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 an ALJ to apply the regulatory factors when weighing medical-opinion evidence.

Moran v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-05(c)

In discounting these opinions from these sources, the ALJ applied the requisite factors under the law and gave sound reasons for discounting them. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (detailing the factors for weighing medical opinion evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion less weight when it is inconsistent with the medical record as a whole.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-10-06(c)(4)

An ALJ may afford a medical opinion less weight on the basis that it is inconsistent with the medical record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) was applied to the evaluation of medical-source opinions: the court treated the psychologists' opinions as acceptable medical-source opinions and held that the ALJ could prefer the examining psychologist's opinion over the nonexamining psychologist's opinion because the former examined the claimant.

Bushey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-07(f)

Nor did the ALJ err by relying solely on the consultative examining psychologist’s opinion as Plaintiff’s argues, Plaintiff’s Memorandum at 19-21; Plaintiff’s Reply at 3-5, but, as Defendant maintains, Defendant’s Memorandum at 17-20, properly weighed such medical opinions including that of consultative psychologists, Dr. Fabiano, and Dr. Dipeolu. See AR at 21-22. Significantly, Drs. Fabiano and Dipeolu, as psychologists, are the only medical sources in the record whose opinions are acceptable according to the relevant regulations.8 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). ... Nevertheless, the ALJ was free to prefer the opinion of Dr. Fabiano over Dr. Dipeolu, explaining he did so because Dr. Dipeolu did not examine Plaintiff.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh an examining source’s medical opinion using the regulatory factors, including its consistency with the record as a whole.

Godbey v. SSA · filed 2020-10-13(c)(4)

Unlike the opinions of treating physicians, the opinions of one-time examining sources are not entitled to any special degree of deference. Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 1994). Instead, they should be weighed considering the factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... As such, ALJ Bowling concluded that Fishkoff’s opinion was unpersuasive because it was largely inconsistent with the record. [Tr. 26]; 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 we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the other evidence in the record when deciding what weight to give it.

(SS) Bens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-15(c)(4)

The ALJ found Dr. O’Grady’s opinion that plaintiff could perform simple work was consistent with neuropsychological test results, and thus entitled to weight because consistent with the record. AR 26; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (ALJ considers how consistent an opinion is with the other evidence in the record); Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957 (non-treating source opinion is substantial evidence where it is supported by independent evidence in the record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(6) directs an ALJ to consider an opinion’s supportability, consistency with the record, source specialization, and familiarity with the disability program and case record when deciding how much weight to give it.

Gaudette v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-16(c)(3)–(6)

Second, the ALJ properly considered the amount of evidentiary support or explanation provided in Welch’s opinions, finding that they are “rather conclusory,” as they do not cite treatment records or other evidence to support the extreme findings contained therein. (AR 23.) See 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.”). ... Third and finally, the ALJ found that Welch’s opinions are “inconsistent with the treatment records in evidence, including his own treatment notes, showing mostly mild to moderate symptoms, and good response to depression medication.” (AR 23.) The ALJ properly considered whether Welch’s opinions are consistent with the medical record, as the regulations provide that this is an important factor for an ALJ to evaluate in determining the value of a medical provider’s opinions. 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”). ... The ALJ gave “great weight” to these opinions, “in light of” Dr. Claiborn’s medical expertise in psychology, knowledge of social security disability regulations, and “unique position having reviewed . . . the record[].” (AR 21.) These were proper factors for the ALJ to consider in assessing the opinions of Dr. Claiborn, and they are supported by the record including Dr. Claiborn’s Curriculum Vitae (AR 1069–74). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(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 than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”); id. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6) (“[T]he amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has, . . . and the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record are relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, source specialization, and other relevant factors.

Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-20(c)

When weighing opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; relevant evidence supporting the opinion; the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole; the specialization of the opinion's source; 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 requires medical opinions to be evaluated using the listed factors, but an ALJ need not recite every factor mechanically when the reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Ruff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-22(c)(1) through (c)(6)

Although “other source” opinions are not given the extra weight accorded a treating physician, the opinions are analyzed using the same factors that apply to acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) through (c)(6). The Second Circuit, however, does not require a “slavish recitation of each and every factor where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the opinion to be weighed under the regulatory factors.

Huckabee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-22(c)(2)

If the ALJ decides not to give the opinion controlling weight, he is to weigh it applying the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). Supportability and consistency are two important factors to consider in weighing medical opinions. In a nutshell, “[t]he regulations state that an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by ‘medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [,]’ and (2) it is ‘not inconsistent’ with substantial evidence in the record.” Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when assigning weight to medical opinions, including treating-source opinions.

Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-23(c)

Treating sources are entitled to deference and must be weighed using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. An ALJ’s decision to accept one physician’s opinion over another’s without consideration of the factors is reason for reversal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the medical source's specialization.

Coppolo v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-10-28(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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider a medical source's understanding of the disability program and evidentiary requirements, but that factor alone cannot justify giving a reviewing source more weight than an examining source.

McKee v. Saul · filed 2020-10-28(c)(6)

With respect to the first reason, a physician’s understanding of the disability program and evidentiary requirements may be a factor the ALJ may consider in evaluating what weight to be given to a medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c)(6). But it is not a reason by itself to place greater weight on a reviewing source’s opinion over an examining source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions by considering the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

SORRENTINI v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2020-10-30(b) & (c)(1)-(6)

As the finder of fact, the ALJ is charged with the duty to evaluate all the medical opinions of the record and resolve conflicts that might appear. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. When considering medical opinions, the following factors apply for determining the weight to give to any medical opinion: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion, such as “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight” that opinion is given; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist and, if it is, it will be accorded greater weight; and (5) other relevant but unspecified factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) & (c)(1)-(6). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision; and she accorded the treating physician’s opinion proper weight and considered numerous factors when evaluating the doctor’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Tr. 24-29. The ALJ explained the weight she gave to Dr. Brodsky’s opinion with sufficient specificity to withstand judicial scrutiny. The Court may not, essentially, reweigh the evidence. Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240 n.8. No error has been shown.

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 the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, and supportability, without giving a one-time consultative examiner special deference.

Brow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-02(c)

These opinions are weighed “‘based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.’” Hobbs, at *3 (quoting Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). ... Rather, opinions from one-time consultative examiners are not due any special degree of deference. Id. (citing Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 1994)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to consider a medical source’s specialty along with other factors, including consistency with the overall record, and no single factor is dispositive when weighing the opinion.

Ketring v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-04(c)(1)-(5)

The physician’s speciality, however, is one of several factors – including consistency with the overall record – that the Commissioner must consider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5), 416.927(c)(1)-(5). No single factor is dispositive.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the relevant regulatory factors, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if the decision explains the evaluation sufficiently for meaningful judicial review.

Hinson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-09(c)

“[A]n ALJ need not explicitly discuss each [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] factor in his decision . . . . Instead, an ALJ need only explain his evaluation of the medical evidence for the district court to meaningfully review whether his reasoning accords with the regulation’s standards.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh non-treating and nonexamining medical opinions using factors such as the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, supportability, and other considerations that support or contradict the opinion.

