20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally favors opinions from examining sources over those from nonexamining sources but does not require a particular amount of weight.

Brady v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-30(c)(1)

The Plaintiff cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), which provides: “Generally, we give more weight to the opinion of a source who examined you than to the opinion of a source who has not examined you.” Again, that section of the CFR does not mandate any specific amount of weight that is to be given to an examining physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves final responsibility for deciding residual functional capacity to the Commissioner and requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions for their support and consistency rather than rely on them exclusively.

Dowdell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(2)

The applicable regulations also explain that “[a]lthough we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity, . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The regulations do not require an ALJ to rely solely upon medical opinions when formulating a residual functional capacity, but instead explicitly require an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions based on their consistency with and support from “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (3), (4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider opinions from non-examining state-agency consultants and gives more weight to opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

McCaskill v. Saul · filed 2020-03-30(f)(2)(i), (c)(4)

Also, an “ALJ is required to consider the opinions of non-examining state agency medical and psychological consultants because they ‘are highly qualified physicians and psychologists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.’” Milner v. Barnhart, 275 F. App’x 947, 948 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i)). ...; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

MARCOU v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2020-03-30(c)(4)

The ALJ supportably gave greater weight to the Claiborn opinion on the basis that “he was in the unique position of having reviewed the medical evidence of record in its entirety, while also having an understanding of agency rules and regulations.” Record at 876; see also, e.g., 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) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion when it is better supported and more consistent with the record, while allowing consideration of other supporting or contradictory factors.

Ruffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)

The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, the better an explanation provided, and the more consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight the opinion is given, and the ALJ may further consider any factor tending to support or contradict the opinion of a physician. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationship, supportability and consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, and to give more weight to sources supported by the claimant’s entire record.

Burnham v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-31(c)

When deciding what weight to give medical opinions, “the ALJ should consider the following facts: the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and doctor; the supportability and consistency of the opinion with the 2 The Plaintiff incorrectly identified Ms. Fogger as Ms. Dugger. record as a whole; the specialization of the doctor; and other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion.” Hand v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 786 F. App’x. 220, 224 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). “The ALJ applies the same standards whether the medical opinion is from a treating physician, a consultative examiner hired by the agency, or a nonexamining, reviewing physician.” Id. The regulations also provide that more weight will be given to sources that are supported by the claimant’s entire record. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(1). An “ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a contrary finding.” Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the medical evidence supporting an opinion, its consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization when weighing it, but need not explicitly discuss each factor in the decision.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)

Besides the nature of a physician’s relationship with a claimant, the ALJ must consider other factors in determining the weight given to each medical opinion, including: (1) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (2) how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (3) the doctor’s area of specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). While the ALJ must consider each factor, it is not mandatory that he explicitly address them in his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and apply the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require a factor-by-factor discussion if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Wohler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c)

Although an ALJ must “consider” all of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and must “apply” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including its subsections, through (c)(6) to determine the weight to give that opinion, he is not required to discuss every factor in his decision as long as he provides “good reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when weighing medical opinion evidence.

Nickels v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(c)

In weighing medical opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in the regulations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c). ... The court finds the ALJ erred by affording great weight to the opinion of the consulting state agency physicians. “[T]he opinion of a non-examining consulting physician is afforded less weight if the consulting physician did not have access to relevant medical records, including relevant medical records made after the date of evaluation.” McCoy v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 605, 616 (8th Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources about the nature and severity of impairments, requires an ALJ to consider regulatory factors when weighing them, and gives greater weight to examining-source opinions than to nonexamining-source opinions.

Jensen v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(b), (c), (d)(1)

“Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [claimant’s] impairment(s), including [claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, and what [claimant] can still do despite the impairment(s), and . . . physical or mental restrictions.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(b). In weighing medical opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in the regulations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c). ... “The opinion of an acceptable medical source who has examined a claimant is entitled to more weight than the opinion of a source who has not examined a claimant.” Lacroix, 465 F.3d at 888 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(1), 416.927(d)(1)), Shontos v. Barnhart, 328 F.3d 418, 425 (8th Cir. 2003), and Kelley v. Callahan, 133 F.3d 583, 589 (8th Cir. 1998).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats an RFC determination as a legal decision reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion, and section 404.1527(c)(4) directs the ALJ to give more weight to opinions that are more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Doreen Ann Burns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-01(d)(2), (c)(4)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC). ... 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) (“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)(4) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Mauricio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-01(c)(4)

Although these clinical findings generally post-date Dr. Foster’s opinion, much of the record supports Plaintiff’s fibromyalgia diagnosis and the ALJ must weigh Dr. Foster’s opinion in consideration of “the record as a whole.” See Batson v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ may discredit treating-physician opinion that is “conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole, . . . or by objective medical findings”); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires the weight given to non-examining medical opinions to depend on their supporting explanations and consideration of the pertinent evidence.

Bare v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-01(c)(3)

These opinions did not include the level of supporting explanation as required by § 404.1527(c)(3). Therefore, the ALJ erred by giving said opinions such substantial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider six listed factors when assigning weight, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

Jenkins v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-01(c)(2)–(6)

Even where an ALJ properly declines to afford the opinion of a treating physician controlling weight, he or she still must apply several factors to determine the weight the opinion should be afforded. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Those factors are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, that is, the extent to which it is consistent with medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinions, if there are multiple, (5) whether the treating physician is a specialist, and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, the regulation requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Oleske v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-02(c)

But on the facts of this case, the Court concludes that ALJ’s failure to explain the discrepancies with the consultative physicians’ opinions and to consider fully the factors listed 20 C.F.R. § 1527(c) constituted legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions that are better explained and supported by consideration of pertinent evidence.

Hernandez v. Saul · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3)

The ALJ also permissibly discounted Dr. Luteyn’s functional assessment of Hernandez because it is accompanied by little supporting reasoning and no clinical findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”); see also Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion that lacks supporting clinical findings and is inconsistent with the record, while subsection (c)(3) does not impose a limit on the time gap between a consultant’s report and the ALJ’s hearing and decision when the expert considered all evidence available at the time.

Owen v. Saul · filed 2020-04-03(c)(3), (c)(4)

Second, the ALJ did not err in giving Dr. Bowes’s opinion “little weight,” because substantial evidence confirms that Dr. Bowes’s opinion lacked supporting clinical findings and was inconsistent with the record. See Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Finally, Owen argues that the ALJ erred in giving great weight to the non-examining state agency physicians’ opinions, because the physicians did not review any evidence beyond July 2014. However, there is always some time lapse between a consultant’s report and the ALJ hearing and decision, and the Social Security regulations impose no limit on such a gap in time. At the time they issued their opinions, the non-examining experts had considered all the evidence before them, satisfying the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ assigning weight to a medical opinion to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Sacks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-03(c)(1)–(6)

Also, on remand, if the ALJ determines Ms. Lambie is a non-treating source, the ALJ “shall apply the following factors in assigning weight to the opinion: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship, including length, nature, and extent of the relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors.” ... In the ALJ’s current analysis, there is no indication whether the ALJ applied any of the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation gives more weight to medical opinions that are better supported by relevant evidence and explanations and are more consistent with the record as a whole.

