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 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the listed weighting factors, generally giving treating-source opinions more weight and potentially controlling weight when well-supported and consistent with the record.

Sheare v. Saul · filed 2021-06-14(c), (c)(2)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In deciding what weight to accord competing medical opinions and evidence, the ALJ is guided by factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “The regulations provide progressively more rigorous tests for weighing opinions as the ties between the source of the opinion and the individual become weaker.” SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180 at *2. Treating sources have the closest ties to the claimant, and therefore their opinions generally entitled to more weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources...”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502 (defining treating source). Under some circumstances, the medical opinion of a treating source may even be entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (explaining that controlling weight may be given to a treating source’s medical opinion only where it 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explain why it chooses one medical opinion over another so the claimant can receive meaningful judicial review.

Walsh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-16(c)

But in making that choice, the ALJ was required to explain the reason for it, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), in a way that allows this Court to “assess the validity of the [ALJ’s] findings and afford[s the] claimant meaningful judicial review,” see Craft v. Astrue, 539 F.3d 668, 673 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Young v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 995, 1002 (7th Cir. 2004)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a nontreating source's opinion to consider its support, consistency with the record, the source's specialization, and other relevant factors.

Wiley v. Saul · filed 2021-06-21(d)(3)-(6)

In assessing a nontreating source’s opinion, the ALJ “is required to determine the weight a nontreating physician’s opinion deserves by examining how well [the doctor] supported and explained his opinion, whether his opinion is consistent with the record, whether [the doctor] is a specialist . . . and any other factor of which the ALJ is aware.” Id. at 515 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)-(6)). ... The ALJ thus fulfilled her duty by considering the consistency of a nontreating source’s opinion with the record as a whole and explaining the weight given to that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a statement on an issue reserved to the Commissioner as not a medical opinion entitled to special significance, while requiring the ALJ to weigh actual medical opinions under the listed factors.

Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-23(c)(1)-(6), (d)(1), (e)

More importantly, the ALJ recognized that Dr. McClure’s statement—indicating Plaintiff has been permanently and totally disabled by rheumatoid arthritis and emphysema since August 25, 2016—is not a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1). The ALJ appropriately observed that this is an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner because it involves a case dispositive administrative finding. Id. The regulations indicate “[w]e will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). Thus, there is no merit to Plaintiff’s assertion that the ALJ should have given controlling weight to Dr. McClure’s opinion. The ALJ appropriately applied the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and 416.927(c)(1)-(6) when he evaluated all the evidence in the case record to determine the extent to which Dr. McClure’s opinion is supported by the record.

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, consider all medical opinions, assign weight to each, and explain conflicts with the RFC.

McFadden v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-23(c)(2), (b)

The ALJ must carefully weigh the opinions of the medical sources on file through considering several factors, including length of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ must consider all medical opinion given in the case, assess the weight given to each opinion, and explain any conflict between a medical opinion and the ALJ's RFC. /d. at § 404.1527(b).

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, and the provider’s specialization; the ALJ must adequately explain how those factors support the weight assigned.

Lucero v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-24(c)

In doing so, ALJs must consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of treatment relationship, supportability and consistency of the opinion, specialization of the provider, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... In particular, “when assessing a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must explain what weight is assigned to each opinion and why.” ... An ALJ’s failure to adequately explain how he or she weighed a medical opinion constitutes reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the other relevant evidence and weigh them using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and the medical source’s specialty.

Adams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-28(c)

The ALJ’s decision additionally demonstrates that she considered the relevant factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c) when weighing Dr. Narwani’s opinions. The ALJ discussed the nature of the treatment relationship, noting that Dr. Narwani’s was Plaintiff’s pain management specialist. (Doc. 13-3 at 25); see 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ also considered the supportability and consistency of Dr. Narwani’s opinions with the record as a whole. (Doc. 13-3 at 25); see 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(3)–(4). Additionally, the ALJ noted that Dr. Narwani’s specialty is pain management. (Doc. 13-3 at 25); see 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(5). These considerations affirm the ALJ’s assertion that she considered the relevant factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c). (See Doc. 13-3 at 21).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh acceptable medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization; § 404.1527(f) extends the same factors to opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources.

Cargill v. Saul · filed 2021-06-28(c), (f)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining the weight he or she gives to any acceptable medical opinion, which include the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization of the medical Source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ALJs should also consider the same factors for opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). ... Here, the ALJ did not consider many of the relevant factors in weighing the medical opinions. To the extent she did, the ALJ’s rationale is unclear and appears to be based in part on an incorrect characterization of the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider a medical opinion's consistency with the record as a whole when assigning weight.

Duckv. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-29(c)(3)

In assigning weight to an opinion, the ALJ must consider consistency “with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider how consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole when evaluating the opinion.

Hernandez v. Saul · filed 2021-06-30(c)(3)

An ALJ may reasonably consider the consistency of an opinion with the rest of the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give generally greater weight to opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole.

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-01(c)(4)

And, as the ALJ explained, the letter provided by Ms. Linebarger was not consistent with the overall record, particularly related to Plaintiff’s daily activities. (R. 25). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (providing that generally greater weight is given to opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors, and to give reasons for the weight assigned.

Bravo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(c)

At the time the ALJ decided Plaintiff’s claim, she was required to evaluate medical opinions based on several factors under the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (detailing how the Commissioner evaluates opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017). ... After reviewing the record in its entirety, the ALJ weighed the opinions given by various medical sources about Plaintiff’s physical and mental limitations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (in assessing RFC and other disability issues, the ALJ will consider medical opinion evidence alongside the other evidence). The ALJ gave good reasons, grounded in the regulations and the evidence of record, for the weight she gave to those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion using specified factors, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor explanation if the ALJ considers the opinion, assigns weight, and explains why conflicting aspects were rejected.

Bruce v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2022-05-17(c)(1)-(5), (f)(2), (c)(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the regulatory factors and gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Snoddy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-18(c)

Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given “controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” ... If the opinion of a treating physician is not deemed controlling, the ALJ must decide the proper weight to assign the opinion considering: (i) the examining relationship; (ii) the treatment relationship, including the length, nature, and extent of the relationship; (iii) the supportability of the medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; (iv) the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; (v) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (vi) other factors that may support or contradict the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ properly evaluated “all of the relevant medical and other evidence” in assessing plaintiff’s residual functional capacity, consistent with social security regulations. ... Likewise, the ALJ properly weighed each medical opinion while considering the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ gave “great weight,” but not “controlling weight,” to the portions of Dr. Yadav’s opinion that limited plaintiff to performing light work. ... In sum, the ALJ correctly weighed the medical opinions, and adequately explained her decisions by assessing each opinion’s consistency with the “record as a whole.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors including examination, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion.

Colbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(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) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Tubens v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(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). ... With respect to Dr. Lester, it appears the only reason the ALJ provided for rejecting Dr. Lester’s opinion concerning the Claimant’s ability to stand/walk was the fact that she examined the Claimant once and did not review any of the Claimant’s medical records. This reason, as the Claimant argues, does not explain why the ALJ disagreed with the actual stand/walk limitation endorsed by Dr. Lester. The Court therefore cannot meaningfully determine whether the ALJ’s rejection of the stand/walk limitation is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six specified factors when determining how much weight to give a nontreating medical source's opinion.