Labreche v. SSA · filed 2020-11-09(c)

Generally speaking, the SSA “give[s] more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [him].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). An ALJ need not provide “good reasons” for discounting the opinions of nonexamining and nontreating physicians, as opposed to treating physicians, and instead “weighs these opinions based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). In addition, “[o]ther factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the opinion’ may be considered in assessing any type of medical opinion.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, consistent with the record as a whole, and offered by sources familiar with the claimant's case record.

McCusker v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-10(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6)

But even if she did, I conclude that the ALJ offered adequate reasons to account for the weight he assigned to Dr. Gaeta’s opinion. 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) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); id. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T]he extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [a claimant’s] case record [is among] relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”). Accordingly, I conclude that the ALJ was entitled to rely upon Dr. Gaeta’s opinion in crafting the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, including the opinion’s level of explanation when assigning weight.

Yanez-Palmer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-10(c)(1)–(6), (c)(3)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. ... ALJs may consider the level of explanation in evaluating the weight of medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6) direct adjudicators to give greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, consistent with the record, and from sources familiar with the claimant's case record.

McCusker v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-11-10(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(6)

But even if she did, I conclude that the ALJ offered adequate reasons to account for the weight he assigned to Dr. Gaeta’s opinion. 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) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); id. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T]he extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [a claimant’s] case record [is among] relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”). Accordingly, I conclude that the ALJ was entitled to rely upon Dr. Gaeta’s opinion in crafting the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the listed factors, including supportability and consistency.

Pat v. Saul · filed 2020-11-12(c)

The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received according to a list of factors set forth by the Social Security Administration. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner is not entitled to special significance, while a doctor’s specialty and consistency with the record are factors in weighing a medical opinion.

Smith v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-12(c)(4), (c)(5), (d)(1)-(3)

Finally, Dr. Betkowski’s opinion as to disability was an opinion reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(3) (treating source opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner are never entitled to any special significance). ... Moreover, a doctor’s specialty is only one factor that an ALJ considers, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5), and here the ALJ gave Dr. Maravelli’s opinion great weight because it was consistent with the record that she considered, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), a finding Plaintiff has failed to challenge.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c)(3) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion as too vague to be useful because a better-explained opinion receives more weight.

Kesic · filed 2025-11-06(c)(3)

A finding that an opinion is too vague to be useful in making a disability determination can serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight the Social Security Administration will give that opinion); see Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that statement that the plaintiff would have “decreased concentration skills” was too vague to be useful in the disability determination).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Proctor v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-19(c)(2)–(6)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions when assessing a claimant’s RFC. The regulations instruct that the weight assigned to medical opinions is determined based on factors including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, the length and nature of treatment, supportability, consistency, and specialization, among other factors. ... If a treating physician’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ need not give it controlling weight. ... If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in assigning its relative weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) generally favors opinions from sources who examined or treated the claimant and requires consideration of the treatment relationship and other listed factors when weighing a medical opinion.

Meissner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-24(c)(1)-(2)

Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinion of someone who does not actually treat the claimant. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)-(2). ... The ALJ must consider several factors when evaluating the opinion of such sources, including: (1) length of relationship and frequency of contact; (2) consistency of opinion with other evidence; (3) quality of source’s explanation for opinion; (4) any specialty or expertise related to impairment; and (5) any other factors tending to support or refute the opinion. See id. at *2–3; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of a treating source opinion's supportability by medical signs and laboratory findings and its consistency with the record as a whole when weighing the opinion.

Thompson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-18(c)

See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with other medical evidence, including the physician’s treatment notes); Connett v. Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 875 (9th Cir. 2003) (treating physician’s opinion properly rejected where physician’s treatment notes “provide no basis for the functional restrictions he opined should be imposed on [the claimant]”); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (factors to consider in weighing treating source opinion include the supportability of the opinion by medical signs and laboratory findings as well as the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole).

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.

Mayhew v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(c)(4)

[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we 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)–(4) directs adjudicators to give greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and explanations and consistent with the record as a whole.

Oman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-30(c)(3), (c)(4)

The Magistrate Judge determined the ALJ’s decision as a whole revealed that the ALJ summarized and considered Plaintiff’s medical records and reasonably found that the medical records undermined some of the limitations posited. Id. at 11 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”); 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 court’s independent review of the record also compels the conclusion that the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinion evidence is supported by substantial evidence. ... After reviewing the entire record, the applicable law, the briefs of the parties, the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference.

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.

Carpenter v. Saul · filed 2020-12-02(c)(4)

The consistency of an opinion with the record as a whole is a relevant factor for an ALJ to consider. 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 we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cox v. Saul · filed 2020-12-02(c)

When deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ considers the following factors: length and frequency of the treatment relationship; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; evidence provided in support of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the source’s level of 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 to evaluate medical opinions by considering factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, after determining whether a treating opinion receives controlling weight.

Earley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-07(c)

In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, an ALJ must “evaluate all medical opinions” with regard to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s). ... Accordingly, as previously found by Judge Ovington, the ALJ’s “decision to fault Dr. Byers’s opinion due to the lack of objection supporting evidence constituted error” and merits reversal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when determining the weight to give medical opinions.

SADOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-14(c)(1)–(6)

Moreover, in determining what weight to accord medical opinions, the ALJ must consider the several factors laid out under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those factors are the examining relationship; the treatment relationship, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and any other factor brought to the ALJ’s attention. See § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the record, including opinions predating the alleged onset date, although the opinion's date may affect the weight assigned to it.

Rosenblum v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-12-17(b), (c)

The ALJ is obligated to evaluate all medical opinions of record, resolve conflicts in medical testimony, and analyze evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1989). ... Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). In an unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit applied this rule to include medical evidence that predates the alleged onset date of disability. See Williams v. Astrue, 493 F. App’x 866, 868 (9th Cir. 2012) (concluding that ALJ erred in failing to consider medical opinions from up to six years predating plaintiff’s alleged onset date). ... “Thus, while the date of the opinion may be one factor the ALJ can consider in giving an opinion more or less weight, a medical opinion is not insignificant or not probative merely because it is rendered prior to an alleged onset date, particularly in cases where the claimant suffers from an ongoing impairment.” Henderson v. Comm’r, SSA, No. 6:17-cv-00481-HZ, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76626, at *26 (D. Or. May 4, 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating acceptable medical source's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while opinions from other medical sources are evaluated under the listed factors and their weight should be explained.

Bristow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-21(a)(1)-(2), (c)(2), (f)(1)-(2)

As Plaintiff filed his applications prior to March 27, 2017, the rules in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 apply to the ALJ’s assignment of weight to the medical opinions in the record. “Controlling weight” is given to the opinion of an “acceptable medical source” that is treating the claimant if that opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1)-(2) and (c)(2), 416.927(a)(1)-(2) and (c)(2); Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). ... However, the regulations direct that an opinion from “medical sources” such as Ms. Briggs, who is not “acceptable medical sources,” will be considered “using the same factors as listed paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) in this section” and an Administrative Law Judge should explain the weight given to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1)-(2), 416.927(f)(1)-(2). This means the ALJ must weigh Ms. Briggs’ opinion based on factors such as the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, and supportability. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

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.

Steele v. Saul · filed 2020-12-23(c)(4)

Moreover, in noting that Dr. Bijpuria’s opinion “was partially consistent with the medical evidence” and that the “record as a whole reasonably supports the sedentary RFC” (id., PageID.57-58), the ALJ sufficiently indicated that she considered Dr. Bijpuria’s opinion in conjunction with the other record evidence in assigning it weight, and found that it better supported Dr. Bijpuria’s opinion than Dr. Allen’s. 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.”); ... Accordingly, Steele has not persuasively shown reversible error in the ALJ’s consideration of the medical opinions of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and explain the weight assigned using the regulation’s factors.

