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 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed using the listed treatment, specialty, consistency, supportability, and other relevant factors, with good reasons required for discounting it.

Heath v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-13(c)(2)-(6)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, id., as well as the treating source's area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence, id. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... The ALJ expressly considered consistency and supportability in assigning weight to the opinions of Dr. Bradley and nurse practitioner Johnson (see Tr. 24 and 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4) and (6), 416.927(c)(4) and (6)). The ALJ’s findings regarding those factors provide “good reasons” for concluding their opinions failed to meet the second prong of the controlling weight test as they are inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record. Because the ALJ met the goal of the regulations even though she did not comply with their terms, her violation of the procedural requirement is deemed harmless. Moreover, the ALJ’s findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a medical provider as a treating source when the claimant has seen the provider with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the condition; a provider seen only twice is generally not a treating physician without more.

Cooper v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-13(a)(2)

A claimant’s medical provider – or “source” to use the regulations’ terminology — constitutes a “treating” physician “when the medical evidence establishes that [the claimant] see[s], or ha[s] seen, the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for [the claimant’s] medical condition(s).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). “[A]n acceptable medical source who has treated or evaluated [the claimant] only a few times or only after long intervals (e.g., twice a year)” may “be [the claimant’s] treating source if the nature and frequency of the treatment or evaluation is typical for [the claimant’s] condition(s).” Id. ... Here, Cooper saw Dr. Filopei only twice for her pulmonary issues, and such limited interaction is typically insufficient, without more, to establish a treating physician relationship. ... Accordingly, the brief physician-patient relationship between Cooper and Dr. Filopei, as well as the limited substantive nature of his findings, reflect that Dr. Filopei was not a treating physician. Thus, the ALJ did not err in not according Dr. Filopei’s opinions the weight due to a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion by considering the listed evaluation factors.

Skibitcky v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-13(d)(1)-(6)

The Court finds that remand is warranted for further consideration because, given the evidence discussed above, the ALJ failed to give good reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Ries’s opinions under the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires good reasons for the weight assigned; § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Eyman v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)

The Regulations require that more weight be given to the opinions of treating sources than other sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating source’s assessment of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight if the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Forehand v. Barnhart, 364 F.3d 984, 986 (8th Cir. 2004). ... When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must look to various factors in determining what weight to accord that and any other medical opinion of record, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the source provides support for their findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the source’s findings, and the source’s area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Here, the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Katyal’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) says that ALJs generally give more weight to treating-source opinions and give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Foreman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

When reviewing medical evidence to make a disability determination, ALJs typically give “more weight to medical opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment[s].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported” and consistent “with the other substantial evidence in . . . the case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating doctor's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other medical evidence, and gives more weight to opinions from longer treatment relationships.

Woodley v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-24(c)

The regulation set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) requires that a treating doctor’s opinion on the “nature and severity” of an impairment will be given “controlling weight” where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent” with other medical evidence. The regulation further provides that the longer the treatment relationship has existed, the more weight the opinion is entitled to receive.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-provider opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Edlin v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

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

The treating source’s opinion must be given “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2),“[t]reating-source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion 1s ‘well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion is ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Harper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(d)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The Court agrees with the Commissioner that the ALJ provided sufficient “good reason” under the applicable regulations for assigning non-controlling weight to Dr. Swope’s opinion. Moreover, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Van Hook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2)

Further, if the ALJ had properly analyzed the second controlling weight factor -- i.e., the consistency of the opinion with the other substantial evidence of record, see 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2) -- he would have noted that Dr. Songer’s opinion was, in fact, consistent with not only the clinical findings noted supra, but also the opinions of Plaintiff’s other treating sources. ... In light of all the foregoing, Dr. Songer’s opinion regarding Plaintiff’s mental health limitations is entitled to controlling weight as both well-supported by the clinical findings of record and consistent with the substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires considering specified factors to determine its weight.

Fagan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

With regard to a treating physician or psychologist,9 the Regulations instruct ALJs how to properly weigh such a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Because treating physicians and psychologists “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s or psychologist’s medical opinion is to be afforded controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Id. When a treating physician’s or psychologist’s medical opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight it should be given by considering the factors identified above (the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with the other evidence, and the specialization of the physician). Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Schmidt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight or provide good reasons for assigning it less weight, based on the prescribed factors.

