or inconsistent with the physician’s records.

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-10(c)(2)

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). There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than substantial or considerable weight, where: (1) the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; (2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or (3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (citing Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1241).

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, so inconsistency with the record can support discounting the opinion.

Setzer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason for discounting both Dr. Puttmann’s opinions, a finding that a physician’s opinion is inconsistent with the medical record may serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the Social Security Administration] will give to that medical opinion.”); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (An ALJ may give less weight to medical opinions that conflict with treatment notes).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives more weight to examining-source opinions than nonexamining-source opinions, but allows an ALJ to credit nonexamining state-agency consultants when their opinions remain consistent with later evidence.

BOND v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2020-08-11(c)(1), (e)(2)(i)

The applicable regulations make clear that, although, as a general matter, opinions from an examining source deserve more weight than those from a non-examining source, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), non-examining state agency consultants constitute “highly qualified physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation[,]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(I). Indeed, ALJs can permissibly credit the opinions of non-examining state agency consultants, who typically render their opinions without the benefit of a full record, over those of examining sources, to the extent the non-examining sources’ opinions remain consistent with the evidence received subsequent to their opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to determine the appropriate weight of a medical opinion by considering factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the treating physician's specialization.

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

Even if a treater’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors,[6] including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally affords more weight to the medical opinion of an examining source than to that of a non-examining source.

Cecelia v. Martinez v. Andrew M. Saul · filed 2020-08-13(c)(1)

The ALJ was entitled to give more weight to the opinions of the doctor who interacted with Plaintiff and administered the tests. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1) (noting that generally more weight is afforded to the medical opinion of an examining source over a non-examining source).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to weigh medical opinions using the regulatory factors, including supportability, but it does not require a medical expert to formulate an opinion in a particular manner.

Hazlett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-13(c)(3)

The regulation to which Plaintiff appeals explains how the SSA will weigh medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (2018) (“How we weigh medical opinions”). Subparagraph (c)(3) explains how the SSA will use the factor of supportability in weighing medical opinions. As Plaintiff’s Brief suggests, it explains in part, “We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources.” Id. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (2018). The regulation applies to the agency’s evaluation of medical opinions and does not require a physician to formulate his opinion in a particular manner. It requires only that the agency (the ALJ in this case) use the five factors in paragraph (c) of § 404.1527 when weighing a physician’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining relationship, supporting explanations, consistency with the record, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

Winner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-13(c)

Instead, an ALJ must weigh such opinions based on: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the degree to which supporting explanations consider pertinent evidence; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) the physician’s specialization related to the medical issues discussed; and (5) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization; failure to consider those factors is legal error.

Deguzman v. Saul · filed 2020-08-14(c)

Inconsistency with the bulk of the physical examination results can be a germane reason for rejecting the opinion of FNP Remigio. However, as with the above analysis, the ALJ failed to comply with the statutory requirements as he failed to discuss any of the § 404.1527(c) factors. The ALJ also failed to identify and explain the specific inconsistencies between FNP Remigio’s opinion and the bulk of the examination results.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cisan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14(c)

The § 404.1527(c) factors include the (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship (including, the length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship), (3) supportability (how much relevant evidence the source has presented to support the medical opinion), (4) consistency with the record, (5) specialization of the source, and (6) any other relevant factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); (f)(1). ... The ALJ properly applied the factor analysis, namely the treatment relationship and supportability factors, to evaluate Dr. Marko’s retrospective opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives greater weight to a medical opinion when the source supports it with relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, and provides a better explanation.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-17(c)(3)

These determinations support the ALJ’s RFC, which found Garcia could perform “simple routine tasks in an environment with little, if any, change, and with occasional interaction with coworkers (no tandem job tasks) and supervisors, and no interaction with the general public.” R. 40; see generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(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.”). Nothing in Montes’s assessment contradicts the ALJ’s RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based on the quality of its explanation and the medical source's familiarity with the case record.

Anderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-12(c)(3), (c)(6)

An ALJ is not required to take medical opinions at face value and may consider the quality of the explanation when determining how much weight to give the opinion. ... Lack of familiarity with the record is a valid consideration for discounting a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6) (explaining that “the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record” is a relevant factor that will be considered in weighing a medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, including when giving greater weight to an other medical source than to a treating physician.

Bachowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(f)(1)

The regulations permit an ALJ to give more weight to an “other medical source” than to that of a treating physician, but in doing so, the ALJ is required to consider the same factors as for assessing any medical opinion: the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the specialization of the medical source. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 (f)(1); (c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a noncontrolling medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, but only some indication of that consideration is needed rather than a full written analysis of every factor.

Andrews v. Saul · filed 2020-08-25(c)(2)-(6)

The Ninth Circuit recently held that an opinion that is not controlling must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). ... However, “Trevizo does not demand a full-blown written analysis of all the factors; it merely requires some indication that the ALJ considered them.” Torres v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-cv-01273-H-PCL, 2018 WL 1245106, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (collecting cases). ... The ALJ did consider the necessary elements. ... The Court therefore concludes that the ALJ did not commit legal error in according Dr. Reddy’s opinion less weight for failure to weigh the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In summation, the ALJ did not err in assigning “less weight” to Dr. Reddy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion to consider the listed factors when determining the weight to give that opinion and other medical opinions.

Moore v. Saul · filed 2020-08-26(c)(2)-(6)

When the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider this nonexclusive list of factors to determine what weight to give the opinion of the treating source and all other medical opinions in the record: (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 654 (4th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned, and consider the listed factors, including support and consistency with the record as a whole.

Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27(c)(1)–(6)

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). Medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: (1) whether there is an examining relationship; (2) whether there is a treatment relationship, and if so the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of the examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)– (6). ... Furthermore, the ALJ failed to discuss the relevant factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)– (6). Most importantly, the ALJ failed to properly compare the opinions to the medical record as a whole. Instead, the ALJ mischaracterized evidence in attempting to compare the opinions to the medical record. This error requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions under the regulatory factors and allows less or no weight when an opinion lacks relevant support or conflicts with the record.

Valentin v. Saul · filed 2020-08-27(c)

Upon considering the opinion evidence of record, 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources and allows them to outweigh acceptable-source opinions when they have greater treatment frequency, support, explanation, and consistency with the record.

Robinson v. Saul · filed 2020-08-28(f), (f)(1)

The ALJ must consider the opinions of other “medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and [the testimony] from nonmedical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). The ALJ is required to consider observations by “other” sources as to how an impairment affects a claimant’s ability to work. Id. Nonetheless, an “ALJ may discount [the] testimony” or an opinion “from these other sources if the ALJ gives … germane [reasons] for doing so.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). “[A]n opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). “For example, it may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source, has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for the opinion, and the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.” Id. ... Once these assessments were made by accepted medical professionals, the ALJ could consider “other” medical sources, such as Ms. Stewart’s opinion, in deciding severity. ... Accordingly, the ALJ erred by giving little weight to the medical opinions of Ms. Stewart.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives deference to opinions from treating sources because of their longitudinal treatment relationship; a one-time examiner is not entitled to treating-physician deference, and the ALJ need only explain the weight assigned rather than provide heightened “good reasons.”

Dobson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-31(c)(2)

Opinions from such sources are entitled to deference “since these are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a patient’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone”. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 408 (6th Cir. 2009). But “the rationale of the treating physician doctrine simply does not apply” where a physician issues an opinion after a single examination. ... The Court therefore finds that Dr. Rainey’s opinion is not a “treating physician” opinion. As such, the ALJ was required to provide an explanation of the weight assigned, but not the heightened “good reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to consider the physician’s relationship with the claimant, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Vinciguerra v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-31(c)

When determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the nature and extent of the physician’s examining or treating relationship with the claimant, supportability of the opinion, consistency with the record as a whole, the specialization of the physician, and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh it using factors such as the examining and treating relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Miller v. Saul · filed 2020-09-03(c)

Although an ALJ will consider medical opinions regarding a plaintiff's functioning, ultimately the ALJ is tasked with reaching an RFC based on the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”). ... “[rlegardless of its source,” the regulations require that every medical opinion be evaluated. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ must consider a number of factors, such as, “examining history, treating relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization to decide the proper weight afforded to each opinion.”

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, supportability, consistency, and specialization, but the ALJ need not expressly list each factor if the decision adequately discusses them and gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Wimsatt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04(c)

The ALJ may not have expressly listed the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, but she did discuss, in great detail, Mr. Wimsatt’s treatment history with both physicians, which includes the nature and extent of the treating relationships [R. 932-936]. She specifically noted Dr. Maskiny’s specialty, pulmonology [R. 933]. She also discussed the supportability of the opinions and their consistency with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives more weight to opinions from examining sources than to opinions from sources who have not examined the claimant.