PENROSE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-23(c)

The ALJ here fulfilled his obligation to explain what weight he afforded to a medical opinion and why he assigned the weight as he did. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(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)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, while subsections (c)(3)-(6) require weighing other medical opinions using factors including supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Shafor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-23(c)(2)-(6)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must give “controlling” weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record. . . .” 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Where, as here, there are no treating physician opinions, the ALJ must weigh the opinions of the other medical sources in accordance with certain regulatory factors. The opinion of a non-treating medical source is weighed based on the medical specialty of the source, how well-supported by evidence the opinion is, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the claimant’s case record when evaluating disability.

Lanning v. Saul · filed 2020-12-28(b)

An ALJ “must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). ... Lanning’s attorney relied on Dr. Palasi’s opinions at the administrative hearing, but the ALJ never mentioned them in his decision. That was error, see Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 596 (9th Cir. 2009), and it was not harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to favor a medical opinion that is most consistent with the record evidence.

Kitchens v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-12-29(c)

That decision complies with Social Security law, which permits an ALJ to favor a medical opinion he perceives as the most consistent with the record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Davis, 449 F. App’x at 832.

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 specialization.

(SS) (CONSENT) Wiebe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-29(c)

Additionally, when weighing medical opinions, an ALJ is required to consider the factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The required factors include the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the extent to which the opinion is supported by evidence, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the medical source is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using the regulatory factors after determining that it is not entitled to controlling weight, but does not require express application of every factor if the ALJ gives good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-04(c)(1)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight the ALJ proceeds to weigh it alongside the other medical evidence in accordance with regulatory factors at the second step of the analysis. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (quoting SSR 96–2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4). The relevant factors are: ... Krauser, 638 F.3d at 1331 (quoted authority omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). An ALJ is “not required ‘to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.’” Razo v. Colvin, 663 F. App’x 710, 715 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (quoting Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007)). Rather, the ALJ must only provide “good reasons,” supported by substantial evidence, for the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to opinions from treating physicians than to opinions from non-treating physicians.

Hays v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-06(c)(2)

The opinions of treating physicians are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using factors including the physician’s examination and treatment relationship, the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Rife v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-07(c)

He must evaluate and weigh the opinion based on the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which include “(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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion less or no weight when it lacks relevant supporting evidence or a sufficient explanation, or when it is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Nofsker v. Saul · filed 2021-01-12(c)

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(c) generally accords greater weight to medical opinions from sources who have examined or treated the claimant and to specialists, unless the ALJ articulates a reason to vary from that preference.

Moore v. Saul · filed 2021-01-13(c)

“Under [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)], greater weight is generally accorded to the medical opinion of a source who has examined the claimant; a source who has treated the claimant; and a specialist in the relevant area of medicine.” Absent articulation of some reason to vary from that regulation, it was error for ALJ Ziercher to reject the medical opinion of an examining source and adopt the opinions of non-examining state agency consultants.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering the physician’s examination and relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, while stating the weight and reasons with particularity.

Gutierrez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-15(c)

An ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to a medical opinion and the reasons therefor. ... 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). ... And, as the Regulations further require, the ALJ also properly considered whether Dr. Chapa provided a specific explanation supporting the functional limitations he imposed and whether Dr. Chapa’s opinions harmonized with the record as a whole, including the Plaintiff’s own self-reported abilities. Id. at § 404.1527(c)(3)–(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) provides that the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it should receive.

Rourke v. Saul · filed 2021-01-14(c)(4)

LCSW Sirignano’s opinion in the MCS is also inconsistent with the record as a whole. 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 medical opinions to be evaluated under the listed factors, including consistency with the record as a whole, so generally more consistent opinions receive more weight.

Staudenmaier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-22(c)(2)(4)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(4), one of the factors listed is “Consistency. 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 found that Dr. Thomas’ opinion was inconsistent with the findings of the mental status examinations, and therefore gave Dr. Thomas’ opinion little weight. [Doc. 13-2 at 34]. The Court does not find that the ALJ failed to weigh the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and, accordingly, this objection is overruled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, and § 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Kitt v. Saul · filed 2021-01-22(c), (c)(2)

SSA regulations require ALJs to follow a six-factor test in evaluating and deciding the weight to give any medical opinion. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c). The administrative regulations further require that ALJs give “good reasons” in deciding the weight to give a treating source’s medical opinion. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2); see Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (“the Commissioner will always give good reasons in her notice of determination for the weight she gives claimant’s treating source’s opinion”) (internal citations and punctuation omitted); Colon v. Astrue, No. 10-CV-3779 (KAM), 2011 WL 3511060, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (reiterating that an ALJ must give good reasons for weight accorded to medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) makes the length and frequency of the examining relationship a factor in weighing a medical opinion, but not a dispositive factor, and also requires consideration of the opinion’s supportability and other listed factors.

(SS) Cisneros v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(c)

The regulations provide that the length and frequency of the examining relationship is a factor to be considered when assessing medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, the regulations do not provide that it is a dispositive factor, nor do the regulations prohibit an ALJ from discounting one opinion based on the number of examinations while crediting other opinions for unrelated reasons. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ’s reasoning here was proper.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider a medical source’s expertise and other listed factors when weighing the source’s opinion, including its consistency with the record as a whole, but does not permit giving a nurse practitioner’s opinion little weight solely because the practitioner is not an acceptable medical source.

Frankovis-Miesfeld v. Saul · filed 2021-01-26(c)

While an ALJ cannot give a nurse practitioner’s opinion “little weight” solely because she is not an acceptable medical source, see Mallett v. Saul, No. 19-CV-512, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48433, at *11 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 20, 2020) (citing Gulley v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-1782, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25986, at *5 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 19, 2019)), the fact that a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source may appropriately factor into an ALJ’s decision to discount her opinion insofar as it reflects a lack of relevant expertise or otherwise may be relevant to the factors under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every listed factor when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, if the decision can be meaningfully reviewed.

Guillar v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2021-01-28(c)

Guillar also argues the ALJ “failed to address” the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when she determined how much weight to give to Dr. Gilder’s opinion, Aplt. Opening Br. at 24, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each of these factors for this court to meaningfully review her decision, see Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider how well a medical opinion is explained and discount an opinion that is inadequately explained.

Valenta v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-28(c)(3)

An ALJ may properly consider the extent to which opinions are explained and may discount opinions that are inadequately explained. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); See, e.g., Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider the length and frequency of a treating relationship when weighing a medical opinion, but requires an explanation of how those factors undermine the opinion.

Black v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-29(c)

In addition, the ALJ may consider the length of a treating relationship and frequency of visits when evaluating a medical opinion. see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here, the ALJ did not specifically discuss how or why Dr. Oberg’s short treating relationship with Plaintiff or how Dr. Oberg “not offer[ing] any explanation about the significant discrepancies between his written statement and evidence” undermines the legitimacy of his opinion. See AR 21. Accordingly, the ALJ’s third reason for discounting Dr. Oberg’s opinion is not specific and legitimate and supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an adjudicator to give greater weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole, while § 404.1527(c)(6) makes the source's familiarity with the claimant's case record a relevant factor.