Thorne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(c)

In determining the degree of weight to be given to the opinion of a nontreating source, an ALJ must consider: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) evidence supporting the opinion; (4) how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) other significant factors. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion lesser weight than other opinions when the ALJ considers the regulatory factors and the opinion is less supported by the longitudinal record.

Petrie v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(d)(2)

The ALJ showed that she considered the regulatory factors in weighting the FCE, and it was within her discretion to assign it a lesser weight than other opinions that were based on a full review of the medical records. See Larson, 615 F.3d at 751; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) makes the length and frequency of a treating source’s treatment relationship relevant when weighing the source’s medical opinion.

Snyder v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-24(c)(2)(i)

The ALJ properly accorded Greis’s opinion limited weight in comparison to the opinions of physicians. Greis only treated Snyder twice prior to issuing her opinion, and the relevant regulations describe the history of treatment as relevant for consideration of medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1527(c)(2)(i); 416.927(c)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider the length of a physician’s treatment relationship when weighing the physician’s opinion.

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

The ALJ could consider the lack of treatment history between Dr. Purcell and Plaintiff in discounting Dr. Purcell’s opinions since length of treatment is a relevant consideration for weighing medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives greater weight to medical opinions supported by more relevant evidence and better explanations.

Nelson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-24(c)(3)

Moreover, the ALJ noted Dr. Baculi did not explain his medical and/or clinical findings in his assessment of Plaintiff’s level of functioning. Tr. 28, 493. The regulations specify that the more a medical source “presents relevant evidence to support an opinion,” and “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Thus, the ALJ permissibly rejected Dr. Baculi’s check-off report, which did not contain an adequate explanation of the bases of his conclusions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) directs an ALJ to evaluate opinions from non-acceptable medical sources using the paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6) factors as appropriate, but does not require applying every factor in every case.

Jockisch v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(f)(1)

Section 404.1527(f)(1) of the regulations details how an ALJ must weigh opinions from non-acceptable medical sources. ... “[H]owever, the ALJ is not required to apply all Section 404.1527(c) factors when considering the weight to give a non-acceptable medical source’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering the examining and treatment relationships, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

Coykendall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-22(c)

For instance, the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim command that the ALJ consider (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length and nature of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the medical opinion is amply supported by relevant evidence; (4) whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the source’s examination and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Benkenstein v. Saul · filed 2021-03-22(c)

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ must consider: 1) whether the source examined the claimant; 2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; 3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) the source’s specialization; and 6) “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017); Orn, 495 F.3d at 631-32; Revels, 874 F.3d at 665 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(2), (f)) (The § 1527 factors are used to evaluate the opinions of medical providers who are acceptable medical sources and those who are not.).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating and examining-source opinions, including controlling weight for a well-supported treating opinion consistent with substantial evidence.

(SS) Frazier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-24(c)(1), (d)(2)

In evaluating medical evidence from different physicians, the Ninth Circuit and social security regulations distinguish amongst opinions from types of physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The Ninth Circuit classifies three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (non-examining physicians). Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. A treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The Commissioner will generally also give greater wight to opinions from examining physicians than opinions from non-examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). The opinions of treating medical sources may be rejected only for clear and convincing reasons if not contradicted by another doctor, and, if contradicted, only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives treating physicians’ opinions more weight and requires good reasons for discounting them, while § 404.1527(c)(3) permits discounting opinions that are conclusory, unsupported, inconsistent with the record, or contradicted by other evidence.

Reynolds v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-22(c)(2), (c)(3)

Generally, in weighing physician opinion evidence, a claimant’s treating physician’s opinion is entitled to more weight, and an ALJ must give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). However, an ALJ may discount a physician’s opinion, including a treating physician’s opinion, when the opinion is conclusory, the physician fails to provide objective medical evidence to support his or her opinion, the opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole, or the evidence otherwise supports a contrary finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); Crawford v. Commissioner of Social Security, 363 F.3d 1155, 1159- 60 (11th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes treating-source medical opinions from opinions by sources who are not acceptable medical sources: a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion may receive controlling weight, while evidence from an unacceptable or nonmedical source must be considered but requires only an explanation of the weight given.

Strong v. Saul · filed 2021-02-02(c)(2), (f)

Claimant implies that Mr. Buonomo, as Claimant’s “treating therapist,” should be afforded similar weight to that of a “treating physician” under the regulations. This is incorrect, as the regulations specifically provide two different frameworks for the evaluation of treating source medical opinions and opinions from “medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources,” regardless of whether they “treated” the claimant.9 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. While a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), no such presumption exists for an unacceptable medical source. An ALJ should consider evidence from an unacceptable medical source, or nonmedical source, but does not need to do more than explain the weight given to that source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(i) requires an ALJ to evaluate conflicts in the medical evidence when weighing medical opinions.

McLaughlin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-02(c)(i)

Further, it is the ALJ’s duty to evaluate conflicts in the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to articulate the basis for weighing medical opinions, evaluate them against the record as a whole rather than favoring a treating source automatically, and give no special significance to the source of opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, including whether a claimant is disabled.

Farinas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03(c), (c)(4), (d), (d)(1), and (d)(3)

As a threshold matter, an ALJ is authorized to assess the credibility of medical opinions in the record and assign weight to those opinions accordingly. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In doing so, the ALJ must be able to articulate the basis for assigning more or less weight to the relevant medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... Rather, a medical opinion earns its weight in proportion to the evidence and its consistency with “the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); ... “Opinions on some issues… are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Specifically, the Code of Federal Regulations on employee disability benefits reserves “opinions that you are disabled” exclusively for the Commissioner’s determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). Importantly, and for this very reason, the Commissioner “will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and generally explain the weight given when those opinions may affect the outcome, while section 404.1527(c) directs consideration of the treating relationship, consistency, and objective support.

Donley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-03(f)(2), (c)

However, the ALJ must still consider opinions from medical sources who are not classified as “acceptable” sources, and “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2). Therefore, the ALJ must consider the length and nature of the treating relationship, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record and supported by objective evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) identifies State agency medical consultants as highly qualified physicians and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

(SS) Queen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-09(f)(2)(i)

Importantly, State Agency medical consultants are “highly qualified” physicians, who are also “experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2)(i), 416.927(f)(2); ... Therefore, the opinions of Drs. Spoor and Wong are entitled to weight as expert opinions and are substantial evidence that support the residual functional capacity determined by the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the physician’s specialization and treatment relationship, including its length, frequency, nature, and extent.

Demartinis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-09(c)

The ALJ failed to consider Dr. Mooney’s specialization or her extensive treatment relationship with Callahan in weighing her medical opinion. ... An ALJ should generally give more weight to a medical opinion of a specialist concerning medical issues related to his or her area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). ... The ALJ failed to consider this extensive, three year, in-person treating relationship when weighing Dr. Mooney’s opinion as required by the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions using specified factors, apply those factors as appropriate to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, and generally explain the weight given when the opinion may affect the outcome.

Walton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(c), (f)(1), (f)(2)

The regulations set forth several factors that an ALJ considers when weighing a medical opinion from an acceptable medical source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The same factors apply when an ALJ considers an opinion from a source who does not qualify as an acceptable medical source, such as Mr. Ladowicz, a social worker, although not every factor applies in every case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1). When an opinion from a source who does not qualify as an acceptable medical source may affect the outcome of the case, the adjudicator generally should explain in his or her decision the weight given to the opinion, or otherwise ensure that his or her discussion of the evidence allows a subsequent reviewer to follow his or her reasoning. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Price v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-09(c)(4)

See Freeman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 17-CV-6862-FPG, 2018 WL 6605666, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2018) (“[T]he ALJ did not err when she discounted [an] opinion based on its inconsistency with other record evidence.”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (an ALJ will give more weight to an opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors when evaluating medical opinions, but failure to mention a source’s specialization does not require remand when the record does not identify it and the ALJ gives a proper basis for the weight assigned.