Urlaub v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-06(c)(3), (c)(4)

First, the opinions were supported by the medical records available at the time, including those from Southwest Network. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). In reviewing the records, Dr. Khan found that Plaintiff’s providers generally reported him as having good concentration; normal speech and memory; some irritability; and a mostly normal mood, albeit sometimes depressed or blunted. (R. at 72.) Dr. Rubin reviewed the same records and those produced in the months between the initial denial and reconsideration and made similar findings. (R. at 89.) Second, although the medical evidence reviewed by Drs. Khan and Rubin was from 2014–2016, it was consistent with many of the later medical records. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to provide good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialty.

Bradley v. Saul · filed 2020-03-05(c)(1)-(5), (d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an adjudicator to evaluate a non-treating medical opinion using regulatory factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, rather than treating it as entitled to controlling weight.

McGhee v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-11(c)

Opinions from non-treating sources are never assessed for controlling weight but are evaluated using the regulatory balancing factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors bearing on the weight of medical opinions, but does not require expressly addressing every factor.

Dolloff v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-06(c)

The ALJ’s analysis shows that he followed the Watkins two-part test and the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c) in assessing how much weight to attribute to Dr. Black and Dr. Parsons’ opinions. ... The ALJ need not explicitly address every factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) because Watkins does not require the ALJ to go through a checklist of factors that must be referenced in an opinion, or fear of committing reversible error. ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in declining to defer to Dr. Black because that choice was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ’s application of the 20 C.F.R. 404.1527 factors, and the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Black’s RFC opinion was inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bucon v. Saul · filed 2020-04-06(c)

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). ... Given that Dr. Lim provided relevant evidence to support his opinion, the ALJ was entitled to give appropriate weight to his findings. ... The ALJ also cited other evidence of record in her decision that was consistent with Dr. Lim’s findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”).) ... The record as a whole thus supports the ALJ’s decision to afford partial weight to Dr. Lim’s opinion and she adequately explained her decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greatest weight to treating-source medical opinions and more weight to examining-source opinions than to non-examining-source opinions when evaluating medical evidence.

Shepherd v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-07(a)(2), (c)(2)-(6)

A physician’s opinion may be a treating source, examining source, or non-examining source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (evaluating opinion evidence for claims filed before March 2017); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). A treating physician is one who provides or has provided the claimant with medical treatment or evaluation, or who has an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Generally, an ALJ should give greatest weight to a treating physician’s opinion and more weight to the opinion of an examining physician than a non-examining physician. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040-41; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... Because the overall record tends to support Dr. Lieberman’s conclusions, the fact that he completed a check-box form is not itself a specific and legitimate reason for discrediting his opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 recognizes that an opinion from a source who is not an acceptable medical source need not receive the same weight as an opinion from an acceptable medical source.

Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(a)(2), (d)

The foregoing reasons were permissible ones for rejecting the chiropractor’s opinion. First, an ALJ is not required to give the opinion from a source that is not an acceptable medical source the same weight as he would the opinion from an acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2) (defining “medical opinions” as, in pertinent part, statements from “acceptable medical sources”), 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (describing weight to give medical opinions); see also Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967, 970-971 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that the regulations permit the Commissioner to give “less weight” to opinions from “other sources”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned, and consider specified factors including examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Walker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(c)

An ALJ has an obligation to evaluate every medical opinion and explain the weight given to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: (1) whether there is an examining relationship; (2) whether there is a treatment relationship, and if so the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of the examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider consistency with the record alongside other listed factors when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

Blasingame v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-08(c)(2)–(6)

Even if the Court credits the Commissioner’s argument that the progress notes are inconsistent with the newly presented evidence, consistency with the record is but one factor among many for the ALJ to consider in determining the weight of a newly presented treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) makes consistency a relevant factor in assessing a medical source opinion.

TIRADO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-03-30(c)(4)

Consistency is a relevant factor in assessing a medical source opinion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), and an ALJ properly discounts medical source evidence when it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs ALJs to consider the length, nature, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when assessing the value of a medical opinion.

Beck v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-08(c)

As part of this analysis, the Regulations set forth the following factors ALJs should consider when assessing the value of each medical opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally gives an examining physician’s opinion more weight than a non-examining physician’s opinion.

Nowden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(c)(1)

“Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing physician’s.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(c)(1)- (2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to medical opinions, although failure to do so may be harmless when the opinions and the record support the decision.

Miller v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-14(c)(2)

Thus, while ALJ Nagel should have explained the weight she afforded Dr. Witmer’s and Dr. Muxlow’s medical opinions, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), her failure to do so in this case was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a medical opinion, an ALJ must consider its consistency and supportability, but need not explicitly discuss every listed factor when the reasoning shows those factors were considered.

Middleton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-15(c)

But as the Magistrate Judge found, the ALJ’s reasoning “revealed that he considered the consistency and supportability of Dr. Djagarian’s opinion with the record evidence.” Doc. 16, at 17. This was sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Golden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-15(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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Despite Golden’s contention that Dr. Gale-Dyer’s opinion should have led ALJ Price to include in his RFC a limitation to constant reaching and fine and gross manipulation, the record substantially supports why frequent reaching adequately addresses Dr. Gale-Dyer’s concerns.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sides v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-15(c)(1)-(6)

the ALJ is still required to consider and weigh “other source” opinions using the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). See Keyes-Zachary, 695 F.3d at 1161.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the timing of a medical opinion, among other factors, when determining the weight it receives.

Driscoll v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-16(c)

When evaluating how much weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider, among other things, the timing of 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 evaluate medical opinions under the regulatory factors without applying greater scrutiny to a treating-source opinion than to nontreating or nonexamining opinions.

Gilbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-16(c)

With respect to the treating source rule, the regulations do not allow the ALJ to apply greater scrutiny to a treating source opinion to justify giving such an opinion. ... His determination that Dr. Arora’s opinion was inconsistent with the rest of the record despite a litany of findings not characterized as “mild,” and juxtaposed with his determination that Dr. Offutt’s opinion was consistent with the rest of the record despite her consideration of less than half of it, indicates that the ALJ did not consider these opinions under the same level of scrutiny; rather, he subjected Dr. Arora’s opinion to greater scrutiny than Dr. Offutt’s. This is a clear failure to employ the proper legal standards to evaluate medical opinions, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, and calls into question his analysis of the plaintiff’s record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider relevant factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and source specialization, when weighing medical opinions.

KIEFER v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-04-17(c)(1)-(6)

Unless a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider all relevant factors that tend to support or contradict any medical opinions of record, including the patient / physician relationship; the supportability of the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the specialization of the provider at issue. Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows an ALJ to give less weight to an opinion outside the medical source’s area of expertise and treats whether a claimant can work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Bourbonnais v. Saul · filed 2020-04-20(c)(3), (c)(5), (d)

The ALJ noted that Ms. Custer is a mental health professional, and therefore was not qualified to provide a medical opinion on Plaintiff’s physical impairments. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)(5). As a counselor, Ms. Custer had no identifiable expertise related to Plaintiff’s physical health. She correctly considered that Ms. Custer’s focus in her Clinical Notes Overview (these appear to be the progress notes to which Plaintiff refers) regarding Plaintiff’s physical ailments rendered her opinion less persuasive. The ALJ properly considered that Ms. Custer offered opinions well beyond her area of expertise (including that Plaintiff was unable to work, which is an issue reserved to the Commissioner under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Denton v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 419, 424 (7th Cir. 2010)), and reasonably concluded this rendered her opinions less persuasive.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Turnbull v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-20(c)

When an ALJ is considering how best to weigh the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source and other non-treating medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors, including: (i) the frequency of the examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician's opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration's attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. See SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *4; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). After accounting for these factors, the ALJ should generally explain the weight given to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources or at least "ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator's reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case." See SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *6.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Walter v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-20(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Joanie Graves v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-21(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical evidence, resolve conflicts in that evidence, and give a supported medical expert's opinion potentially great weight.