Deana Rose Discordia v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-01(c)(4), (c)(6)

But even if she did, I conclude that the ALJ offered adequate reasons to account for the weight he assigned to Dr. Green’s opinion. 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.”); id. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T]he extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [a claimant’s] case record [is among] relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”). Accordingly, I conclude that the ALJ was entitled to rely upon Dr. Green’s opinion in crafting the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, and permits giving an opinion little weight when it lacks supporting evidence or is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Mullen v. Saul · filed 2021-02-01(c)(3)-(4)

ALJs must weigh all medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners, 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) (2017). ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the regulatory factors in assigning little weight to Dr. Johnson’s opinion. The ALJ gave the opinion little weight because it was inconsistent with the medical evidence in the record, which serves as an appropriate ground to discount medical opinion testimony. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (2017) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly afforded his opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider the longitudinal timing of a treating physician’s opinion and to reject an opinion that is inconsistent with the record when determining its weight.

Esparza v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-12(c)(2)(i), (c)(4)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. ... The ALJ was permitted to consider the timing of Dr. Gutierrez’s opinion in considering its persuasiveness. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“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 . . .”). ... As for Dr. Goel’s opinions regarding Plaintiff’s functional limitations, the ALJ’s consideration that the opinions were inconsistent with the record was a permissible basis for rejecting the opinions and is supported by the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); see also Berry v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 1228, 1236 (9th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider its supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, and the source's familiarity with the claimant's case record.

Ewing v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-16(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6)

The Commissioner's regulations specifically direct the ALJ to evaluate all medical opinion evidence according to certain factors, including its consistency with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). The ALJ is also required consider the degree to which a medical opinion is supported by other evidence in the record. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). ... The ALJ could properly assign minimal weight to Dr. Lynch’s opinion under the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, and doing so cannot be construed as the ALJ making an independent medical finding. ... The ALJ could properly consider Dr. Lynch’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s treatment history in his evaluation of Dr. Lynch’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 419.927(c)(6) (“[T]he extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record [is a] relevant factor[] that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion supported by more relevant evidence.

KELSEY v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-16(c)(3)

Agency regulations provide that the more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, the more weight the opinion may receive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). In this regard, Dr. Abeles’ report is lacking.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh each medical opinion using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Seliverstova v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-18(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)–404.1527(c)(6). The ALJ may assign lesser weight to a controverted opinion of a treating physician, as is the case here, if the ALJ articulates “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions based on factors including the source’s examining and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Minton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-19(c)

In determining the weight given to a claimant’s medical opinions, the ALJ may look at several factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the doctor and patient, the supportability of the doctor’s opinion, the consistency of the doctor’s opinion with the record as a whole, the doctor’s specialty, and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c). A doctor’s opinion may be discounted based on the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

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.

White v. Saul · filed 2021-02-22(c)(4)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(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.”); Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1464 (9th Cir. 1996).

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, permitting reduced weight when the opinion is inconsistent with the record.

Lueras v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-23(c)(4)

The ALJ, therefore, had a justifiable basis for finding that Dr. Hughson’s opinions were inconsistent with the record. 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) makes the weight given to a nonexamining medical opinion depend on the degree of supporting explanation, and the court held that state-agency consultants satisfied the regulation by considering all the evidence before them.

Cardenas v. Saul · filed 2021-02-24(c)(3)

“At the time they issued their opinions, the non-examining experts had considered all the evidence before them, satisfying the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).” ... The ALJ did not err in giving partial weight to the opinions of Drs. Parikh, Brode, and Adamo.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight to address the regulatory factors for weighing that opinion, including supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, and specialization.

Bragg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-24(c)

Even if these reasons are sufficient to support ALJ Smith’s decision to afford Dr. Gayles’ opinion less than controlling weight, her cursory explanation does not satisfy her obligation to address the factors outlined in 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). ... ALJ Smith did not explicitly address the remaining Burgess factors. Although she summarily asserts that she “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR [§§] 404.1527 and 416.927”, her Decision does not demonstrate that she did so.

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.

Villalobo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-25(c)(4)

With regard to any medical opinion not given controlling weight, the more consistent it is with the record as a whole, the more weight it will be given. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion less or no weight when it lacks relevant supporting evidence or explanation or is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Harrison v. Saul · filed 2021-02-25(c)

Further, 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 evaluate medical opinions using the regulatory factors and permits giving an opinion less or no weight when it lacks relevant supporting evidence or explanation or conflicts with the record as a whole.

Sherman v. Saul · filed 2021-02-25(c)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, 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; 416.927. 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); 416.927(c). ... Applying the above standard to the present record, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in weighing the opinions of Dr. Sowerby and Dr. Gavazzi.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(5) requires considering supportability, consistency, and the medical source’s specialization when deciding the weight to give a medical opinion.

NARDONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-26(c)(3)–(5)

The ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion if it is “not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” or is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record,” provided that the ALJ explains his reasoning. ... see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)–(5), 416.927(c)(3)–(5) (setting forth the factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion, including supportability, consistency, and specialization of the medical source).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including examination, treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, and specialization; a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence receives controlling weight.

Lupe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(c)

Medical opinions, regardless of the source, are evaluated by considering several factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Controlling weight will be given to a treating physician’s opinion that is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” ... Unless controlling weight is given to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in determining the weight assigned to a medical opinion: whether or not the source examined the claimant; the existence, length and nature of a treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; evidentiary support offered; consistency with the record as a whole; and specialization of the examiner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including its consistency with the overall record and the length and nature of the treatment relationship.

Christopher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-26(c)

In accordance with the regulations, the ALJ appropriately weighed PA Snow’s opinion using the factors listed at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), including consistency with the overall record, length and nature of the treatment relationship.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider whether a treating physician’s opinion is consistent with the record and supported by objective clinical findings when deciding the weight to give it.

(SS) Castro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-02(c)(3)-(4)

First, it is entirely proper for an ALJ to consider whether a treating physician’s opinion is consistent with the record and supported by objective clinical findings. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4); Lester, 81 F.3d at 831; Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (finding that an incongruity between the treating physician’s opinion and her medical records was a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting her opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors—including examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors—when weighing medical opinions.

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

While the ALJ referred to Dr. Gupta’s opinion in the decision, he did no more than simply list observations from the opinion favorable to his conclusion and then disregard them as inconsistent with the State Agency consultant opinions. The ALJ provided no analysis, failed to weigh all the medical findings and (mischaracterized the ones he did rely upon), and provided no discussion of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), such as the fact that Dr. Gupta was an examining doctor whereas the state agency consultant was not. There is also no discussion by the ALJ as to whether the medical opinions of either Dr. Gupta or the state agency consultant were consistent with the other examination evidence in the record, the imaging evidence set out in the Decision, or the claimant’s subjective reports of her pain and limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors and to evaluate an other-source opinion using those factors and explain its treatment, although failure to strictly comply may be harmless when the decision adopts part of the opinion and indirectly addresses the rest.