KELLER v. O'MALLEY · filed 2025-03-21(c)

The appropriate regulation here, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) explains that when ALJs do not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, they should consider the following factors in evaluating other medical opinions: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treating relationship; (3) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (4) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (5) supportability; (6) consistency; (7) specialization; and (8) other factors that are brought to the ALJ’s attention or of which the ALJ is aware that tend to support of contradict the medical opinion. ... The only factor in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 that the ALJ did not address is that of specialization. However, this, alone, does not require remand as the records did not indicate Dr. Rabinovich’s specialty and courts within the Third Circuit have held that where an ALJ gives a proper basis to credit or discount a medical opinion, remand is not required where the ALJ fails to mention the source’s specialty.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires consideration of the listed factors when weighing opinions from non-treating medical sources, with examination of the claimant replacing the treating-relationship factor.

Levesque v. Saul · filed 2019-08-30(c)(1)-(6)

The factors for considering opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, with the consideration of whether the source examined the claimant or not replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it is inconsistent with the other evidence of record.

PEPPER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-09-03(c)(4)

The ALJ gave little weight to the opinion of Dr. Crabtree because it was internally inconsistent, based on Plaintiff’s subjective complaints or his father’s reports, which the ALJ found were not supported by the mental health treatment records, and inconsistent with the other evidence of record. (ECF No. 10-3, p. 20). Consistency with other evidence is a valid reason for discounting opinion evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion and permits reliance on a non-examining physician's opinion when it is consistent with the medical and opinion evidence.

Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c), (e)(2)(ii)

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). The opinion of a non-examining physician is generally entitled to little weight and, “taken alone, do[es] not constitute substantial evidence.” Broughton v. Heckler, 776 F.2d 960, 962 (11th Cir. 1985). The ALJ, however, may rely on a non-examining physician’s opinion where it is consistent with the medical and opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) (2016), 416.927(e)(2)(ii) (2016); see also Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1160 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the ALJ did not err in relying on a consulting physician’s opinion where it was consistent with the medical evidence and findings of the examining physician); Edwards v. Sullivan, 937 F.2d 580, 584-85 (11th Cir. 1991).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and directs ALJs to weigh them using factors, including a source’s familiarity with disability-program requirements and the claimant’s record.

Wetzel v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-05(a)(1), (c), and (c)(6)

An ALJ generally must give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating and examining sources than to the medical opinions of non-treating and non-examining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Nonetheless, Wetzel’s argument is meritless for two reasons. First, Wetzel did not provide medical opinions from his treating physicians. “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairments(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). The record evidence from Wetzel’s treating sources does not contain any such judgments about the nature and severity of Wetzel’s impairments and instead consists entirely of treating notes. Second, the ALJ did not err in concluding that the non-examining consultant’s medical opinion was entitled to greater weight than the examining consultant’s medical opinion. As required by statute, the ALJ properly considered a number of factors in attributing weight to the consultants’ medical opinions, including, significantly in Wetzel’s case, the consistency of the opinion with the record, “the amount of understanding of . . . disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has, regardless of the source of that understanding, and the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hartling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-05(c)

When assessing the medical evidence, the ALJ must state with particularity the weight accorded to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers many 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, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization, with greater supporting evidence generally warranting greater weight under subsection (c)(3).

Gaffney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-06(c)

In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers many 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, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.967(c). For instance, the more evidence a medical source presents to support an opinion, the more weight that medical opinion should be afforded. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.967(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) directs evaluation of non-treating examining and non-examining medical and psychological consultants using factors including the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, and supportability, along with other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Cartwright v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-06(c)(1)–(6)

Opinions from non-treating, examining and non-examining medical and psychological consultants are evaluated using the regulatory balancing factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). Specifically, “[t]he Commissioner [] weighs these opinions based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability, but only if a treating-source opinion is not deemed controlling.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)). “Other 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 gives a well-supported and record-consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise requires the adjudicator to consider the regulatory factors when weighing medical opinions.

Finley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(c)

The Second Circuit has long recognized the “treating physician rule” set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). “[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” ... However, there are situations where the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, in which ... the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... The factors for considering opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, with the consideration of whether the source examined the claimant or not replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source opinion that is well supported and consistent with the record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons and consider specified factors when weighing the opinion.

Cummings v. Saul · filed 2019-09-12(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, ... and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing each medical opinion, state the weight assigned, and explain the reasons for that weight.

Neal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-13(c)

The ALJ must review 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). The ALJ must state the weight assigned to each medical opinion, and articulate the reasons supporting the weight assigned to each opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss each factor.

Klopfenstein v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(c)(2)(i)

The Court finds no error. Plaintiff correctly points out that the length of a treatment relationship is a proper factor to consider in weighing the opinion of a treating physician. See 20 CF.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), 416.927(c)(2)(i). However, the ALJ is not required to expressly ‘discuss every factor set forth in the regulations in assessing Dr. Grove’s opinion. See Derda v. Astrue, No. 4:09-CV-01847-AGF, 2011 WL 1304909, at *10 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2011) (“While an ALJ must consider all of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527[ ], he need not explicitly address each of the factors.”). Failure to discuss each factor does not mean the ALJ did not consider them. Moreover, the ALJ reasonably found that a nearly three-year break in treatment cut against Dr. Grove’s opinion that Plaintiff had the assessed limitations since 2010.

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.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-16(c)(4)

This supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Plaintiff was less limited than opined by Dr. Brooks. 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 that medical opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-17(a)(1)

Although this diagnostic imaging was significant, probative evidence that the ALJ was obliged to consider, it does not constitute opinion evidence from an acceptable medical source; therefore, the ALJ was not required to provide specific, legitimate reasons for discounting this imaging evidence. Social Security regulations define medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give greater weight to medical opinions that are consistent with the record, from specialists, and supported by relevant evidence.

Dore v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-17(c)

The ALJ reasoned that Dr. Kwock is a specialist in orthopedic surgery who reviewed the full evidence of record and whose opinion was consistent with that record. Those are permissible reasons for assigning great weight to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); id. §§ 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) (“the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [a claimant’s] case record [is a] relevant factor[] that we will consider”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) guides the weight assigned to a medical opinion by factors including the source’s examining and treating relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty.

Jones v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-17(d)

The weight to be afforded a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the medical source’s examining and treating relationship with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, the extent to which the opinion is consistent 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)(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Crawley v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-17(c)(4)

This inconsistency between Dr. Snook’s evaluation and the other medical evidence is an appropriate factor for the ALJ to consider in evaluating opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider an opinion's support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing it.

Kiss v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-09-18(c)

When weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ also must consider the extent to which the opinion is supported by relevant evidence (e.g., medical signs and laboratory results); the extent to which an opinion is consistent with other opinions and evidence in the record; whether the opinion is within the source’s area of specialization; and “other factors” such as the familiarity of the SSA disability benefits process and other information in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to consider six factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to explicitly discuss every factor in every decision.