Vanburger v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-23

In social security cases, there are three categories of medical opinions: those that come from treating, examining, and non-examining doctors. Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201 (9th Cir. 2008). “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.” Id. at 1202. Opinions supported by explanations are given more authority than those that are not, as are opinions of specialists directly relating to their specialties. Id. However, an ALJ considers all relevant medical evidence and is responsible for resolving its conflicts. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927; Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008). Even where an examining physician’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may only reject it with “specific and legitimate” reasons supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 1164; accord Roberts v. Shalala, 66 F.3d 179, 184 (9th Cir. 1995). Medical experts (ME) are considered experts in the Social Security disability programs, and their opinions may be entitled to great weight if they are supported by the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(b), 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's specialty.

Weaver v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-04-24(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 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 requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions with the other relevant evidence, explain the weight given to each opinion, and weigh opinions using the listed regulatory factors.

Myers v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-24(b), (c)

Plaintiff also argues that the ALJ failed to properly weigh Ms. Patterson’s opinion. In determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider the medical opinion evidence of record together with the other relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given to every medical opinion of record, regardless of its source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), (e)(2)(ii), 416.927(c), (e)(2)(ii). All medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners, are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanations; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors 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) permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using a variety of relevant factors, including factors beyond the provider’s specialty.

Stokes v. Saul · filed 2020-04-24(c)

Additionally, the ALJ was able to determine the appropriate weight to give to each medical opinion by considering a variety of factors other than just the specialty of the individual offering that opinion when formulating the RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). Finding Dr. Trowbridge’s opinion to be consistent with the medical evidence and Stokes’s reported functioning, the ALJ appropriately gave Dr. Trowbridge’s opinion “considerable weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, an ALJ must consider the opinion's supporting evidence and consistency with the record.

Keeler v. Saul · filed 2020-04-24(c)(3)-(4)

Further, it is clear that the ALJ appropriately considered the level of support for Dr. Cole's 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). 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. Cole's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to each medical opinion using relevant factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting explanation, consistency with the record, and specialization, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-30(c)

The ALJ must adequately explain the weight afforded to each medical opinion in the record, taking into account relevant factors like the nature and extent of the provider’s treatment relationship with the claimant; how well he or she explained or supported the opinion; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the opinion pertains to the provider’s medical specialty. See id. § 404.1527(c). The regulation also “promises that the ALJ ‘will always give good reasons in [the] decision for the weight’” assigned to a “‘treating source’s medical opinion,’” Brown, 873 F.3d at 256 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)), because treating sources are “likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture” of the claimant’s impairments, 20 C.F.R. § 416.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering factors such as the examining relationship, treating relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and gives controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

DIETHORN v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-07(c)(1)-(6)

Generally, the ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined the claimant than to a non-examining source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). In addition, the ALJ generally will give more weight to opinions from a treating physician, “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” Id., § 404.1527(c)(2). The opinion of a treating physician need not be viewed uncritically, however. Rather, only when an ALJ finds that “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence [of] record,” must he give that opinion controlling weight. Id. Unless a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider all relevant factors that tend to support or contradict any medical opinions of record, including the patient / physician relationship; the supportability of the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the specialization of the provider at issue. Id., § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). “[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ generally] will give to that opinion.” Id., § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, with treating-source opinions generally receiving more weight and potentially controlling weight when well-supported and consistent.

Lutz-Stoker v. Saul · filed 2020-05-08(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). Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, while subsection (a)(2) defines a treating physician as one with an ongoing treatment relationship.

Clough v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(c), (a)(2)

In determining the weight to afford medical opinions, the ALJ should consider the examining and treatment relationship between claimant and doctor, the length of the treatment and frequency of the examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability and consistency of the evidence, the opining physician’s specialization, and other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... A treating physician is someone who provides or has previously provided the claimant with medical treatment, and who has or has previously had an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) call for giving more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence and explanation and consistent with the record as a whole.

Maynard v. SSA · filed 2020-05-11(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ concluded that Smith’s opinions did not specify how the claimant was limited in his impairments, how Smith reached his conclusions, and the evidence in the record did not generally support his opinions. “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.” 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(3). Additionally, the ALJ noted that Smith’s opinion was not generally consistent with the medical evidence. “Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” Escandon v. Saul, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166271, at *26 (E.D. Ky. Sept. 27, 2019) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4)). Because Smith’s opinion did not explain how he reached his conclusions and was not generally consistent with the medical evidence, ALJ Kopicki gave Smith’s opinions limited weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fetes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(c)(4)

Even if Dr. Lim were to be considered an acceptable medical source, the ALJ reasonably gave his opinion little weight as it stood in direct conflict with the other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (stating an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh an examining physician’s opinion using regulatory considerations, including its consistency and supportability.

PORRETTA v. SAUL · filed 2020-05-12

The ALJ was required to weigh the examining physician’s opinion using specific regulatory considerations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. By relying on the opinion’s consistency and supportability to assign partial weight, he complied with this regulatory mandate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Muller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-21(c)(4)

He properly determines the weight to be given each medical opinion by considering the evidence in the record as the ALJ did here. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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) requires an ALJ to consider an other-medical-source opinion and permits assigning weight based on factors including consistency with the administrative record, without requiring any specific weight or credit over contrary acceptable-source opinions.

Hooks v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2019-11-25(c)

An ALJ is required to consider the opinion evidence supplied by an “other medical source,” and she is entitled to assign weight to the evidence based on a number of factors including consistency with the administrative record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1-6). The ALJ is not required to afford an “other source” opinion any specific weight or credit over the contrary opinions of acceptable medical sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) tells an ALJ to weigh medical opinions by considering the examining and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Whorton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-11-25(c)

When determining what weight to give different medical opinions, “the ALJ should consider the following factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the claimant and doctor; the supportability and consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; the specialization of the doctor; and other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion.” Hand v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2019 WL 4447206, at *3 (11th Cir. 2019); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “The ALJ applies the same standards whether the medical opinion is from a treating physician, a consultative examiner hired by the agency, or a nonexamining, reviewing physician.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(4) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion less when it lacks supporting evidence or is inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Caulkins v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-18(c)(3), (c)(4)

A physician’s opinion is afforded significantly less weight if it is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits the ALJ to weigh portions of medical-source opinions while reserving the final responsibility for deciding issues such as residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Keith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-27(d)(2)

Consequently, the mere fact that the ALJ found some portions of these opinions to be consistent with the evidence as a whole while others were not is not a legal error, but rather a proper execution of the ALJ's duty to weigh all evidence and resolve conflicts. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as …your residual functional capacity…the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) directs an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, so treating-source opinions are not automatically entitled to greater weight.

Liberi v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-02(c)(2)-(6)

Third, in another one-sentence argument, Liberi contends that “[b]y giving greater weight to the opinion of Dr. Jonas . . ., the ALJ erroneously acted in contradiction to the Commissioner’s applicable regulations stating that greater weight is to be given to the opinions of treating and examining sources than to those of non-examining reviewing sources.” Doc. No. 8-1 at 17–18. Liberi says nothing at all, however, about the ALJ’s application of the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6), which ALJs are directed to use when weighing medical opinions. Thus, Liberi’s argument is nothing more than an assertion that the opinions of treating sources are always unconditionally entitled to greater weight than the opinions of non-examining sources. But that is not the law. See, e.g., id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (applying set of factors “in determining the weight to give the medical opinion” of a treating source when the source’s opinion is not given controlling weight). Because Liberi does not challenge the ALJ’s application of the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6), and because I find no error in the ALJ’s analysis, her third argument fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, so a treating source’s opinion is not automatically entitled to greater weight than a non-examining source’s opinion.