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

At Step Four, an ALJ must weigh every medical opinion that the Social Security Administration receives. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). In doing so, the ALJ must consider: (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 source’s specialization related to the medical issues discussed; and (5) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Thus, an ALJ must still evaluate “other source” opinions using the same factors used to evaluate medical opinions and explain the reasons why she treated the “other source” opinion the way she did. ... Nevertheless, the ALJ’s failure to provide such an explanation was harmless for two reasons. First, the ALJ’s failure to include an explanation was harmless because the ALJ adopted part of Diehl’s opinion. ... Second, the ALJ’s decision – read as a whole – amounted to an indirect attack on the remaining portions of Diehl’s opinion and sufficiently satisfied the procedural safeguards of the regulations notwithstanding its failure to strictly comply with them. ... Because the ALJ’s written decision adopted Diehl’s opinion in part and provided an indirect attack on the portions of Diehl’s opinion that the ALJ did not adopt, the ALJ’s failure to provide a more-detailed explanation strictly complying with the regulations governing the treatment of “other source” opinions was harmless error and provides no basis for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ to provide a more exhaustive analysis when discounting a vague medical opinion rather than a function-by-function assessment.

Cottrell v. SSA · filed 2021-03-03(d)(2)

Regulations do not require a more exhaustive analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to an “other source” opinion that may affect the outcome of the case.

Torres v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-03(f)(2)

In sum, the ALJ erred by failing to address the limitations in an opinion to which he gave great weight, and that error is not harmless. Because the limitations that Ms. Stom identified would “have an effect on the outcome of [Anna’s] case,” the ALJ, on remand, either must explain why he did not credit Ms. Stom’s opinion that Anna needed to limit pushing, pulling, sitting, standing, and walking and frequently change positions, or he must incorporate those limitations into the RFC, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2); and if the latter, he must be “specific as to the frequency of [Anna’s] need to alternate [between] sitting and standing,” see SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When no treating-source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider six listed factors when weighing each medical opinion.

Priore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04(c)(1)–(6)

Where the record is devoid of opinions from a treating source that are entitled to controlling weight, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires the ALJ to consider the following factors in weighing each medical opinion: (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, (6) other factors, such as the expert’s level of understanding of the Commissioner’s disability programs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh it using specified factors, while giving a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Bryson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-04(c)

The Social Security Administration’s regulations provide that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, more weight is given to the opinions of examining physicians than nonexamining physicians. More weight is given to the opinions of treating physicians since they are more likely to be able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant’s medical impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The medical opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight, i.e., it must be adopted by the ALJ, 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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), SSR 96-2p, and Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified treatment-relationship, examination, specialty, testing, consistency, and support factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion.

Griffin v. Saul · filed 2021-03-04(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; ... (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ failed to sufficiently discuss the factors as to Dr. Gibbons and the case must be remanded for that reason.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

DiGregorio v. Saul · filed 2020-08-03(c)

Generally, the ALJ gives “controlling weight” to the medical opinion of a treating physician. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). But, "if a physician's opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight." Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Pittman v. Massanari, 141 F. Supp. 2d 601, 608 (W.D.N.C. 2001) (noting Craig was superseded by subsequent regulation but finding its holding consistent with those regulations). Where a treating source’s medical opinion is not afforded controlling weight, the ALJ may consider a host of non-exhaustive factors in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion, including: (1) the examining relationship, (2) the nature, extent, frequency, and length of treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see also Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 654 (4th Cir. 2005) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the examining and treatment relationships, the support for a medical opinion, its consistency with other evidence, and the medical professional’s specialization when determining the opinion’s weight.

Tackett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-24(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) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider whether the source examined the claimant, the treatment relationship, examination frequency, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Basque v. Saul · filed 2020-08-11(c)

Medical opinions, regardless of the source, are evaluated by considering several factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ is required to consider the following factors in determining the weight assigned to a medical opinion: whether or not the source examined the claimant; the existence, length and nature of a treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; evidentiary support offered; consistency with the record as a whole; and specialization of the examiner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

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 relevant factors, generally giving more weight to opinions from examining doctors and specialists.

Mendez-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(c)

Medical opinions must be weighed based on the examining relationship, treatment relationship (including the length, frequency, nature and extent), supportability, consistency, specialization, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, the opinion of a doctor who examined the appellant will receive greater weight than that of a doctor who did not. Id. § 404.1527(c). Opinions supported by detailed evidence, or other information in the record additionally receive more weight. Id. Finally, the opinion of a specialist in the relevant field receives more weight than that of a general practitioner. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

Perez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-25(b)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F. R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion, including an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source.

McDonald v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(c)

Instead, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) provides the correct framework for evaluating an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source. ... When weighing medical opinions, an ALJ must consider certain regulatory factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the medical source’s opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Walker v. Saul, ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2020 WL 1698857, at *3 (7th Cir. April 8, 2020).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ, absent a controlling treating-source opinion, to evaluate all medical opinions using factors including treatment history, consistency, supportability, and medical specialty.

Watson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)

In the absence of a controlling treating source opinion, an ALJ must “evaluate all medical opinions” with regard to the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(c)(3) and (4)

Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Korn’s opinion that Plaintiff would have difficulty with grip based on the supportability and consistency factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) and (4) and 416.927(c)(3) and 4, as the ALJ recognized that Dr. Korn found Plaintiff to have intact grip strength and the record contains no additional assessments of her grip strength for comparison.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not necessarily require an ALJ to analyze its factors when competing firsthand medical evidence exists and the ALJ finds one doctor’s opinion more well-founded than a treating physician’s opinion.

Woodberry v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-28(c)

Thus, “where there is competing first-hand medical evidence . . ., and the ALJ finds as a factual matter that one doctor’s opinion is more well-founded than another, the ALJ need not necessarily set forth an analysis of the Section 404.1527(c) factors when declining to give controlling weight to a treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (4) make an opinion’s lack of evidentiary support or inconsistency with the record a proper basis for assigning it less than full weight.

Croston v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-12-09(c)(3), (4)

A finding that an opinion is unsupported by the evidence or is inconsistent with the record constitutes good cause. See Arterberry v. Berryhill, 743 F. App'x 227, 229 (10th Cir. 2018); Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 513 (10th Cir. 1987); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4). Here, the ALJ assigned no weight to Dr. Gunn’s opinion after finding that the opinion was inconsistent with the medical records and treatment notes, unsupported by the examinations, inconsistent with Plaintiff’s daily activities and her conservative treatment history.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to consider factors including the opinion source's treating or examining relationship, how well the opinion is supported, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Colwell v. Saul · filed 2020-12-09(c)

In deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors including, e.g., the treating or examining relationship of the opinion’s source and the claimant; how well the opinion is supported; and how consistent the opinion is 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)(4) gives greater weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole, and subsection (c)(6) requires considering the medical source's familiarity with other information in the claimant's case record when deciding the opinion's weight.

Discordia v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-01(c)(4), (c)(6)

But even if she did, I conclude that the ALJ offered adequate reasons to account for the weight he assigned to Dr. Green’s opinion. 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.”); id. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“[T]he extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [a claimant’s] case record [is among] relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.”). Accordingly, I conclude that the ALJ was entitled to rely upon Dr. Green’s opinion in crafting the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs ALJs to weigh other-source opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency, explanation, and expertise, and to explain the weight given when the opinion may affect the outcome.