Dechamps v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)

The Second Circuit has held that “the opinion of a treating physician on the nature or severity of a claimant’s impairments is binding if it is supported by medical evidence and not contradicted by substantial evidence in the record.” ... In order for an A.L.J. to discount the opinion of a treating source, the “A.L.J. must explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequently, 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.” ... “Even where a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must ‘apply the factors listed ... [and] will always give good reasons . . . for the weight [he] give[s] [claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.’” ... The Court has held that an A.L.J. has not met her duty to provide a good reason for not crediting an opinion when the A.L.J. only provides a “conclusory explanation” for why the treating physician’s opinion of limitations “is inconsistent with the record.” ... Here, the A.L.J. did not cite to any records regarding those statements. ... Without some reference to a specific part of Dr. Song’s record, the A.L.J.’s reasoning is merely conclusory. ... Where a decision does not “‘explicitly’ apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight at step two [there] is a procedural error.” ... If “the Commissioner has not [otherwise] provided ‘good reasons’ [for its weight assignment],” we are unable to conclude that the error was harmless and consequently remand for the ALJ to “comprehensively set forth [its] reasons.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six specified factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

GUNN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-06-10(c)(1)–(6)

In deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician, an ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. ... The Court finds no error with the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to these opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when the opinion is discounted.

Collora v. Saul · filed 2021-06-24(c)(2)

“The opinion of a treating physician is generally afforded ‘controlling weight if that opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.’” ... “When an ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion, [the ALJ] should give good reasons for doing so.” ... “Upon review of the record, the Court finds the ALJ properly considered Dr. Alam’s opinion and gave good reasons for discounting it.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-25(c)(2)

The treating physician rule states that the opinion of a treating physician should be “given more weight than other reports and . . . will be controlling if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’” Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Under Estrella, the ALJ first determines whether a treating physician’s opinion is sufficiently “well supported” to be entitled to controlling weight. ... Then, if no opinion is entitled to such weight, the ALJ “explicitly [considers] four nonexclusive factors: (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 [treating] physician is a specialist.” ... Failure to “explicitly consider” these factors is procedural error. ... The ALJ inadequately explained his decision not to give Dr. Meadow’s findings controlling weight. ... Indeed, the ALJ’s choice to disregard Dr. Meadow’s opinion because other “providers assessed the claimant with only moderate depression” is an egregious violation of the treating physician rule since it implicitly prioritizes the psychiatric opinions of Dr. Barron Lerner—an internist with no sustained treating relationship to Rivera3—over the opinions of her treating psychiatrist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and to give specific, legitimate reasons tied to the regulatory factors when assigning it less weight.

Montoya v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-29(c)(2)

To give anything less than controlling weight, the ALJ must demonstrate with substantial evidence that the opinion (1) is not “well‐supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” or (2) is “inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... An ALJ is not required to expressly analyze each of the six factors. Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258. However, “[u]nder the regulations, the agency rulings, and our case law, an ALJ must give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating [source’s] opinion.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300 (internal quotation and citations omitted); Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (effective March 27, 2017). The reasons must be “tied to the factors specified in the cited regulations” and must be “sufficiently specific.” Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (effective March 27, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits an ALJ to discount it when substantial evidence, including the physician’s own treatment notes, contradicts the opinion.

Spencer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-07(d)(2)

Opinions of treating physicians “are entitled to ‘controlling weight’ if they are not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence and are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Butler, 353 F.3d at 1003 (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)). ... Because the ALJ identified Dr. Rankin’s progress notes as substantial evidence contradicting his 2014 opinion, she did not err in discounting it on that basis. ... Again, because the ALJ identified substantial contradictory evidence in the record, she did not err by giving the March 2016 assessment partial weight in her analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Yanes v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-15(c)(2)

SSA regulations in force at the time Yanes filed his application required an ALJ to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinions if they were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)9; see also Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (“Absent ‘good cause,’ an ALJ is to give the medical opinions of treating physicians substantial or considerable weight.” (quotation omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Tanksley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-21(c)(2)

That rule instructs the ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but he must comprehensively set forth his reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons for not crediting that opinion.

Wade v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-26(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Gaston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(c)(2)

In reviewing an application for Social Security benefits, the ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight where these two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) it is “not inconsistent” with substantial evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Selby’s opinion was proper. For one, the Court agrees that the questionnaire contained inconsistencies, most notably concerning Gaston’s lifting ability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for discounting it.