Liberi v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2019-12-02(c)(2)–(6)

Thus, Liberi’s argument is nothing more than an assertion that the opinions of treating sources are always unconditionally entitled to greater weight than the opinions of non-examining sources. But that is not the law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified factors, including consistency with the record and familiarity with the agency's program and the full case record.

Katoll-Koons v. Saul · filed 2019-12-03(c)

An ALJ must consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when weighing medical opinions. ... Instead, the ALJ was required to weigh the opinions in light of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including consistency with the medical record, familiarity with the Commissioner’s regulatory program, and familiarity with the entire case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion with the other relevant evidence and apply the prescribed factors when determining its weight.

Englert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-03(b), (c)

According to the regulations, an ALJ “will always consider the medical opinions in [a claimant’s] case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence” in determining whether a claimant is disabled, and “will evaluate every medical opinion” received. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), (c), 416.927(b), (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, and a source's status as a non-acceptable medical source alone is not a sufficient reason to discount the opinion.

Brokenwings v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-06(f)

The ALJ also noted that Mr. Fleming is a non-acceptable medical source, but this is not by itself a reason to discount his opinion. AR at 28. An ALJ must consider all medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a medical opinion as a medical source’s judgment about an impairment and its functional effects; objective findings alone are not medical opinions unless the source ties them to specific functional limitations.

Dzencelowcz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-06(a)(1)

These are findings from Dr. Ganesh’s examination of Plaintiff; they are not her functional assessment of her. ... Indeed, “objective evidence does not constitute opinion evidence without a statement from a physician tying that objective evidence to specific functional limitations. To find otherwise would defy logic in that it would suggest that every piece of medical evidence in the record (including test results and treatment notes) constitutes a medical opinion subject to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 analysis.” ... There was, therefore, no error in the ALJ’s failure to account for each of these findings in the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, and consistency with the record as a whole.

Valentin-Martell v. Commissiorner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-09(b), (c)(1)-(6)

The ALJ must evaluate and weigh the medical opinions of record according to several factors: the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether the opinion is supported with relevant evidence, and the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. See id. at §§ 404.1527(b), (c)(1)-(6). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s consideration and weighing of the medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) makes a medical provider’s specialization a relevant consideration when weighing a medical opinion.

Arnhold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-10(c)(5)

A medical provider’s specialization is a relevant consideration in weighing medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5); see also Williams v. Colvin, No. 2:14-cv-00213-FVS, 2015 WL 5039911, at *8 (E.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 2015) (citing Brosnahan v. Barnhart, 336 F.3d 671, 676 (8th Cir. 2003)) (finding physical limitations were beyond the expertise of psychologist). Here, the ALJ noted that although Dr. MacLennan performed a psychological evaluation, Dr. MacLennan listed a number of significant physical impairments as being barriers to Plaintiff obtaining employment. Tr. 30; see Tr. 871. The ALJ reasonably concluded that Plaintiff’s physical functioning was outside Dr. MacLennan’s scope of expertise. This finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lacher v. Saul · filed 2019-12-10(c)(4)

First, the ALJ determined that Dr. Robey’s more restrictive limitations were inconsistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). This finding is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate conflicting medical opinions, assign them weight, and consider the listed regulatory factors unless a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight.

Monteverde v. Saul · filed 2019-12-11(c)(1)-(6)

When the record contains a number of different medical opinions, including those from Plaintiff's treating sources, consultative examiners or other sources that are consistent with each other, then the ALJ makes a determination based on that evidence. § 404.1527(c). If, however, the medical opinions conflict internally with each other or other evidence, the ALJ must evaluate the opinions and assign them respective weight to properly analyze the evidence involved. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), (d). ... Unless the ALJ gives controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) when deciding the weight to give any medical opinion. The factors include: (1) whether the source of the opinion has examined the Plaintiff; (2) whether the source of the opinion has a relationship with the plaintiff, and the nature, extent, and length of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether the source of the opinion is a specialist; and, (6) any other factors that support or contradict the opinion (including “the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that an acceptable medical source has”). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). ... The Regulations permit the ALJ to consider other factors such as a treating source’s understanding of the disability programs. §404.1527(c)(6). Because the ALJ correctly identified that Dr. O’Shanick did not give specific functional limitations, she provided a proper reason why Dr. O’Shanick’s lack of familiarity with the Act supported her decision to discount his medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the regulatory factors and forbids applying more rigorous scrutiny to treating-source opinions than to nontreating and nonexamining opinions.

Gilpin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-11(c)

The ALJ erred by failing to apply the same level of scrutiny to reviewing psychologists’ opinions as he applied to treating source’s opinion. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 379 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Soc. Sec. R. 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at *2 (July 2, 1996)) (“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.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence and gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Prince v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-11(b), (c)(2)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). The opinion of a treating physician is given “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to opinions from acceptable medical sources than to opinions from non-acceptable or non-medical sources, while requiring consideration of evidence from non-acceptable medical sources.

Morfin v. Saul · filed 2019-12-12(f)

The opinion of an acceptable medical source, such as a physician or psychologist, is given more weight than an opinion from a source who is not an acceptable medical source or who is a non-medical source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Gomez v. Chater, 74 F.3d 967, 970-71 (9th Cir. 1996); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502 (acceptable medical sources include licensed physicians, licensed or certified language pathologists, licensed audiologists, licensed advanced practice registered nurses, and licensed physician assistants). However, an ALJ is required to consider evidence from non-acceptable medical sources, such as therapists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to consider and weigh opinions from non-acceptable medical sources using the same factors used for opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Hawkes v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-16(f)(1)

With respect to claims filed before March 17, 2017, which Plaintiff’s were, Social Security regulations differentiate between “acceptable medical sources” and “non-acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; 20 C.F.R. § 416.927; SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939 (Aug. 9, 2006). Because Yaney and Jankelow are not acceptable medical sources, see SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *1, their opinions are not entitled to “controlling weight,” id. at *2. Nevertheless, the ALJ must consider and weigh the opinions of non-acceptable medical sources using the same factors that apply to the weighing of opinions from acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). In particular, depending on the source and context, the ALJ should consider the following: How long the source has known and how frequently the source has seen the individual; how consistent the opinion is with other evidence; the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion; how well the source explains the opinion; whether the source has a specialty or area of expertise related to the individual’s impairment(s); and any other facts that tend to support or refute the opinion. SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *4–5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs the ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole, as part of the framework for weighing medical opinions.

Leavell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(c)(4)

These regulations delineate factors to be considered in weighing a medical opinion. In particular, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) provides that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” This and the other regulations cited by Plaintiff appear under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which begins with, “How we weigh medical opinions” (emphasis added). “We” is defined as “the Social Security Administration or the State agency making the disability . . . determination.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(j). Thus, these regulations provide a framework to the ALJ, as the one responsible for the disability determination here, not to physicians rendering medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh it using the listed treatment-relationship, supportability, and consistency factors.

(SS)Parrott v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-20(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] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating doctor's opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh it using the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, with generally greater weight for treating sources.