Devers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-01(c)

Notably, ALJs weigh the opinions of “other sources” using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., “how long the source has known the individual, how frequently the source has seen the individual, how consistent the opinion of the source is with other evidence, how well the source explains the opinion, and whether the source has a specialty or area of expertise related to the individual's impairment.” Williamson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:14–cv–731, 2016 WL 255033, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2016); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ALJs should “explain the weight given” to such opinions, “or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ's] reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” Williamson, at *8.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally favors opinions from examining sources, and § 404.1527(c)(4) favors opinions more consistent with the record as a whole.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(c)(1), (c)(4)

When weighing medical opinions, ALJs utilize the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and § 404.927(c). ... As reflected in the regulations, the medical opinion of a source who has examined the claimant will generally be afforded more weight than the opinion of a source who has not examined the claimant. ... Likewise, more weight will be given to a medical opinion when the opinion is more consistent with the record as a whole. ... However, Social Security Regulations permitted the ALJ to place more weight on the medical opinion of an examining physician like Dr. Burns than the little weight she placed on the opinions of non-examining physicians, Drs. Green and Knierim. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 404.927(c)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) direct an adjudicator to give less weight to a medical opinion that lacks clinical support or is inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Norton v. Saul · filed 2021-03-08(c)(3), (c)(4)

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 to consider every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned to outcome-relevant opinions from other sources, and consider six listed factors when weighing those opinions.

Lipka v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08(c) and (f)(2)

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). ... But the ALJ still must consider and ... explain the weight assigned to the opinions of “other sources” that “may have an effect on the outcome of the case,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2), in a way that “allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning,” SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *6 (Aug. 9, 2006). ... The Code of Federal Regulations (“the Code”), 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), enumerates six factors that the ALJ should consider in giving weight to the opinion of an “other source”: [1] the length and frequency of the treating relationship; [2] the nature and extent of the relationship; [3] the amount of evidence the source presents to support his or her opinion; [4] the consistency of the opinion with the record; [5] the source’s area of specialization; [6] and any other factors the claimant brings to the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs an ALJ to give greatest weight to treating-physician opinions and more weight to examining-physician opinions than to non-examining opinions.

(SS) Mayo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(d)(2)

In this circuit, the courts distinguish the opinions of 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. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight. Id.; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to an examined source's opinion and requires an ALJ to apply the regulatory factors when determining what lesser weight to give a treating-source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Guthrie v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(c)(1), (c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a medical opinion of a treating acceptable medical source if it is both "well-supported" and "not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence" in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). If controlling weight is not given, an ALJ "must offer good reasons for discounting a treating physician's opinion" that are supported by substantial evidence. Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted). When an ALJ gives “good reasons” for not giving controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion, the opinion still has value in the disability determination and the ALJ must apply the regulatory factors to determine what lesser weight to afford the opinion. Id. at 308; Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... The ALJ was required to address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to give the opinion. Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308; Scrogham, 765 F.3d at 697-98 & n.48 (indicating that the ALJ's failure to address the appropriate regulatory factors was not harmless). ... ALJs are directed to "give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined him." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1), 416.927(c)(1); see also Vanprooyen v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 567, 572-73 (7th Cir. 2017) (finding error where without any logical explanation, the administrative law judge gave substantial weight to the opinions of consulting physicians who had never examined [the plaintiff], saying only that they had provided a good synopsis of the evidence and that their opinions are consistent with the overall record). In the present case, the ALJ did not explain why the state agency psychological consultants’ opinions were entitled to greater weight than Dr. Marsh’s opinion when those consultants never examined or treated Plaintiff. ... Accordingly, as the ALJ failed to properly consider the medical opinions, as required by the Regulations, remand is warranted on this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires particularly good reasons when an ALJ does not give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight.

McClain v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-10(c)(2)

The old rules contemplate only one specific situation in which the AL’s decision must give particularly “good reasons” for the weight given to a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). That situation is “[w]hen we do not give the treating source's medical opinion controlling weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to receive different weight based on their source, generally giving more weight to treating sources than to doctors who did not treat the claimant.

Hunter v. Saul · filed 2021-03-11

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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors—including treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization—when weighing a medical opinion.

(SS) (CONSENT) Aljoher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(c)

For all medical opinions, an ALJ is required to consider the factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The required factors include the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the extent to which the opinion is supported by evidence, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the medical source is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh non-controlling medical opinions using applicable factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Winters v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15(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). ... None of these internal inconsistencies are adequately explained by the ALJ,2 and the inconsistent evaluation of these treating source opinions potentially prejudiced Winters in the presentation of this claim.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give each medical opinion, regardless of its source, and to explain the rationale sufficiently for judicial review.

Dzananovic v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(c)

In assessing a disability claim, an ALJ must consider and weigh the various medical opinions of record. ... the ALJ must consider various factors in deciding how much weight to give to any medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source, including: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the . . . physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... “An ALJ does not have to explicitly walk through these factors, so long as the Court can conclude that he or she applied the substance” of the regulations and appropriately set forth the rationale for the weight given to the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs the Social Security Administration to give more weight to medical opinions that are better explained.

Aguilar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(c)(3)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, a finding that a physician’s opinion is not well explained can serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight the Social Security Administration will give that opinion). ... If a treating physician’s opinion names limitations without specifying the degree of the plaintiff’s functional limitations, an ALJ may reasonably discount the opinion as inadequate for the purpose of determining the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527's opinion-weighing framework generally denies controlling weight to non-treating and non-examining opinions, requires consideration of supportability, consistency, and specialization, and requires only a meaningful explanation of the weight assigned.

Parsons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(c)(2), (d)(2)

On the other hand, when the opinion comes from a non-treating or non-examining source, it is usually not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Rather, the ALJ should consider relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). There is however, no “reasons-giving requirement” for non-treating source opinions. Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 658 F. App’x. 255, 259 (6th Cir. 2016). Rather, the ALJ must provide only “a meaningful explanation regarding the weight given to particular medical source opinions.” Mason v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:18 CV 1737, 2019 WL 4305764, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 11, 2019) (citing SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2). ... Because the state agency reviewers were non-treating sources, ALJ Hostovich was not obligated to give “good reasons” for that weight. Parkinson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-5051, 2020 WL 5875870, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2020). For these reasons, the Court finds that this allegation of error lacks merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that the weight given to a medical opinion depends on factors including the source’s examining or treating relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Woodard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-18(d)

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 shared with the claimant, the relevance of the evidence the medical source gives to support the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, support, consistency with the record, and specialization, with greater weight generally given to consistent treating and examining opinions.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-18(c)

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ considers many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is amply supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record and the doctor’s specialization. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c). Generally, the more consistent a physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight an ALJ should place on that opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4). Usually, the opinions of treating physicians are given more weight than non-treating physicians, and the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than non-examining physicians. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). ... Here, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err by giving considerable weight to Dr. Nuss’ opinion where the ALJ explicitly found that the opinion is supported by the physical examination findings in the record, even though it was not based on the most recent evidence of record. (See Tr. at 23 (citing Tr. at 284-300, 301-13, 365-405, 767-83, 784-800, 880-98, 899-917)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion and the rationale for that determination.

Burkhart v. SSA · filed 2021-03-18(c)

Medical opinions may include reports from treating physicians, examining physicians, and nonexamining physicians; and the ALJ must discuss the weight afforded to the treating physician’s opinion and the rationale supporting the ALJ’s determination. Id. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, while reserving disability determinations to the Commissioner and giving opinions on those issues no special significance.