Isch v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04(c)(1)

An opinion from an examining source is generally given more weight than a source who hasn’t examined the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. 404. 1527(c)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions with other relevant evidence, explain the weight assigned and the reasons for it, and weigh opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Mack v. Berryhill (CONSENT) · filed 2020-09-09(b), (c)

The regulations provide that the ALJ must consider all medical opinions in a claimant’s case record together with other relevant evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), and that “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and there 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)). ... Multiple factors go into the ALJ’s weighing of a medical opinion: [T]he 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. Non-examining physicians’ opinions are entitled to little weight when they contradict opinions of examining physicians and do not alone constitute substantial evidence. Schink, 935 F.3d at 1260 (citing Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 280; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). ... However, the ALJ gave significant weight to the opinion of Dr. Cohen, who reviewed the longitudinal evidence of record and testified specifically as to plaintiff’s limitations with respect to listing 12.05 as well as listing 112.05. See Doc. 16-12 at 53-62, R. 710-719. This was not error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a physician’s statement about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, what the claimant can still do, or the claimant’s physical and mental restrictions as a medical opinion that the ALJ must weigh and explain with particularity.

Hayes v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2020-09-09(a)(2)

In Winschel v. Commissioner of Social Security, 631 F.3d 1176, 1178-79 (11th Cir. 2011), the Eleventh Circuit held that whenever a physician offers a statement reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, what the claimant can still do despite his or her impairments, and the claimant’s physical and mental restrictions, the statement is an opinion requiring the ALJ to state with particularity the weight given to it and the reasons therefor. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2); Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987)). ... While the Commissioner argues that the ALJ “properly considered the relevant factors including: the examining relationship, whether the opinion is well-supported; consistency with the record; and specialization,” Doc. 15 at 12-13, controlling law requires an ALJ to state with particularity the weight given to opinions and the reasons therefor, not merely to consider them. Under these circumstances, the court must remand this matter for additional proceedings.

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.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-03(c)(4)

“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [an ALJ] will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) require an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record when deciding how much weight to give it.

Jenkins v. Saul · filed 2020-09-10(c)(3), (c)(4)

Also, a physician’s opinion is afforded significantly less weight if it is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(3), (4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, support, and consistency, and applies the same framework to nonmedical-source evidence as appropriate.

Tredik v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-11(c), (f)(1)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinion evidence, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, and whether an opinion is consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ applied proper legal standards because nonmedical sources are evaluated under the same framework as medical sources, such that the ALJ’s observation that Wood’s letter was not as detailed and supported by objective criteria as medical reports was a reasonable application of the standard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, weigh it using the specified factors, and give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Garza v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-14(b)-(d)

Social Security Regulations require ALJs to evaluate every medical opinion in the record, including the opinions of non-examining State Agency physicians. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b)-(c), 416.927(b)-(c); SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180. Every medical source opinion should be weighed by the ALJ in consideration of the following applicable “deference factors”: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Ultimately, the ALJ must give good reasons that are “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers” for the weight that she ultimately assigns the opinion. ... Failure to do so constitutes legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining or treating relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's specialization.

Jackson v. Saul · filed 2020-09-15(c)

The relevant social security regulations3 provide that “medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [their] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). “When weighing each medical opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the doctor has examined the claimant; the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; the medical evidence supporting the doctor’s opinion; how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and the doctor’s specialization.” ... Based on its review of the ALJ’s decision and the record, the Court finds that the ALJ properly applied the appropriate standard in evaluating the weight to be accorded the medical opinions of Dr. Ward and Dr. Collins as they were consistent with the totality of the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using the source’s examining and treatment relationships, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, giving more weight to opinions with relevant supporting evidence and better explanations.

Escobedo v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(c)(1)–(6), (c)(3)

In evaluating any medical opinion, the ALJ may consider: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; (3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the source’s specialization; and (6) “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675. An ALJ may reject an opinion that is “conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider each listed factor when weighing a medical opinion, but need not explicitly discuss every factor in the decision.