Edwards v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-31(c)

The ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion that she receives. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Among those opinions, the Social Security regulations establish a hierarchy that generally gives greatest weight to opinions of treating sources, lesser weight to opinions from examining sources, and least weight to opinions from sources who have neither examined nor treated a claimant. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(2), 416.927(c)(1)–(2). In weighing any medical opinion, the ALJ should consider: (1) the length of the medical source’s treatment relationship with the claimant and the frequency of the source’s examination of the claimant; (2) the nature and extent of the claimant’s treatment relationship with the medical source; (3) the opinion’s supportability; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the medical source who provided the opinion; and (6) other factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires consideration of specified factors in deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Parra v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-03(c)(2)-(6)

With respect to the ALJ’s first responsibility—consideration of other factors—the ALJ did not consider all the factors he was required to consider under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Unless we give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”) (emphasis added); see also Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The ALJ is required to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining how much weight to afford the treating physician’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors.

Torres v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-03(d)(2)

In determining the amount of weight to give to a medical opinion, the ALJ considers the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the length of treatment, the nature and extent of treatment, evidence in support of the medical opinion, consistency with the record, specialty in the medical field, and any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) provides that the weight given to a nonexamining source’s opinion depends on the supporting explanations the source provides.

Martinez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-03(c)(3)

Without further explanation, the Court cannot say this is a sufficient justification to disregard Dr. Mendez’s opinion. See Papesh v. Colvin, 786 F.3d 1126, 1133 (8th Cir. 2015) (“because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship . . . the weight we will give their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions”) (quoting 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 more weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record as a whole.

(SS) Tuupoina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-06(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) (“the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider its consistency with the record and other known factors that support or contradict it.

Gaston v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-10(c)(4), (c)(6)

When considering how much weight to give a medical opinion, an ALJ considers not _ only whether the opinion is consistent with the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), but also “any factors ... of which [she is] aware, which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion,” Jd. at § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to an opinion from a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not, while requiring a careful explanation when the ALJ does otherwise.

Marcordes v. Saul · filed 2020-01-15(d)(1)

The regulations advise ALJs that they should generally “give more weight to the opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the opinion of a source who has not.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). An ALJ is not required to do so in all cases but must explain the basis of his or her reasoning with care. The ALJ’s dismissal of Dr. Schieber’s report does not meet this standard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh each medical opinion using factors such as the examining relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, considering the factors together.

Leggett v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-16(c)

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to a medical opinion when the source presents more relevant supporting evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings.

Williamson v. Saul · filed 2020-01-16(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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Vincent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-16(c)(4)

The ALJ’s conclusion that the opinion was not entitled to significant weight was reasonably concluded as shown by the ALJ’s cites of inconsistency with the medical and nonmedical evidence of record. 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) directs adjudicators to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and the source's specialization when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Shirback v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-16(c)(1)-(6)

Further, the ALJ’s statement that these two opinions did not reflect the improvement of the condition is valid and a proper consideration when determining what weight to give to an opinion. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6) (The relevant factors considered in determining what weight to afford an opinion include the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence which supports the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization (if any) of the opinion’s source).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh all medical-opinion evidence, explain the rationale for deciding which opinions to credit, and may rely on consistency with the medical evidence in doing so.

KLINE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-01-21

According to the Regulations, the ALJ is charged with the responsibility of weighing all of the medical opinion evidence in determining whom to credit and he must explain his rationale for doing so. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). Here, the ALJ discounted Dr. Billings’ assessment because it was inconsistent with the medical evidence. (ECF No. 7-2, p. 29). Consistency is a valid reason for crediting or discrediting evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§416.927, 404.1527 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(6) directs that a non-treating medical source's opinion be weighed using the source's specialty, evidentiary support, consistency with the record, and other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion.

Combs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-22(c)(3)-(6)

SA non-treating source’s opinion is weighed based on the medical specialty of the source, how well-supported by evidence the opinion is, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404. 1527(c)(3)-(6), 416.927(c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs that an opinion supported by a better explanation receives more weight, so a lack of explanation and supporting treatment records can justify discounting the opinion.

Garcia v. Saul · filed 2020-01-23(c)(3)

The lack of explanation and lack of support from any treating records are both specific and legitimate reasons to discount the opinion from Dr. Brooks. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as judgments from acceptable medical sources about an impairment and permits weighing them based on the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors.

Gaddison v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-01-23(a)(1), (c), (c)(2)

Medical opinions are “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). In determining the weight given to a claimant’s medical opinions, the ALJ may look at several factors: the examining and treatment relationship between the doctor and patient, the supportability of the doctor’s opinion, the consistency of the doctor’s opinion with the record as a whole, the doctor’s specialty, and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... A doctor’s opinion may be discounted based on the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Here, both Dr. Iyer and Dr. Wilson were consultative examiners who only saw Plaintiff once. (R. 560-65, 1069-76). As such, their opinions were not entitled to any deference or special consideration.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs ALJs to give generally greater weight to treating sources with longer treatment relationships and to opinions from sources with specialized knowledge of the claimant’s condition.

Jackson v. Saul · filed 2020-01-23(c)(2)(i), (b)(5)

Contrary to that reasoning, the regulations state that “[g]enerally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). ... A treating source with specialized knowledge of a claimant’s condition is ordinarily entitled to greater weight than an expert who is not a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s judgment about an impairment and generally gives more weight to opinions from treating sources with an ongoing treatment relationship.

Middleton v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-23(a)(1)–(2), (c)(2)

The regulations provide that more weight will generally be given to “medical opinions” from “treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A “treating source” is defined as an “acceptable medical source” with whom the claimant has or has had an ongoing treatment relationship. Id. § 404.1527(a)(1)–(2). ... “Medical opinions” are defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” Id. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... This evidence does not, however, constitute a “medical opinion” within the meaning of the regulations. ... As an initial matter, Hoogerman is not a “treating source” whose opinions are generally entitled to greater weight. ... The Court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination to give Hoogerman’s opinion little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Done v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-23(c)(4)

See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (stating an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally directs an ALJ to give more weight to an examining source's medical opinion than to a non-examining source's opinion.

Boyer v. Berryhill · filed 2020-01-24(c)(1)

Generally, pursuant 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), an ALJ gives more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined a claimant than to the medical opinion of a source who has not examined the claimant, because examining sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of medical impairments and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from objective medical findings alone.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion from a source who has examined or treated the claimant than to one from a source who has not.

Secatero v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-27(c)(1)-(2)

As such, his opinion is entitled to more weight than a physician who did not see Ms. Secatero. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), (2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh all medical-opinion evidence when deciding which opinions to credit and explain the rationale for that decision.

BLOWERS v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-01-27

In accordance with the Regulations, an ALJ is charged with the responsibility of weighing all of the medical opinion evidence in determining whom to credit and he must explain his rationale for doing so. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). ... Here, the ALJ weighed all of Dr. Jonas’ opinions in consideration with all of the evidence of record. See, ECF No. 8-2, pp. 16-31. After a review of the record, I find I am able to conduct a meaningful review and that the ALJ’s assessment is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Thus, I find no error in this regard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when determining the weight of a medical opinion, regardless of its source.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-22(c)

Regardless of the source of the medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine the weight to accord such opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs administrative law judges to weigh medical opinions using relevant factors and permits greater weight for a state-agency consultant’s opinion than for a treating or examining source’s opinion in appropriate circumstances.