Hein v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)

As an initial matter, the regulations require the Commissioner to consider six factors7 for deciding the weight given to any medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Since not every factor will apply in every case, the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each of the six factors in their decisions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Graham, III v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-17(b), (c)(1)-(6)

The regulations require an ALJ to “consider” all the medical opinions in the record as well as “evaluate” them considering the factors of 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b),(c), 416.927(b)(c). These factors include the examining relationship; the treatment relationship, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination as well as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other relevant factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, consistent with the record, supported by a treatment relationship, and provided by a specialist, while considering other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)-(6)

“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3). ... “Generally, the 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), 416.927(c)(4). ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6) (2016) (“we will also consider any factors you or others bring to our attention, or of which we are aware, which tend to support or contradict the opinion”). ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (2016) (“the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion”). ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5) (2016), 416.927(c)(5) (2016) (“[w]e generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) requires consideration of the frequency of examination and length of the treatment relationship when weighing medical opinions.

(SS) Baptista v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-23(c)(2)(i)

The factors considered by the ALJ may be used evaluate to the weight to be given to medical opinions. The Regulations inform claimants that the frequency of examination and length of a treatment relationship will be considered. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (4) permits an ALJ to give little or no weight to medical opinions that lack clinical support or are inconsistent with the record.

Larson v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3), (4)

The ALJ rejected the evaluations by Dr. Tonkin and Dr. Roskowski because they were inconsistent with medical and other evidence generated during the relevant time frame and were not supported by clinical findings. (R. 14–15.) These are valid reasons to give little to no weight to medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give an examining medical opinion little weight when it lacks supporting evidence and conflicts with the record, so long as the reasons for that weight are sufficiently specific.

White v. SSA · filed 2019-09-25(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” ... “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). ... After reviewing the whole record, the Court finds there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s decision to accord Dr. Genthner’s opinion [Tr. 597-607] little weight due to his opinion being inconsistent with Plaintiff’s subsequent treatment. ... The ALJ’s analysis of the evidence, treatment notes, and medical opinions, along with her explanation that Dr. Genthner’s opinion [Tr. 597-607] and GAF scale score were inconsistent with Plaintiff’s more recent mental health treatment and Plaintiff’s daily activities, were sufficiently specific to explain the weight given to Dr. Genthner’s opinion [Tr. 597-607] and GAF scale score and the reasons for giving that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical-source opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Postel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)

Proper evaluation of a medical source’s opinion requires consideration of the following factors: (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors.6 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(5), 416.927(c). ... “[T]he regulations do not strictly require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor discussion if the record shows consideration of relevant factors.

Kamerling v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)

In any event, the ALJ properly weighed Dr. Sheill’s opinion, as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.929(c), and adequately explained his decision to assign it only partial weight—adopting Dr. Sheill’s opinion that Kamerling could not perform manual labor but concluding that the evidence supported an RFC for light work. ... It is well established that an ALJ is not required to discuss each factor in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when weighing opinion evidence. ... Here, the ALJ gave adequate reasons, reflecting application of factors (3) and (4) (supportability and consistency), for according “some weight” to Dr. Sheill’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires greater weight for the medical opinion of an examining source than for the opinion of a source who has not examined the claimant, but that preference is not absolute.

Vang v. Saul · filed 2019-09-26(c)(1)

Though an ALJ generally must “give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), that is not always the case, see SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *3 (“In appropriate circumstances, opinions from State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians and psychologists may be entitled to greater weight than the opinions of treating or examining sources.”)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) applies to medical opinions, not objective evidence such as clinical findings, lab results, diagnoses, and treatment plans.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)

The reports Plaintiff objects to are not “medical opinions,” subject to weighing by the ALJ, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), but instead consist of objective evidence such as clinical findings, lab results, diagnoses, and treatment plans from licensed physicians, R. at 258–312.

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.

Gnojek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(c)(4)

This is an appropriate reason to discount the opinions because “the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the SSA] will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical-source opinions using the regulatory factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned; a treating opinion gets controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

HIGHWART v. BERRYHILL · filed 2019-09-26(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). “If, however, the treating physician's opinion conflicts with other medical evidence, then the ALJ is free to give that opinion less than controlling weight or even reject it, so long as the ALJ clearly explains [his or] her reasons and makes a clear record.” Salles v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 229 Fed. Appx. 140, 148 (3d Cir. 2007). ... In the present case, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently explained his rationale for giving Dr. Petraglia’s opinion little weight in his analysis. The ALJ did not fail to provide sufficient reasons for discounting Dr. Petraglia’s opinion, nor did he simply substitute his own lay analysis for the judgment of Dr. Petraglia in formulating Plaintiff’s RFC. Rather, the ALJ fulfilled his duty as fact-finder to evaluate Dr. Petraglia’s opinion, considering a number of factors, and in light of all the evidence presented in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) says consultative examiners generally receive greater weight than nonexamining sources, while an opinion’s support and consistency with the record must also be considered.

Turner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(c)

As the R&R notes, the opinions of consultative examiners such as Dr. Humphries should “generally receive greater weight than a non-examining source.” ... However, the conclusions reached in such testimony must be considered alongside “the explanation and support for the opinion, as well as its consistency with the record as a whole.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a medical opinion that is well-supported and not inconsistent with the record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons when an opinion lacks that support or consistency.

Cournoyer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

Medical opinions from acceptable medical sources are entitled to “controlling weight” if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record”. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When these opinions are either not well-supported or are inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the ALJ must, inter alia, give good reasons for the weight given. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Social Security Ruling 96-2p (Rescinded by Federal Register Notice Vol. 82, No. 57, page 15263 effective March 27, 2017, after February 10, 2015, the filing date of the plaintiff’s application).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and weigh every medical opinion together with the rest of the relevant record.

Garrett v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-27(b)-(c)

As a general rule, an ALJ must consider and weigh all medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c) (stating that “we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive” and “[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)(3) gives greater weight to medical opinions supported by more relevant evidence and better explanations.

Escandon v. SSA · filed 2019-09-27(c)(3)

Moreover, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion when evaluating a claimant's RFC, but does not require the ALJ to adopt any particular opinion.

Lancaster v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-27(c)

The Court notes that although an ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), she is not bound to adopt any particular opinion when formulating a claimant’s RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory balancing factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor.

Wolfenbarger v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-09-27(c)

To the extent that Plaintiff suggests that the ALJ should have addressed all of the regulatory balancing factors, nothing within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) mandates that every factor be explicitly addressed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who gives little weight to a treating source’s opinion to analyze the regulatory factors bearing on the opinion’s weight.

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

In this case, while the ALJ did not explicitly mention § 404.1527(c)’s factors in rejecting Dr. Perry’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s need for additional breaks and absences, his explanation for doing so evidences that he considered them. The ALJ gave "little weight" to that part of Dr. Perry’s opinion, even though she was Plaintiff’s "treating primary care physician," because "[s]he provided no evidentiary support for [it]," and "it is inconsistent with the routine, conservative treatment [Plaintiff received] as well as the diagnostic images and findings." A.R. 40. These reasons indicate that the ALJ considered Dr. Perry’s examining relationship with Plaintiff; the support she presented for her opinion, in terms of objective evidence and explanation; and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), (3)-(4). The ALJ also mentioned that Dr. Perry was Plaintiff’s "long-time primary care physician, who regularly treated [her] and who was familiar with her multiple impairments," which demonstrates that he considered the nature and extent of the treatment relationship and Dr. Perry’s specialization. A.R. 40; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (5). It is clear, therefore, that the ALJ considered the regulatory factors and did not err in determining the weight to assign Dr. Perry’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, source specialty, evidentiary support, and consistency with the record.