Beavers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-19(c)(2)-(5), (d)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), the determination of whether an individual is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner, and no special significance will be given to an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner. ... Pursuant to Social Security regulations, the ALJ also properly considered Dr. Calhoun’s lack of a cardiology specialization when determining how much weight to afford Dr. Calhoun’s opinions about Beavers’s heart condition. See 20 C.F.R. § 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 than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”). ... Finally, Beavers argues the ALJ’s discussion of treating physicians who “speak from the heart” “simply lacks any merit[,] is based upon mere speculation[,] and is not supported by substantial evidence.” ... the regulations do permit the ALJ to consider the nature of the relationship between a physician and patient when assessing the weight to afford the physician’s opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... That evaluation comported with the regulatory requirements, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), and, as discussed, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Calhoun’s treatment records and the other medical evidence failed to support Dr. Calhoun’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fleming v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(c)

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”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s examination history, treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when deciding its weight.

Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(c)

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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(ii) permits an ALJ to consider the nature and extent of treatment when assigning weight to a medical opinion.

Roche v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-25(c)(ii)

An ALJ may consider the nature and extent of treatment provided when assigning weight to a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs ALJs to weigh medical opinions using factors including examination, the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Bryant v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(c)

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating 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. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.” Eyre v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App'x 521, 523 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (e), 416.927(c) & (e)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(3) directs an adjudicator to weigh a medical opinion by considering the examining relationship, treatment relationship, and supportability, giving more weight to treating sources, longer relationships, and well-supported opinions.

Gracie v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-29(c)(1)-(3)

The Court finds that, not only did the ALJ review Dr. Machanic’s report, but that his analysis regarding what weight to give the report applies and follows the appropriate guidelines. An ALJ is to consider the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, and the supportability of an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(3). Treating sources, longer medical relationships, and opinions that “present[] relevant evidence . . . particularly medical signs and laboratory findings,” are all given more weight. Id., § 404.1527(c)(3). Here, as the ALJ properly concluded, Dr. Machanic saw plaintiff on one occasion, reviewed few objective medical reports, and primarily relied on subjective reporting of plaintiff and his wife. Under these circumstances, it was appropriate for the ALJ to give Dr. Machanic’s opinion less weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization, with greater weight given to better-supported and more consistent opinions.

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

Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to employ when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). For instance, the more evidence a medical source presents to support an opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight that medical opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider relevant factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contrary factors, but does not require an explicit factor-by-factor analysis if the decision adequately explains the weight and reasons.

Deherrera v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)

In determining the amount of weight to assign to any medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the relevant factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. ... Those factors are: (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. ... Although the ALJ must consider each factor in weighing a medical opinion, he is not required to engage in an explicit factor-by-factor analysis, so long as his written decision is “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers that weight the adjudicator gave to the [] opinion and the reason for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, record-consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using specified factors and give sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned.

Stover v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)–(6)

The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... To meet the “good reasons” standard, the ALJ’s determination “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... Specifically, if an ALJ: declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must then balance the following factors to determine what weight to give it: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and specialization of the treating source.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(4)

The only referenced legal support is 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Sub-section (c)(4) provides: “Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). The Court fails to see how this authority supports Plaintiff’s contention.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors and give good reasons when assigning less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, but it does not require explicit discussion of every factor.

Gordon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)

With respect to applications filed before March 27, 2017, an ALJ must consider several factors when assigning weight to medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... While an ALJ must consider these factors and articulate good reasons for giving less than controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, there is no rigid requirement that he explicitly discuss each and every factor provided he gives sufficient good reasons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider the supportability of a medical opinion, the medical source's familiarity with the program, and the opinion's consistency with the medical record when weighing medical opinions.

McDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(3), (c)(6)

It is appropriate for the ALJ to consider the “supportability” of a treating medical provider’s opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). The ALJ gave some weight to Dr. Pardo and Dr. Gawo, in light of their familiarity with the program and the consistency of their opinions with the medical records. These factors were appropriately considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows an ALJ to consider a provider’s consistency, specialty, familiarity with disability programs, and longitudinal review of the record when assigning weight to medical opinions.

Grotts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)(4), (c)(6)

ALJ Yoder explained why he attached less significance to their opinions-he found that their assessments as they treated Plaintiff contradicted the determinations they made on Plaintiff’s Mental RFC Evaluations in 2010 and 2013. It is appropriate for the ALJ to consider a medical provider’s consistency when evaluating his/her opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... ALJ Yoder explained that he assigned weight to their opinions based on their specialties, their familiarity with the department’s disability programs, and their longitudinal review of Plaintiff’s records from 2006-2014. These factors were appropriately considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions supported by greater source knowledge and examination or testing, better relevant evidence and explanation, and greater consistency with the record as a whole.

Nielsen v. Saul · filed 2021-04-01(c)(2)(ii), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

With respect to the regulatory factors, these differences between the evaluations should have influenced the weight that was given to the respective opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) (“Generally, the more knowledge a treating source has about your impairment(s) the more weight we will give to the source's medical opinion. We will look at . . . the kinds and extent of examinations and testing the source has performed or ordered.”); id. § 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.”); id. § 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.”)). ... However, the Court finds no evidence that the ALJ sufficiently accounted for these factors, provided any explanation for discounting the significant differences between the evaluations, or even acknowledged that those differences likely contributed to the different results. ... Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s use of Dr. Young’s opinion to discount the opinion of Dr. Brietzke is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) allows an opinion from a non-acceptable medical or nonmedical source to outweigh an acceptable medical source’s medical opinion, and § 404.1527(f)(2) requires the ALJ to sufficiently explain the assessment.

Dzelilovic v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-04-08(f)(1), (f)(2)

The regulations anticipate the possibility that “an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). The ALJ was required to sufficiently explain his assessment of Fargnoli’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2); Brumbaugh v. Saul, 2021 WL 1100562, at *3 (7th Cir. Mar. 23, 2021).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits a non-acceptable medical source’s opinion to receive more weight than a treating doctor’s, but requires consideration and discussion of the relevant opinion-weighing factors, including the treatment relationship.

Howser v. Saul · filed 2021-04-23(c) and (f)(1)

While the government is correct that a non-acceptable medical source may be afforded more weight than a treating doctor, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1), much like the ALJ, the government never explains why, when taking into account the relevant regulation, it was appropriate for the ALJ to do so here. ... As a result, on remand, inter alia, it is incumbent upon the ALJ to not only identify the source of the functional capacity test, as first instructed by the Appeals Council, but to also explain why that source should be given more weight than the opinion of a treating doctor like Dr. Rowan, when the test itself reflects that Dr. Rowan was aware of and disagreed with many of the findings reached by Flores. The ALJ should do so while taking into consideration, and discussing, the relevant factors under 20 C.F.R. Section 404.1527(c) & (f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion received regardless of its source, so a workers’ compensation origin alone is not a valid reason to disregard the opinion.