Lovato v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-10-31(c), (e)

Given this evidence, the presumption that the opinion of a consultative examiner is entitled to more weight than a state agency physician who merely reviewed the record falls away. Although, all other things being equal, opinions of examining medical sources are generally entitled to more weight than those of non-examining sources, Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1084 (10th Cir. 2004), “‘[i]n 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.’” ... See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e) & 404.1513a(b). The ALJ committed no reversible error in weighing the medical opinions of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, specialization, supportability, and consistency with the record.

James v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-16(c)

The ALJ did not rely solely on plaintiff’s activities of daily living in affording Dr. Higham’s medical opinion less than controlling weight. Rather, her lengthy opinion makes clear that she weighed the medical opinion evidence of record by considering many factors, including specialization, treatment relationship, consistency and supportability with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to decline controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is inconsistent with other medical evidence.

JURASINSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-10-31(c)

Because Dr. Geidel’s opinion was inconsistent with other medical evidence in the record, the ALJ was not required to give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) leaves the ultimate disability determination to the ALJ rather than to treating, examining, or state-agency physicians.

GIOVENE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-04(e)(1)

“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.” Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 404.1546(c)); see also Coleman v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 494 F. App’x 252, 254 (3d Cir. 2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed under six factors—examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors—and requires sufficiently specific good reasons for the assigned weight, though each factor need not be expressly discussed.

Mendoza v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-06(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. ... Rather, what is required is that the ALJ provide good reasons for the weight he gives an opinion and that his explanation is sufficiently specific to make it clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight given to an opinion and the reasons for that weight. ... An ALJ’s failure to set forth adequate reasons explaining why a medical opinion was rejected or assigned a particular weight and demonstrate that he has applied the correct legal standards in evaluating the evidence constitutes reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs that a medical opinion receive more weight as the source presents more relevant supporting evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.

Kirk v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-06(c)(3)

It was error for the ALJ to mandate full evidentiary support for Dr. Erdahl’s opinions. ... To the extent the ALJ was addressing the “supportability” factor, it was likewise error to require full evidentiary support. The Regulation describing “supportability” imposes a gradual scale: “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….” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give greater weight to treating and examining-source opinions and to consider opinions from other medical professionals addressing issues covered by acceptable-source opinions.

(SS) Hermosillo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-07(d)(2), (f)(1)

In general, the opinion of a treating physician is afforded the greatest weight, but it is not binding on the ultimate issue of a disability. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 751 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, an examining physician’s opinion is given more weight than the opinion of non-examining physician. Pitzer v. Sullivan, 908 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1990); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Finally, an ALJ must consider the opinions of other medical professionals— such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and social workers—who may offer “judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (describing circumstances when opinions from “other sources” may be considered acceptable medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source to receive greater weight than an acceptable medical source’s opinion when the section’s factors favor it, and requires the opinion to be evaluated under those criteria.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-07(f)(1)

However, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) states that the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source may still merit greater weight than an acceptable medical source’s opinion if the § 404.1527 factors favor them. Phillips explains that, although only licensed physicians are acceptable medical sources, other medical sources can still speak on key issues like the severity of a condition or its functional effects, and those opinions should be measured by the same criteria listed in § 404.1527. ... In this case, Ms. Bolin and Plaintiff have a lengthy treatment relationship that affords Ms. Bolin greater weight under the § 404.1527 factors and her opinion speaks to the severity and functional effect of Plaintiff’s mental limitations which are key issues to consider in the residual functional capacity assessment. ... Yet, the ALJ did not explain how he weighed Ms. Bolin’s opinion according to the § 404.1527 factors when making his residual functional capacity assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to discuss the relevant regulatory factors when weighing medical opinions so that the court can meaningfully review the decision.

Scheibelhut v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-10(c)

The ALJ failed to discuss the relevant factors from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and the court cannot conduct meaningful review where the ALJ has not provided an adequate discussion of the evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion by considering the source’s treating or examining relationship, how well the opinion is supported, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Hundt v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-10(c)

In deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors including, e.g., the treating or examining relationship of the opinion’s source and the claimant; how well the opinion is supported; and how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(4) permits an ALJ to give a medical opinion greater weight when it is supported by evidence and consistent with the record.

Heaven Howland v. Saul · filed 2020-02-11(c)(3)–(4)

The ALJ also afforded Dr. Rabie’s opinion “great weight,” because it was consistent with the objective medical evidence, Howland’s performance during her physical examination, and Howland’s own statements regarding her abilities. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)–(4), 416.927(c)(3)–(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions consistent with the record as a whole and no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Mayle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(c)(4), (d)

Finally, the Commissioner reserves the power to decide certain issues, such as a claimant’s residual functional capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Although the ALJ will consider opinions of treating physicians “on the nature and severity of your impairment(s),” opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner are generally not entitled to special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (providing that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight” it is given).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs adjudicators to give greater weight to medical opinions that are better explained.

Helms Eddy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-18(c)(3)

Moreover, it is well established that an ALJ “need not accept the opinion of any physician if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.” Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957 (emphasis added); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) gives more weight to a medical opinion when its source provides a better explanation, but a checkbox assessment supported by treatment records may still warrant consideration.

Maske v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-19(c)(3)

To be sure, the regulations provide that the SSA will give more weight to well-explained medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”). Nevertheless, check-box assessments that are substantiated by a physician’s treatment records may be entitled to consideration that an otherwise unexplained opinion would not receive.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion from a source who examined the claimant than to one from a source who did not.

Truss v. Saul · filed 2020-02-19(c)(1)

Plaintiff argues that the ALJ improperly credited the opinion of a non-examining physician, Dr. Rozenfeld, over that of an examining1 physician, Dr. Duncan. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). ... (stating that an ALJ is generally required “[to] give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not”). ... That was error. See Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (“An ALJ can reject an examining physician’s opinion only for reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record; a contradictory opinion of a non-examining physician does not, by itself, suffice.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) identifies the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency as factors relevant to weighing a treating physician’s opinion.

Ferguson, Barbara v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2020-02-20(c)

As part of her challenge, plaintiff also faults the ALJ for failing to consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), including the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship. However, the ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Boehlke-Bray was Ferguson’s treating physician, and described Ferguson’s treatment history with her. Moreover, § 404.1527(c) lists “supportability” and “consistency” as factors the ALJ may consider in determining the amount of weight to place on a treating physician, and, there is no dispute that the ALJ considered these factors along with others.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(2) requires ALJs to give more weight to the opinions of treating and examining physicians than to those of nonexamining physicians.

Field v. Saul · filed 2020-02-20(c)(1)–(2)

Social Security regulations require ALJs to assign more weight to the opinions of treating and examining physicians than to those of nonexamining physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(2). ... It may be that the medical evidence could reasonably be interpreted to show that Field is not disabled. But two doctors to whom the regulations require deference disagreed and, on this record, we cannot uphold the ALJ’s decision to invert the regulatory hierarchy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(5) generally gives more weight to examining, treating, and specialist medical opinions than to non-examining, non-treating, and nonspecialist opinions.

Harr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c)(1)-(5)

The method for weighing medical opinions under the Social Security Act is set forth in the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(5) generally gives more weight to examining, treating, and specialist medical opinions than to non-examining, non-treating, and nonspecialist opinions.

Olson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c)(1)-(5)

Specifically, the opinions of examining physicians are 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to review medical evidence from non-acceptable medical sources using the regulation’s listed factors when assigning weight.

Pittman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-20(c)

However, an administrative law judge is obligated to review all medical evidence in the record and should review even non-acceptable medical sources considering the factors in 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) governs how an ALJ evaluates medical opinions, and the court held that the ALJ followed those regulations here.