Berry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-29

Like any other medical opinion, a treating physician’s opinion must be weighed using the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, including the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, as well as the medical specialty of the source, how well-supported by evidence the opinion is, and how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating-source opinion without applying more rigorous scrutiny than to nontreating and nonexamining opinions.

Porter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-29(c)

As the Sixth Circuit has explained: “A more rigorous scrutiny of the treating-source opinion than the nontreating and nonexamining opinions is precisely the inverse of the analysis that the regulation requires.” Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96–6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2 (Soc. Sec. Admin. July 2, 1996)). Accordingly, the Commissioner’s objections on this point are OVERRULED.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source’s familiarity with the other information in the case record.

Morales v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(c)(4), (c)(6)

Moreover, a claimant’s prior work history is an appropriate consideration for the physician to consider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (recognizing that the ALJ is to consider “the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record”). ... Relevant factors to evaluating any medical opinion include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1042; Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. 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, 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than to examining-source opinions, and greater weight to examining-source opinions than to non-examining opinions.

Witham v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(c)(1)-(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider an examining physician’s opinion; one examination may affect the weight assigned but is not, by itself, a specific and legitimate reason to reject it.

Buzzotta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)

The ALJ’s first reason for rejecting Dr. Osman’s first letter opinion was not specific and legitimate. When Dr. Osman offered his first letter opinion, he had already examined plaintiff. The regulations clearly state that an ALJ must consider the opinions of examining physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The fact that Dr. Osman rendered an opinion after only one examination may be a factor in assigning weight but it is not specific and legitimate reason to reject it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs adjudicators to give greater weight to medical opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole.

Ragodo v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(c)(4)

As Defendant notes, no doctor has opined a greater functional limitation than those found by the ALJ. Rather, the other doctors’ opinions are consistent with the ALJ’s findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (SSA rule assigning greater weight to the opinions of physicians which are consistent with the record as a whole). ... Plaintiff, moreover, does not point to a medical opinion in the record to contradict these assessments of her functional limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

Social Security regulations require that an ALJ consider “all of the following factors in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion”: the examining relationship, the treatment relationship (including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, as well as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability, consistency, specialization, and any other factors that might be relevant under the particular circumstances of the case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Social Security Administration to consider factors including examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Clevenger v. SSA · filed 2019-09-30(c)

The Code of Federal Regulations outlines how the Social Security Administration considers and articulates medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The Social Security Administration looks at certain factors in considering the weight given to any medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The six factors used in determining the weight of a medical opinion are examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) recognizes inconsistency with the record as a valid reason to discount a treating-source medical opinion.

PAUL v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-09-30(c)(4)

The plaintiff fails to address the ALJ’s finding that the Hambright and Parent opinions were inconsistent with other record evidence, see Statement of Errors at 18, a facially valid reason for discounting the opinion of a treating source, see, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight to assess a treating-source opinion using the listed factors, while § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) permits greater weight for a consultative examiner’s opinion when supported by a legally sufficient reason.

Coldwater v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-30(c)(1), (c)(2)

If controlling weight is declined, the ALJ must assess the opinion under a series of factors including: (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 that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor, the reasons stated must be “sufficiently specific” to permit meaningful appellate review. ... While Plaintiff is correct that a state agency physician’s is generally entitled to less weight than a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ may give a consultative examiner’s opinion more weight as long as she gives a legally sufficient reason for doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), (2); ... Here the ALJ has done so—she has provided legally sufficient explanations both for the limited weight she gave Dr. Hunninghake’s statements and for the great weight she gave the agency physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to consider medical evidence and generally give greater weight to treating than examining opinions, and to examining than reviewing opinions.

Mcphillps v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(b), (c), (e)

In determining whether a claimant has a medically determinable impairment, among the evidence the ALJ considers is medical evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). In evaluating medical opinions, the regulations distinguish among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians; (2) examining physicians; and (3) non-examining physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (e); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended). “Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). The opinion of the treating physician is generally given the greatest weight because the treating physician is employed to cure and has a greater opportunity to understand and observe a claimant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than to examining- or nonexamining-source opinions, and favors opinions supported by explanation and specialization.

Ring v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-01(c)(1)-(2)

Title II’s regulations, and accordingly, the Ninth Circuit, distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant but who review the claimant’s file (nonexamining physicians). Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a nonexamining physician’s. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202. In addition, the regulations give more weight to opinions that are explained than to those that are not, and to the opinions of specialists concerning matters relating to their specialty over those of non-specialists. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider a medical opinion's supportability, consistency with the record, source specialization, and other factors when determining its weight.

SCHOTT v. Saul · filed 2019-10-07(c)

Additional factors relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of any medical opinion, not limited to that of a treating physician, include: (1) the supportability of the opinion; (2) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the specialization of the treating or examining source; and (4) any other factors that are brought to the ALJ’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider a medical source's specialty among the factors bearing on the source's opinion, and to consider the source's qualifications when the specialty is far removed from the claimant's impairment.

Irish, Justin v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2019-10-16(c)

The commissioner points out that a medical source’s specialty is only one of several factors that the ALJ was required to consider, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), but this doesn’t change the fact that the ALJ must actually consider the issue. See Czarnecki v. Colvin, 595 F. App’x 635, 644 (7th Cir. 2015) (ALJ erred in part by giving great weight to consultants without “explain[ing] their qualifications or specialties”). Particularly in a case like this one, in which the medical source’s specialty is so far removed from the claimant’s impairment, the ALJ should consider the medical source’s qualifications.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as support, explanation, consistency, and familiarity when weighing medical opinions, but does not require specific reference to each factor; failure to consider any factor is reversible error.

Lund v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-17(c)

The ALJ is required to consider and explain the weight afforded every medical opinion in the record using certain factors, such as the amount of relevant evidence supporting the opinion, the quality of the doctor’s explanation, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the doctor’s familiarity with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). The ALJ need not specifically reference each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Harris v. Colvin, 584 F. App’x 526, 528 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). However, the ALJ’s failure to consider any factor is, on its own, reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs adjudicators to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency and extent, testing, and relevant supporting evidence when weighing a medical opinion; its (c)(3)-(c)(4) factors include supportability and consistency.

Zendejas v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-22(c)(2), (c)(3)-(c)(4)

At step two, plaintiff has the burden to provide evidence of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is severe and that has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. Ukolov, 420 F.3d at 1004-05. In this case, the only evidence even potentially supporting a medically determinable mental impairment is Dr. Bagner’s one-time limited evaluation, which was conducted without the benefit of any of plaintiff’s prior medical records, and based solely on Dr. Bagner’s own limited observations at the examination and on plaintiff as the source of the information. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (length of treatment relationship, frequency of examination, kind and extent of examinations and testing performed, and relevant evidence (i.e., medical signs and laboratory findings) supporting an opinion are factors to consider in weighing a medical opinion). ... These were appropriate reasons for discounting Dr. Bagner’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(c)(4) (supportability and consistency are factors relevant to the weight afforded a medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to articulate the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion under the listed factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Coburn v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-22(c)(2)-(6)

And, when a treating physician’s opinion is not given “controlling weight” because it is not “well-supported” or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must still articulate the relevant weight to be given to the opinion under the factors provided for in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6); Id. at 1161; Orn, 495 F.3d at 632–33. “These factors include the ‘[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’ by the treating physician, the ‘[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship’ between the patient and the treating physician, the ‘[s]upportability’ of the physician’s opinion with medical evidence, and the consistency of the physician’s opinion with the record as a whole.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ to consider the support for a medical opinion, the nature of the examination, and the opinion's consistency with the record when weighing it.