Nee v. Saul · filed 2021-04-26(c)

To the extent that the ALJ rejected Dr. Fruchtbaum’s opinion merely because it was a workers’ compensation determination of disability, this was not a legally valid reason. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, medical opinions generated during workers’ compensation proceedings are relevant to the issue of a claimant’s RFC. See Macri v. Chater, 93 F.3d 540, 543-44 (9th Cir. 1996); Desrosiers v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 846 F.2d 573, 576 (9th Cir. 1988); see generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). Such opinions will be given consideration even if they involve the ultimate issue of disability, an issue that is reserved solely to the Commissioner. See SSR 96-5P, 1996 WL 374183, at *3 (“[O]pinions from any medical source on issues reserved to the Commissioner must never be ignored.”). Thus, even though Dr. Fruchtbaum had issued an opinion in a workers’ compensation case, and even if it had implicated the ultimate issue of disability, these would not be specific and legitimate grounds, by themselves, to disregard the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

Eguren v. Saul · filed 2021-04-29(b)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F. R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits discounting a medical opinion when it is inconsistent with the objective medical evidence.

Cross v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-30(c)(4)

This was a permissible basis for discounting medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Here, the ALJ identified normal findings in the record that undermine Dr. Grove’s opinion. (R. at 485.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinion evidence regardless of its source, considering factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Duevalle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-30(c)

The Agency’s regulations require an ALJ to weigh opinion evidence, “[r]egardless of its source,” with consideration of several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability (“we will evaluate the degree to which these opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim”), consistency, and specialization. 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 to evaluate every medical opinion received regardless of its source.

Hoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-27(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).

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.

PIOTROWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-05-07(c)(4)

The ALJ therefore properly found that these treating physicians’ opinions were unsupported by the medical 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.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) to determine the opinion’s appropriate weight, including its consistency with the record.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-10(c)(4)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. ... The ALJ was permitted to discount Dr. Kapur’s opinions based on the lack of corroborative objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); see also Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider every medical opinion, weigh it using the listed factors, and adequately explain the weight assigned.

Lysek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-10(b), (c)

Under that framework, the Commissioner is required to evaluate and consider every medical opinion submitted, together with the rest of the relevant evidence. ... After considering these factors, the Commissioner must adequately explain the weight afforded to the medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(2) reflects that medical-opinion weight depends on the source’s examining and treatment relationship, with treating opinions generally receiving more weight than examining opinions and examining opinions more than reviewing opinions.

Leza v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-11(c)(1)–(2)

“Generally, the opinion of a treating physician must be given more weight than the opinion of an examining physician, and the opinion of an examining physician must be afforded more weight than the opinion of a reviewing physician.” Id.; see 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(1)–(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole when determining the weight to give it.

Jewell-Greene v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-12(c)(4)

An ALJ may properly consider consistency with the record as a whole in determining the weight given to any medical opinion. 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) permits an ALJ to assign weight to a medical opinion based on its consistency with the record as a whole.

Holmes v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2021-05-13(c)(4)

An ALJ is permitted to assign weight to a medical opinion based on how “consistent [the] medical opinion is with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Curry v. Comm'r of Social Security · filed 2021-05-14(c)

Looking next at how much weight Dr. Cywinski’s opinion merited, at step two of the Burgess analysis an “ALJ must consider, inter alia, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the relevant evidence . . . , particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally favors treating-source medical opinions because they provide a detailed, longitudinal view of the claimant’s impairment, but it does not categorically bar greater weight for non-examining physicians.

Sims v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-05-14(c)(2)

Generally, the regulations favor medical opinions from treating physicians over non-treating doctors, “since [treating] sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). However, despite the regulations’ preference for the opinions of treating physicians, there is no categorical rule prohibiting ALJs from giving greater weight to non-examining state agency physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Haynes v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-14(c)

While possibly couched as a disabled statement finding, which is a finding reserved only for the commissioner,9 the ALJ did not analyze all 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors as required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the doctor’s relationship with the claimant, supportability, consistency with the record, specialty, and other relevant considerations.

White v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-05-18(c)

In determining the weight given to a claimant’s medical opinions, the ALJ may look at several factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the doctor and patient, the supportability of the doctor’s opinion, the consistency of the doctor’s opinion with the record as a whole, the doctor’s specialty, and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor if the reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Lahrs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-20(c)(1)-(6)

In accordance with the regulations, the ALJ concluded the limitations provided in the statement were not consistent with other evidence in the record. (T. 32); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). Further, the ALJ discussed the opinion with Plaintiff and his counsel at the hearing, and Plaintiff’s counsel noted that the opinion was provided by Plaintiff’s treating sources. (T. 119-120.) Where an ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulations is clear, he is not required to explicitly go through each and every factor of the regulation. Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App'x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013). Therefore, the ALJ did not fail to consider relevant factors in assessing the June 2016 statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including examination and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Harrison v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-20(c)

In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treatment relationship with the claimant and, if so, the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the source’s opinion with respect to all of the evidence of record; whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors. ... The ALJ thoroughly considered the 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1527(c) factors here. ... The ALJ appropriately considered Calvert’s opinion and provided substantial evidence for the weight given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the former regulations, an ALJ must evaluate and assign weight to every medical opinion, explain the weight and reasons, and consider the listed deference factors.

Mata v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-05-21(a)(1), (b)-(c)

A medical opinion is defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgment about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... Although an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, she is required, at a minimum, to evaluate every medical opinion in the record and explain how much weight is assigned to each opinion and why. 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)); see also 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(b)-(c); SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939. ... Every medical source opinion2 should be weighed by the ALJ in consideration of the following “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. Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300-01 (10th Cir. 2003); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)-(d), 416.927(c)-(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the decisionmaker to weigh a medical opinion by considering the source’s examining or treating relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Long v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-22(d)

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(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, including opinions from providers who are not acceptable medical sources.

Noble v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-03(c)

The Court agrees that the ALJ gave short shrift to Ms. Oliver’s opinion, as the factors an ALJ uses to weigh medical opinions rendered by acceptable medical sources also apply to providers who are not acceptable medical sources. See Frantz v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1299, 1302 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to weigh medical opinions based on the treatment relationship and consistency with the record, while opinions on whether a claimant is disabled receive no special significance and a limited treatment relationship alone cannot justify rejecting work-related limitations.

(SS) Juniel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-09(c)(2), (c)(4), (e)

A physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not entitled to controlling weight, because statements “by a medical source that [a claimant] is ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’” “are not medical opinions” under the Regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). ... In determining the weight to give medical opinion evidence, the ALJ may consider the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Thus, while a limited treating relationship may be a valid reason for not giving controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, “it is not by itself a basis for rejecting them.” Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir. 2021). This factor alone cannot support the ALJ’s decision to reject limitations identified by Dr. Bedi. ... An ALJ may reject the opinions of a physician when they are inconsistent with the overall record. Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 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(c)(1)-(6) requires an adjudicator to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, while subsection (d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Rankin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-10(c)(1)-(6), (d)(2)

In general, the relevant factors considered in determining what weight to afford an opinion include the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence which supports the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization (if any) of the opinion’s source. ... Therefore, regardless of whether the term medical is used to define the RFC, the final responsibility for deciding a plaintiff’s RFC is reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes medical opinions from the ALJ’s administrative RFC finding, which is reserved to the ALJ rather than to a doctor.

JONES v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-10

Additionally, a person’s RFC is an administrative finding reserved for the ALJ, not a medical opinion to be rendered by a doctor. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527, 416.927; 20 C.F.R. §§404.1546(c), 416.946(c).