Gafford v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-02-21(c)

The court finds that the ALJ’s evaluative process was conducted in accordance with the regulations for weighing medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and determine its weight using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Dowdy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-26(c)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received. The ALJ will then determine how much weight to give to the opinion after considering several enumerated factors, including “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating physician's opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, and to give the opinion more weight when those factors support it.

Parrish v. Saul · filed 2020-02-27(c)

The Court finds that the ALJ failed to give Dr. Schulman's opinions sufficient weight and that her opinions should have been accorded significant, if not controlling, weight. Even assuming that the ALJ properly could properly find that Dr. Schulman's opinions were not entitled to controlling weight, the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) should have led the ALJ to grant more weight to Dr. Schulman's opinions than he did. Dr. Schulman was Teresa P.'s treating rheumatologist over the course of seven years, and she treated Plaintiff both before and after Plaintiff alleges her rheumatoid arthritis stopped her from working. Teresa P.'s doctor therefore "obtained a longitudinal picture" of Plaintiff's impairments that the nonexamining physicians, Drs. Vu and Harris, did not possess. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). Given that she was a rheumatologist treating Plaintiff for a condition within her specialty, Dr. Schulman had "reasonable knowledge" of Plaintiff's rheumatoid arthritis complaints as contemplated by § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) as well as the "specialization" discussed in § 404.1527(c)(5).

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, but isolated comments cannot by themselves outweigh a detailed, well-supported treating-source opinion.

Jordan v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-27(c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s fifth reason, the ALJ reasoned that Dr. Langer’s opinion that Plaintiff had marked limitations in working in proximity to others without being distracted by them was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s statements to E. Andrea Shadrach, Psy.D and C. Michael Regets, Ph.D., that she had always gotten along well with co-workers and preferred a job that involved interaction with co-workers. AR 1388; 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.”). ... First, these isolated comments cannot, by themselves, be sufficient to discount the detailed and well-supported opinion of Plaintiff’s treating physician Dr. Langer. ... As such, the Court cannot say that the ALJ provided specific, legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Langer’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs ALJs to weigh medical opinions based on factors including the examination and treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization; a treating opinion may receive less than substantial weight when good cause exists.

Vanhorn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(c)

The ALJ considers a number of factors when weighing medical opinions, including: (1) whether the physician examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. ... A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. ... There is good cause to assign a treating physician’s opinion less than substantial or considerable weight, where: (1) the treating physician’s opinion is not bolstered by the evidence; (2) the evidence supports a contrary finding; or (3) the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory or inconsistent with the physician’s own medical records. ... Here, the ALJ provided sufficient reasoning, supported by substantial evidence, to assign Dr. McDonnell’s opinion little weight. ... Accordingly, I find that the ALJ stated good cause for giving the opinions of Dr. McDonnell less than significant weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally favors medical opinions from examining sources over opinions from sources who have not examined the claimant.

Michael D. v. Saul · filed 2020-03-02(c)(1)

Further, as the only one of the three who made and relied on actual observations of Plaintiff,7 Dr. Baldwin’s opinion is of a type that is “[g]enerally” worthy of “more weight” as coming from “a source who has examined you,” by comparison with Drs. Killenberg and Gordon, who are sources “who ha[ve] not examined you.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including its consistency with the record, the source’s familiarity with the claimant’s treatment record, and the explanation supporting the opinion.

(SS) Zamora v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(c)

When assigning weight to a medical opinion, the ALJ may properly consider whether that opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”) ... The extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in a claimant’s treatment record is a relevant factor that may be considered in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6); ... Further, the better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight will be given to that medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); ... Given Dr. Feinberg’s admitted difficulties, it was not unreasonable for the ALJ to conclude that Dr. Feinberg’s opinion of total disability was unreliable. The ALJ appropriately concluded that Dr. Feinberg’s opinion was entitled to less weight because he did not have a complete record and he believed additional evaluations were necessary.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Carbonell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion to consider six factors, and gives an examining physician’s opinion more weight than a non-examining physician’s opinion.

McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(c), (d)(1), (d)(2)

The regulations require that, if an ALJ doesn’t give controlling weight to a treating source’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors to determine the weight due a medical opinion: 1. Examining relationship; 2. Treatment relationship, including the length and nature; 3. Supportability; 4. Consistency; 5. Specialization; and 6. Other factors. ... Because Dr. Bacchus isn’t a "treating physician" under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), his opinion isn’t entitled to controlling weight, but the regulations require that the opinion of an examining physician be given more weight than the opinion of a non-examining physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and requires an ALJ to weigh them by considering factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, expertise, and other relevant factors.

Pratt v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2020-03-03(a)(1), (c)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, 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 ALJ analyzes the opinions of state agency consultants, treating sources, and examining sources under the same rubric. See id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ must consider “the examining relationship, treatment relationship (including length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, and nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability of the opinion by evidence in the record, [and] consistency with the medical opinions of other physicians,” along with the doctor’s expertise in the area and any other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(4) directs an ALJ to give less weight to medical opinions that are not well-supported by objective evidence and diagnostic testing or are inconsistent with the record, and greater weight to opinions consistent with the record.

Bussey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-03(c)(2)–(4)

The A.L.J. explained which parts of Dr. Reddy’s opinion he found to be well-supported by objective evidence and otherwise consistent with the other evidence of record, and where he found that it fell short of that regulatory standard (R. 25; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(4) (opinions—even from treating sources—that are not well-supported by objective evidence and diagnostic testing or are otherwise inconsistent with the other evidence of record deserve less weight)). Given the conflicting opinions present in this case, it was reasonable for the A.L.J. to give great weight to aspects of different providers’ opinions that were consistent with one-another and were also consistent with the other evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (medical opinions that are consistent with other evidence of record deserve greater weight).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) treats a medical source’s familiarity with other information in the claimant’s case record as relevant to the weight given to the source’s opinion.

Ingroum v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-04(c)(6)

That Dr. Winfrey was more familiar with Plaintiff’s longitudinal case record was a legitimate and specific reason to give more weight to Dr. Winfrey’s opinion than to Dr. Reilly’s opinion. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (specifying that 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 to give that opinion); Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1042 (recognizing that the ALJ is to consider the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole and assess the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a medical opinion, an ALJ gives more weight to opinions supported by relevant evidence and must consider consistency with the record.

de Guillen v. Saul · filed 2020-03-05(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ explained that he gave this opinion great weight because it was consistent with the rest of the record, and because Dr. Ostrow had an opportunity to review all of the medical records (Tr. 21). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion.”); 404.1527(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider consistency).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, including opinions from examining providers, and a provider's one-time examination alone is not enough to reject the opinion.

Neifert v. Saul · filed 2020-03-05(b), (c)

The number of visits a claimant had with a particular provider is a relevant factor in assigning weight to an opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). However, the fact that an evaluator examined Plaintiff one time is not a legally sufficient basis for rejecting the opinion. The regulations direct that all opinions, including the opinions of examining providers, should be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c), 416.927(b), (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the evaluator to consider the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialty when weighing a medical opinion.

Walker v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-05(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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to give particular consideration to a treating physician’s opinion and to consider whether the medical opinions are consistent with one another.