Bobman v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-09-16(c)

An ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to a medical opinion and the reasons therefor. Id. at 1179. In rendering this determination, an ALJ must assess: (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). While an ALJ is required to consider each of these factors, it is not necessary that she explicitly address them in her decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Seely v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-16(c)

Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the ALJ did not err in characterizing Dr. Elder’s evaluation as a “one-time examination,” as that is both an accurate and relevant consideration of two regulatory factors: 1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination and 2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors, including consistency with the record, and treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

King v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-18(c)(4), (d)(1)

In evaluating any medical opinion, the ALJ may consider: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; (3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the source’s specialization; and (6) “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675. ... First, the ALJ properly discounted the opinions because of their noted inconsistency with other evidence in the record, namely, Plaintiff’s activities and previous work.11 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195. ... Third, the ALJ properly discounted the physicians’ opinions that Plaintiff was “disabled” or “unable to work” because they regarded the ultimate issue of disability, an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“A statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.”).

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.

(SS) Barron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-18(c)(4)

Thus, the limitations assessed by Dr. Sandbek were largely consistent with the opinions from the examining psychologist. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion’).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and to consider specified relationship, support, consistency, and specialty factors when weighing medical opinions.

Braymer v. Saul · filed 2020-09-18(c)(1)-(5), (d)(1)-(2)

Regardless of the decision the ALJ must still provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned the treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The ALJ must weigh each opinion by considering the following factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and the medical source, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the physician provides support for his findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the physician’s findings, and the physician’s area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5), 416 .927(c)(1)-(5). ... Thus, the ALJ provided “good reasons” for assigning little weight to Dr. Sensenich’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing each medical opinion, and subsection (c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion unless good cause supports otherwise.

Steen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(c), (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 controlling weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. 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); see also Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to state the weight assigned to a medical opinion, but not to other forms of medical evidence.

SHEPPARD v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-09-23(c)

An ALJ is required to state what weight she ascribes to a medical opinion, but not to other forms of medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider the quality of a medical opinion's explanation and its consistency with the record when deciding how much weight to give the opinion, including an "other source" opinion.

Leyva v. Saul · filed 2020-09-24(c)(3), (c)(4), (f)

An ALJ is not required to take medical opinions at face value, but may take into account the quality of the explanation when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion. See Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole is also a germane factor for an ALJ to consider in evaluating the weight due to an “other source.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(4), 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating an opinion to consider factors including the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and the opinion's consistency with the other evidence.

Hubbard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-25(d)

In evaluating Ms. Jefferson’s opinion, the ALJ should have considered the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d), including how long Ms. Jefferson has known the claimant, the frequency of the counseling sessions, and how consistent her opinion is with the other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Sections 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) make supportability and consistency relevant factors in deciding the weight to give a medical opinion.

Scott H. O. v. Saul · filed 2020-09-25(c)(3)-(c)(4)

An ALJ may properly reject a treating physician’s opinion that is unsupported by clinical findings. See Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 671 (9th Cir. 2012); Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(c)(4) (supportability and consistency are factors relevant to the weight afforded a medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives treating-source opinions greater weight because of the treating relationship and does not require deference to a one-time consultative examiner's opinion.

Palencia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-25(c)(2)

Here, Dr. Pasman is a consultative examiner and, as such, his opinion is not entitled to the deference normally given treating sources. McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987)(finding that opinions of consultative examining physicians “are not entitled to deference because as one-time examiners they were not treating physicians”); Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., F.3d 1155, 1160-61 (11th Cir. 2004)(“The ALJ correctly found that, because [a consultative examiner] examined [claimant] on only one occasion, her opinion was not entitled to great weight.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (explaining that treating sources are given greater weight because their opinions “may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion.

Ricks v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(c)

The relevant social security regulations provide that “medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [their] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... “When weighing each medical opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the doctor has examined the claimant; the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; the medical evidence supporting the doctor’s opinion; how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and the doctor’s specialization.” ... Based on its review of the ALJ’s decision and the record, the Court finds that the ALJ properly applied the appropriate standard in evaluating the weight to be accorded to Dr. Tribble’s opinion regarding Ricks’s functional capacity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an administrative law judge to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor and requires good reasons for giving an examining source less weight.

Zumpone v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-30(c)

Importantly, an ALJ is not required to explicitly analyze every factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (There is “no law . . . requiring an ALJ’s decision to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.”). However, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for why she ascribes less weight to an examining source’s opinion. Id. The ALJ in this case has failed to provide such reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Cain v. Saul · filed 2020-10-02(c)

Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and what the claimant can still do despite her impairments and her physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927(a)(2). All medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).