Teneyck v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-23(c)(3)-(4)

Upon review of the ALJ's decision, it is clear that the ALJ appropriately considered the level of support for Dr. Gindes' opinion, the consultative nature of the examination, and the consistency of that opinion with the record as a whole. See id. at 641-42; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4). Further, the ALJ detailed his reasons for crediting portions of the opinion while rejecting others. See Tr. at 641-42. Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the weight of the medical opinions in relation to the record evidence and sufficiently explained the basis for his conclusions as to Dr. Gindes' opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating doctor’s opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Chisholm v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-30(c)(2)–(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating doctor is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] record.’” Revels, 874 F.3d at 654 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). When it is not controlling, the ALJ should weigh the opinion “according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)). The ALJ must also consider any other factors tending “to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, but the ALJ need not discuss each factor individually.

FINKLER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-10-24(c)

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did not err in failing to discuss each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when considering the opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-05(c)(4)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to opinions that are more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) allows an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions that are better supported and more consistent with the record as a whole.

Schott v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-06(c)(3)-(4)

Specifically, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), provides that “consistency . . . with the record as a whole” is a relevant factor for the ALJ to consider in determining how much weight to afford a medical opinion, including that of a treating physician. Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) provides that an ALJ may consider how well the opinion is supported: ... Thus, the ALJ was free to consider both the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record “as a whole” and the degree to which it is supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Emmert v. Saul · filed 2019-11-12(c)

The ALJ must consider a variety of factors in weighing medical opinions, including the length and nature of the treating relationship (if any), the consistency of the medical opinion with the record, and whether the opinion is supported by medical findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stramol-Spirz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-13(c)(3)

With respect to Ms. Sales’ 2014 opinion, the ALJ’s finding that Ms. Sales did not provide any objective reasons to support her opinion is supported by Ms. Sales’ own statement that she had recently begun treating Plaintiff and did not have access to her treatment records. AR 572, 696; 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) generally gives more weight to treating-source opinions than to opinions from non-treating sources and more weight to examining-source opinions than to opinions from nonexamining sources.

Garatea v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-16(c)(1)-(2)

Generally, more weight is given to the opinion of a treating physician than to the opinion of those who do not actually treat the claimant. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). More weight is also given to an examining physician than to a nonexamining physician. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Ortega v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-19(c)

Medical opinions must be weighed using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), comprising (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to credit a nonexamining medical source over an examining, nontreating source when the opinion is well supported and consistent with the record, applying the regulatory weighing factors.

Maxwell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-06(c)

While the opinions of nontreating sources are generally assigned more weight than nonexamining sources, “it is not a per se error of law … for the ALJ to credit a nonexamining source over a nontreating source. Any record opinion … may be rejected by the ALJ when the source’s opinion is not well supported by medical diagnostics or if it is inconsistent with the record.” Norris v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 461 F. App’x 433, 439 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010)). In the present case, the ALJ reasonably credited Dr. Amiri and Dr. Bolz’s opinions over Dr. Danopulos’ opinion because their opinions are “generally consistent with the record, which demonstrates good functioning on his physical examination, only mild to moderate findings on the x-rays of his knees, and no significant treatment for his knee pain.” (Doc. #6, PageID #71) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions than to examining-source opinions, and greater weight to examining-source opinions than to reviewing-source opinions.

Blanpea v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-09(c)(1)-(2)

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

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, understood here as consistency with other examiners’ opinions and records.

Simmons v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-10(c)(4)

Regulations require the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion he receives and to give reasons for assigning a particular weight to opinions received from “treating” sources. ... This argument fails for two reasons. First, Simmons misunderstands the consistency factor. When it uses the phrase “with the record as a whole,” factor (c)(4) plainly asks whether one examiner’s opinion is consistent with another examiner’s opinions and records; not whether one office’s records possess internal consistency.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, and to explain the weight given to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources when considered.

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c), (f)(1), (f)(2)

The ALJ must consider several factors in determining how much weight to give a medical opinion. ... Opinions of physical therapists have generally been interpreted to fall into the category of “opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404,1527(f)(1), 404.1513 (2019). ALJs, should they consider opinions from these sources, must use the same framework to assess these opinions as they would for medically acceptable opinions, Jd. However, the applicability of the above factors is strongly dependent on the facts of each case. /d. The Presiding ALJ should “explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow [the ALJ’s] reasoning.” Jd. 404.1527(£)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the treating source’s specialization when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Gay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c)

Such factors include “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the regulatory factors, but does not require a factor-by-factor discussion when the record shows consideration of support and consistency.

Layman v. Saul · filed 2020-03-11(c)

The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received according to the factors set forth by the Social Security Administration. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). However, the ALJ is not required to make an express statement that he considered all the factors nor take each factor one-by-one; instead, the record must reflect that the ALJ considered whether the opinion was supported by and consistent with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as supportability and consistency with the record, so an opinion cannot be discounted solely because it was rendered later.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-12(c)

The ALJ did not provide a valid basis for discounting these opinions, such as they were unsupported by the evidence or contrary to the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). As such, simply discounting their opinions due to the date they were rendered is insufficient under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 identifies supportability and consistency as factors relevant to weighing an acceptable medical source opinion.

Geralds v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-12

Based on these findings, the ALJ demonstrated that he considered factors relevant to weighing acceptable source opinions, including the supportability and consistency of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. The Court is therefore not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ erred in weighing Ms. Henke’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to consider six factors when weighing a medical opinion, although the ALJ need not expressly apply each factor.

Sanchez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-13(c)

There are six regulatory factors an ALJ should consider when weighing a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 41 6.927(c). ... An ALJ is “not required’ to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.’” ... Here, the ALJ appears to have focused on the third and fourth regulatory factors - the degree to which the Dr. Hughson’s opinions were supported, and the consistency between her opinions and the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), 416.927(c) (3)-(4). ... Reliance on these factors was entirely proper, ... The regulations plainly require ALJs to make judgments about the weight a medical opinion should be given and implicit in this process is the notion that an ALJ may disagree with a medical provider’s conclusions. As long as the ALJ employs the regulatory factors and supports her reasoning with substantial evidence, there is nothing improper about such a result. The Court finds both of those conditions were met here, meaning the ALJ's decision to effectively reject Dr. Hughson’s opinions must be affirmed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give greater weight to treating-source opinions and good reasons for discounting them, while permitting discounting opinions that are conclusory, unsupported by objective medical evidence, inconsistent with the record, or outweighed by contrary evidence.

Wilson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-16(c)

Generally an ALJ gives more weight to the opinion of a “treating source,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), which is a physician, psychologist, or other “acceptable medical source,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2). A treating physician’s opinion generally is entitled to more weight, and an ALJ must give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) 5; SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (July 2, 1996). An ALJ may discount a treating-physician’s opinion when the opinion is conclusory, the physician fails to provide objective medical evidence to support his or her opinion, the opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole, or the evidence otherwise supports a contrary finding. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Sabr v. Saul · filed 2020-03-16(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654. ... The ALJ should have given the greatest weight to Dr. Savon’s opinion because of the fact that Dr. Savon was Plaintiff’s treating physician, and also because greater weight is due to the “opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to apply its factors when determining the proper weight to give disability findings from the VA.