Tineo v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-27(c)

“Regardless of its source, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in determining whether a claimant is disabled under the [Social Security] Act.” Pena ex rel. E.R. v. Astrue, No. 11-CV-1787 (KAM), 2013 WL 1210932, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(d) (2020)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... To determine how much weight a treating physician’s opinion should be given, the ALJ considers the “Burgess factors” identified by the Second Circuit: “(1) the frequen[cy], length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95–96 (2d Cir. 2019)(following Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008)). ... The Court concludes that the ALJ erred by considering these assessments in isolation. In other words, at no point is it apparent that the ALJ considered the significance of the consistency of the medical opinions with each other. An ALJ may reach a conclusion that does not perfectly correspond with any one medical opinion. Dr. Balmaceda’s opinion as a treating physician, however, was entitled to particular consideration under the standard applicable here and, in any event, it was error to ignore the consistency of the opinions with each other. See Shawn H. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:19-CV-113, 2020 WL 3969879, at *7 (D. Vt. July 14, 2020)(“Moreover, the ALJ should have considered that the opinions of Stephens and Dr. Lussier are consistent with each other.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when portions of the opinion are internally inconsistent.

SOLOMON v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-01-29

Internal inconsistency is a valid and acceptable reason for discounting opinion evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). I find the reason given by the ALJ in weighing Dr. Rabinovich’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s ability to sit was sufficiently explained and supported by substantial evidence of record. (ECF No. 3-2, pp. 21-29). Therefore, I find the ALJ did not err in this regard. Consequently, remand is not warranted on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give each medical opinion, including the examining relationship, the physician’s relationship with the claimant, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Barbero v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-30(c)

The weighing of treating, examining, and non-examining physicians’ opinions is an integral part of steps four and five of the sequential evaluation process. 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 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, explain the weight assigned to each, and give no special significance to an opinion on whether a claimant is unable to work.

Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-31(c), (d)

We also recognize that the final determination about whether a claimant is “unable to work” is one that is reserved to the Commissioner: a physician’s opinion that a person is “unable to work” is thus not determinative and is entitled to no “special significance.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). We stress, however, that the ALJ must consider all the claimed expert, medical opinions in the record and must specify the weight -- including no weight, if applicable -- given to each purported medical opinion and the reasons therefor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to consider opinions from non-acceptable medical sources under its factors, but treats a physician as a treating source only when there is evidence the physician actually saw the claimant for treatment.

Martin v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-01-31(a)(2), (c)(2)-(4)

Only acceptable medical sources can provide medical opinions and be considered treating sources. ... Ms. Huslig’s opinion must still be considered by the ALJ, which it was, applying the same factors under the regulation. ... In order to be considered a treating source, however, there must be evidence in the record that Dr. Jerkovich has actually seen Plaintiff for treatment. ... A finding that an opinion is unsupported by the evidence or is inconsistent with the record constitutes good cause for assigning the opinion partial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, especially signs and laboratory findings, while subsection (c)(4) favors opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

Thomas v. SSA · filed 2020-01-31(c)(3), (c)(4)

See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight [an ALJ] will give that medical opinion.”); id. at § 404.1527(c)(4) (providing that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole,” the more weight an ALJ will give it). The ALJ explained why she credited the persuasive opinions, and the stark, or “gross[]” (see R. at 19), contrast between those and the treating sources was reasonably clear.

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-source opinions.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03(c)(1)-(2)

The Social Security Act’s implementing regulations 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 (non-examining physicians). Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2), 416.927(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 non-examining physician’s. Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1202.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the adjudicator to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Ornis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-05(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires consideration of medical-source opinions when evaluating disability but reserves final responsibility for RFC limitations to the ALJ.

Gonzalez v. Saul · filed 2019-08-28(d)

The ALJ must give consideration to the opinions of medical sources in evaluating whether a claimant is disabled; however, the final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s RFC limitations is reserved for the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d); Diaz v. Charter, 55 F.3d 300, 306 n.2 (7th Cir. 1995). ... Such a determination was within the ALJ’s discretion so long as she properly considered the relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d); Diaz, 55 F.3d at 306 & n.2.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(1) treats a claimant’s residual functional capacity as an issue reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion.

Fielder v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-26(e)(1)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is a legal decision rather than a medical one. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1); Diaz, 55 F.3d at 306 n.2.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider and evaluate every medical opinion, give treating-source opinions special consideration, weigh opinions using specified factors, and explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Bond v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-28(b), (c), (c)(2), (c)(1)-(5), and (e)(1)(ii)

Under the regulations of the Social Security Administration, the Commissioner is obligated to consider all medical evidence and the opinions of all medical sources, including treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). This includes the duty to “evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” /d. § 404.1527(c). ... Even where the opinions of the treating physicians of the claimant are not accorded controlling weight, the Commissioner is obligated to weigh those opinions in light of a broad range of factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, length of treatment, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinions in the medical record, consistency, and whether the treating physician was a specialist. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)- (5). ... The Commissioner is obligated to weigh the findings and opinions of treating physicians and to give “good reasons” in the written decision for the weight given to a treating source’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating source opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bickel v. Saul · filed 2019-08-30(c)(2)

If the opinion of a treating source is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the opinion is given “controlling weight.” Id. Even if the ALJ finds that the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he may not simply reject it. SSR 96-2p. Rather, if the ALJ finds that a treating source opinion does not meet the standard for controlling weight, he must evaluate the opinion’s weight by considering a variety of factors, including the length, nature and extent of the claimant and physician’s treatment relationship; the degree to which the opinion is supported by the evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the doctor is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p. ... For these reasons, I find the ALJ erred in his assessment of Dr. Kloss’ opinion and must reconsider it on remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ favors another medical professional's opinion over a treating physician's opinion, the ALJ must evaluate the treating physician's opinion using the specified treatment-relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Summers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)-(5)

When an ALJ decides to favor another medical professional’s opinion over that of a treating physician, the ALJ must provide an account of what weight the treating physician’s opinion merits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011). Specifically, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion in light of (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. Ibid. The ALJ’s decision failed to meet these requirements for rejecting the opinion of plaintiff’s treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider a treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments and explain the reason for disregarding it.

Butts v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-20(c)(2)

The failure to articulate a reason for disregarding the treating physician’s opinion regarding the “nature and severity” of the plaintiff’s impairments (as opposed to the opinion regarding absences from work) constitutes reversible error, and the case is due to be remanded for proper consideration of the treating doctor’s opinion consistent with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and permits less than controlling weight when a treating source's opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record.

Henson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(c)

When evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ should consider “(1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist.” Johnson, 434 F.3d at 654; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. ... In this case, however, “[w]hile the ALJ did not explicitly analyze each of the Johnson factors on the record, the ALJ was clear that [the ALJ] concluded that [Dr. Panahy’s] opinion was not consistent with the record or supported by the medical evidence, which are appropriate reasons under Johnson” to afford a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight. Bishop, 583 F. App’x at 67. ... Because Dr. Panahy’s opinion contradicted her treatment notes, substantial evidence supports the “little weight” given by the ALJ to Dr. Panahy’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-physician opinions than to examining- or nonexamining-physician opinions, and favors explained opinions and specialist opinions.

McKinney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-27(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 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors such as the treatment or examination relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, and gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Royster v. Saul · filed 2019-09-27(c)(1)-(6), (d)(2), (e)

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). ... Under the regulations, a treating source's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2005); ... Before a treating physician's opinion can be discounted, the ALJ must provide “good reasons.” ... The ALJ is required to assess the following factors in determining how much weight to accord the physician's opinion: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors.” ... Based on the evidence in the record, the Court concludes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weighing of opinion evidence.