Gigstead v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-16(c)

Although it is true that an ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to the disability ratings by the VA, she must determine the proper weight to give such findings by applying the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating-source medical opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Koetje v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-16(c)

Finally, the ALJ properly applied the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). While an ALJ must consider these factors, she need not provide “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” in her decision. Francis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 414 F. App’x 802, 804 (6th Cir. 2011). Here, the ALJ properly considered the factors relevant to her analysis and explained her reasons for applying them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an Administrative Law Judge to evaluate every medical opinion and, when weighing a treating-source opinion, give it controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

The process of assigning weight to medical opinions in the record begins with a determination whether to assign controlling weight to the medical opinion of the treating source. The “treating physician rule” mandates that the ALJ give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires the weight given to a medical opinion to reflect the source’s treatment and examination relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Shadwrick v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-17(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)(3)-(4) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and explanations and consistent with the record as a whole.

Besso v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(c)(3)-(4)

Additionally, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision. First, Dr. Karatinos’s opinion is generally unsupported by objective evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). In fact, Dr. Karatinos’s opinion is contradicted by her own treatment notes, which generally show unremarkable mental status examinations. ... Third, Dr. Karatinos’s opinion is contradicted by the other evidence of 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) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using listed factors, but a record statement that gives no specific work-related limitations need not be treated as a medical opinion requiring that evaluation.

Barr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received according to a list of factors set forth by the Social Security Administration. 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c), 404.1527(c). However, an ALJ is not required to provide reasons for rejecting statements within medical records when those records do not reflect physical or mental limitations or otherwise provide information about the ability to work. ... Here, Dr. Schneider generally noted that Plaintiff was too “unstable” to participate in vocational rehabilitation services at that time, but he did not assign any specific limitations regarding Plaintiff’s ability to work. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in not considering Dr. Schneider’s statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) distinguishes treating, examining, and nonexamining physicians and generally gives their opinions progressively less weight in that order.

Blumert v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-18(c)

Three types of physicians may offer opinions in Social Security cases: those who treated the plaintiff, those who examined but did not treat the plaintiff, and those who did neither. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995) (as amended). A treating physician’s opinion is generally entitled to more weight than an examining physician’s opinion, which is generally entitled to more weight than a nonexamining physician’s.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, generally give more weight to an examining source than to a non-examining source, and allow reduced or no weight when good cause supports it.

Myhres v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(c)

Under the controlling regulations, the ALJ is required to consider all the medical opinions in the record. Kneeland v. Berryhill, 850 F.3d 749, 759 (5" Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c). A medical opinion is a “statement[] from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Generally, more weight is given to the “medical opinion of a source who has examined [a claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c)(1). But, “less weight, little weight, or even no weight” may be given to a medical expert’s opinion if there is good cause for doing so, Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5™ Cir. 1994), and “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5" Cir. 1987).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) requires an ALJ to consider a treating source’s familiarity with the claimant’s case record when weighing the source’s medical opinion, but that factor is not dispositive.

Poynter v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(c)(6)

While it is true that the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s case record]” is relevant when assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion, this factor is far from dispositive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6). Rather, a treating source’s familiarity with a claimant’s case record is just one factor that the ALJ is required to consider when determining the weight to give a treating source’s medical opinion. Indeed, the very sentence that comes before the discussion of a claimant’s case record in the Regulations states that the Commissioner “will also consider any factors . . . which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion less than controlling weight when it lacks clinical support or conflicts with substantial evidence, and treats a statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner.

Addington v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-20(c), (d)(1)

While the ALJ, in general, is required to give more weight to opinion evidence from examining versus nonexamining medical sources, the ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to the opinions of a treating source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (2019). In fact, even an opinion from a treating physician will be accorded significantly less weight if it is “not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence….” ... Statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work are not medical opinions, but administrative findings that are reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and generally gives greater weight to the opinion of a medical professional who has examined the applicant.

Nichols v. Saul · filed 2020-03-20(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion presented, regardless of the medical professional who presents the opinion. See Brown v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 255 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). Generally, the opinion of the medical professional who has examined the applicant is afforded more weight. See id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(4) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it lacks supporting evidence or is inconsistent with the record.

Yacoobali v. Saul Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ explained that Dr. Shertock’s assessment of marked impairment in adaptability is not consistent with Plaintiff’s ability to take an extended international trip, or his successful academic performance in school (AR 24, 61, 747), or Dr. Shertock’s own findings that Plaintiff is able to function adequately, including demonstrating a logical, organized, and coherent thought process and normal insight and judgment. (AR 672). These are proper reasons for discounting parts of Dr. Shertock’s opinion under the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (consistency) and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (supportability); Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001) (ALJ properly discounted doctor’s limitations for being inconsistent with Plaintiff’s level of activity).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Sections 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the other relevant evidence and weigh them using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Camp v. Saul · filed 2020-03-20(b), (c)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, medical opinions are considered by the ALJ together with the rest of the relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The amount of weight given to a medical opinion is to be governed by a number of factors including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Here, the Court finds the ALJ thoroughly assessed the medical evidence and determined Dr. Morgan’s findings that Plaintiff could perform simple, repetitive work tasks was consistent with the unremarkable neuropsychological test results and supported by generally unremarkable mental status examination findings and the evidence as a whole, including Plaintiff's daily activities. (Tr. 24) ... The ALJ also gave significant weight to both Dr. Pribor and Dr. Lantsberger, Plaintiff's treating psychologist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider whether the source examined the claimant, the treatment relationship, supportability and consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Petrone-Knechtel v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-20(c)(1)-(6)

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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examinations, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability, and sufficiently account for those factors.

Harvie v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-03-23(c)

“If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Instead, the ALJ need only “sufficiently account for the factors.” ... It should have formed some part of the ALJ’s reasons for discounting her doctor’s controlling opinion. ... By failing to weigh what appears to be the most critical findings, I find the ALJ did not give good reasons for the weight he accorded Dr. Merriman’s opinions in relation to the substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical-opinion evidence to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Meade v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)

An ALJ considers many factors when weighing medical opinion evidence, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, and whether an opinion is consistent with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ may discount any medical opinion when the opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the record, or when the evidence supports a contrary finding. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and state with particularity the weight given to each opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Champion v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(c)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). While “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion,” Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 279); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors when weighing medical opinions, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if the ALJ states with particularity the weight given and the reasons for it.

Markem v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(c)

“While “the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors[,]” Lawton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App’x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh each medical opinion using specified factors and to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless good cause supports a lesser weight.

Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, ... nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; 3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; 4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A treating physician’s opinion must be given controlling weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence); see also Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight where: 1) the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; 2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or 3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner and makes them nonbinding legal conclusions, including when offered by a treating physician.

Frary v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(d)(1)

In addition, the substance of the doctor’s opinion, i.e., that plaintiff could not hold down employment, is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1) and 416.927(d)(1) ( “[a] statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Commissioner] will determine that you are disabled’ ). Such statements, by even a treating physician, constitute a legal conclusion that is not binding on the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and weigh every medical opinion, using factors such as supportability and consistency, and explain the weight assigned sufficiently for review.

Sells v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c), (f)

Accordingly, an ALJ is required to consider and weigh every opinion contained in the record. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (f). In determining what weight to give to an opinion, the ALJ evaluates several factors including, inter alia, the supportability and consistency of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The ALJ need not expressly consider all of the relevant factors, but his or her decision must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the…opinion and the reasons for that weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and weigh every opinion, apply factors such as supportability and consistency, and explain the weight assigned with enough specificity for later review.

Gallegos v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-23(c)(1)-(6), (f)

Accordingly, an ALJ is required to consider and weigh every opinion contained in the record. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), (f). In determining what weight to give to an opinion, the ALJ evaluates several factors including, inter alia, the supportability and consistency of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The ALJ need not expressly consider all of the relevant factors, but his or her decision must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the…opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to assign no or little weight to a medical opinion, including a treating source's opinion, based on the regulatory factors when the ALJ sufficiently explains the rationale and the record supports it.

Mullins v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-24(c)

Furthermore, while an ALJ may not reject medical evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason, see King v. Califano, 615 F.2d 1018, 1020 (4th Cir. 1980), an ALJ may, under the regulations, assign no or little weight to a medical opinion, even one from a treating source, based on the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), if he sufficiently explains his rationale and if the record supports his findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using the relevant factors; lack of a function-by-function format alone is not enough to discount it.

Foster v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(c)

An ALJ may not ignore opinions prepared for non-social security disability purposes but instead must translate the functional limitations expressed therein into Social Security terminology. And the opinion must be weighed by applying the relevant factors. The ALJ did not weigh any factors but simply discounted the opinion for not including a function-by-function analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions and observations from non-acceptable medical and nonmedical sources and permits discounting them for germane reasons; § 404.1527(f)(1) permits a non-acceptable medical source's opinion to outweigh an acceptable source's opinion when it is better supported or based on more frequent contact.

Brown v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-24(f), (f)(1)

The ALJ must consider the opinions of other “medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and [the testimony] from nonmedical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). The ALJ is required to consider observations by “other sources” as to how an impairment affects a claimant’s ability to work. Id. Nonetheless, an “ALJ may discount [the] testimony” or an opinion “from these other sources if the ALJ gives … germane [reasons] for doing so.” Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[A]n opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). “For example, it may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source, has provided better supporting evidence as a whole.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors concerning the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, although the ALJ need not explicitly address each factor if it gives good cause for rejecting a treating physician's opinion.

Melgar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion, (4) consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). “However, the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors. Rather, the ALJ must provide ‘good cause’ for rejecting a treating physician’s medical opinions.” Lawton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App’x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using regulatory factors, including supportability and consistency.

Lockett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(c)

The ALJ was required to weigh the medical opinions using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Supportability and consistency are two important factors to be considered in weighing medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assess the weight of a medical opinion using factors including examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Phelps v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(c)

Where an opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is responsible for assessing the weight of a medical opinion based on several factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those factors 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; 5) whether the physician is a specialist; and 6) other factors brought to defendant’s attention, such as the amount of understanding of defendant’s disability programs and their evidentiary requirements, and the physician’s familiarity with other information in the record. See id. § 404.1527(c); Johnson, 434 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-source medical opinions than to examining-source opinions and greater weight to examining-source opinions than to reviewing-source opinions.

Peifer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-25(c)(1)-(2)

“Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s.” ... Thus, the ALJ was required to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the opinions of plaintiffs treating physicians Dr. Choi and Dr. Almudhafar.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well-supported and consistent with the record, good reasons for the weight assigned to that opinion, and consideration of consistency and other relevant factors when weighing medical opinions.

Little v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2), (c)(4), and (c)(6)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. ... Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. ... Based on this record, the ALJ gave good reasons for assigning reduced weight to Dr. Clarke’s opinion. ... Given this record, the ALJ could give Dr. Armstrong’s opinion partial weight. 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.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (“When we consider how much weight to give to a medical opinion, we will also consider any factors you or others bring to our attention, or of which we are aware, which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. For example, the amount of understanding of our disability programs . . .”). Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim of error is denied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to examining, treating, and specialist opinions, and permits discounting a treating physician's opinion for good cause when the reasons are clearly articulated.

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

The method for weighing medical opinions under the Social Security Act is in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Relevant here, the opinions of examining physicians are generally given more weight than non-examining physicians, treating more than non-treating physicians, and specialists more than non-specialist physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1-5). A court must give a treating physician’s opinions substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. ... Good cause for disregarding such opinions “exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion under regulatory factors including consistency with the record as a whole.

Burt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2), (c)(4)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight only if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ evaluates the opinion under the same regulatory factors that apply to all medical opinions. See Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d at 32; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ properly found Dr. Kim’s opinion was not only inconsistent with treatment records but also with plaintiff’s activities and testing from other medical sources. (Tr. 22-23).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor discussion if the decision gives good reasons.

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

Such factors include “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). ... Although an ALJ must “consider” all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c) and must “apply” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2), including its subsections, through (c)(6) to determine the weight to give that opinion, she is not required to discuss every factor in his decision as long as she provides “good reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives greater weight to opinions from sources who examined the claimant and specialists in the relevant area, but it does not require one examining psychologist's opinion to outweigh another's.

Gipson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-27(c)

Generally, greater weight is afforded to medical sources that have examined the claimant and to medical opinions of a specialist in his or her area of expertise. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... Dr. Lazar and Dr. Jenkins are both psychologists and both examined Plaintiff; thus, the ALJ was not required to give one opinion more weight than the other. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Price v. Colvin · filed 2020-03-30(c)

In such a situation, the ALJ must assess what weight the opinion should be given based on factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those factors include: (1) the physicians’s length of treatment of the claimant; (2) the physician’s frequency of examination; (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) the support of the physician’s opinion afforded by the medical evidence of record; (5) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (6) the specialization of the treating physician; and, (7) any other considerations. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship and a medical source’s familiarity with the claimant’s case record when assigning weight to a medical opinion.

Daughrity v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)

The number of times a claimant meets with a provider is a relevant factor in assigning weight to an opinion. ... Moreover, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the source’s treating relationship, specialization, and understanding of the disability program and its evidentiary requirements.

Kincade v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-30(a)(2), (c)(5), (c)(6)

The ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Simpson’s opinion based on the finding that the “medical treatment notes . . . [do not establish] a treating relationship [with Dr. Simpson] . . . before or after [Mr. Kincade’s] alleged onset date.” ... In June 2016, Dr. Morgan planned to discuss Mr. Kincade’s case with Dr. Simpson. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (“Treating source means . . . [an] acceptable medical source who provides [a claimant], or has provided [a claimant], with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [a claimant].”). Consequently, the ALJ’s reliance on the absence of a treating relationship to discount Dr. Simpson’s opinion is not supported by substantial evidence. ... With respect to the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Simpson was not familiar with the “disability program [and] its evidentiary requirements,” a source’s “understanding of [the] disability programs and the[] evidentiary requirements” is a factor that an ALJ may consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6). But the ALJ did not consider Dr. Simpson’s ENT specialization when she weighed his medical opinion. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Because the ALJ cited one experience factor but did not discuss the other one, the ALJ’s reliance on § 404.1527(c)(6) is an inadequate reason to discount Dr. Simpson’s opinion.