Allen v. SSA · filed 2021-07-28(c)(2)

For claims filed prior to March 2017, treating-source opinions are be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Commissioner is required to provide “good reasons” for discounting the weight given to a treating-source opinion. Id. See generally, Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

STULL v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-08-06(c)(2)

Because Claimant filed her applications for benefits before March 2017, the applicable law provides that a treating source's opinion3 is entitled to controlling weight if it is: "(1) "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and (2) "not inconsistent with other substantial evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Burmester, 920 F.3d at 512 (quoting Id.); see also Reinaas v. Saul, 953 F.3d 461, 465 (7th Cir. 2020). If an ALJ does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider "the treatment relationship, frequency of examinations, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion." Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). As long as the ALJ considers these factors and minimally articulates her reasons, the Court will uphold her decision not to assign controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Parker v. Saul · filed 2021-08-10(d)(2)

But the "ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion 'well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques' and 'not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.'" Wilson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The ALJ here found that the treating physician's opinion was inconsistent with medical records and thus the ALJ did not give it controlling weight. ECF 7-2, PgID 49–50. Based on Wilson, the ALJ's decision was not an error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and directs consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied.

Aguirre v. Saul · filed 2021-08-11(c)(2)

Under the regulations governing claims filed before March 27, 2017, if a treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, it should be given controlling weight.4 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, its weight is determined by length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, amount of evidence supporting the opinion, consistency with the record as a whole, the doctor’s area of specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... As this claim was filed before the date of March 27, 2017, and the ALJ has not provided good reason for discounting the treating source’s opinion, Dr. McKnight’s opinion will be given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the record, and otherwise to consider the listed factors, give good reasons, and explain the weight assigned.

Barnes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-24(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to give “controlling weight” to “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment . . . so long as it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, he is nevertheless required to consider the following factors in determining the weight to be given to that opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence provided to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (6) other factors brought to the Commissioner’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... The ALJ must give “good reasons” for not crediting the plaintiff’s treating physician. ... After considering these factors, the ALJ must fully set forth his reasons for the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless the ALJ clearly articulates reasons supported by substantial evidence establishing good cause to discount it.

Majors v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-03(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is accorded the most deference because there is a greater likelihood that such a provider will “be able to give a more complete picture of the [claimant’s] health history.” ... As a result, the ALJ must give the opinion of a treating physician substantial or considerable weight unless the ALJ clearly articulates reasons—supported by substantial evidence—that establish “good cause” for discounting that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion and gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight only when it is adequately supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the listed factors.

Hutter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-03(c)(2)–(6)

At Step Four, an ALJ must weigh every medical opinion that the Social Security Administration receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ must give a treating source opinion controlling weight, unless the opinion is: (1) not “supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; or (2) inconsistent with findings in the treating source’s own records or other medical evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 786 (6th Cir. 2017). ... If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must determine the weight it is due by considering the length of the length and frequency of treatment, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the treating physician is a specialist. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, unless good cause supports disregarding it.

Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-09(c)(2)

Generally, the ALJ gives “more weight” to an opinion from a treating physician because the treating physician is “likely to be the medical professional[] most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture” of the claimant’s medical impairment and “may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ finds that a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion “controlling weight,” id., unless “good cause” is shown to “disregard a treating physician’s opinion[.]” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179 (quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Quale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence; the ALJ need not go through the § 404.1527(d)(2) factors when the treating opinion is considered.

Boyd v. Saul · filed 2021-09-17(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment should be afforded “controlling weight” when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Since the ALJ considered Dr. Eslami’s conclusion, the ALJ was not required to go through the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

McDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(c)(2)

The SSA regulations applicable at the time Plaintiff filed her application required an ALJ to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinions if they were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record; otherwise, the ALJ must apply the specified regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Kohlbusch v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-17(c)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), a treating source’s opinion may receive controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” If the ALJ does not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must “apply the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the medical opinion.” Id. The ALJ “will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s medical opinion.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source medical opinions greater weight, including controlling weight when they are well supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Rabey v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-20(c)(2)

Therefore, medical opinions from these sources are generally entitled to the greatest weight, and are entitled to controlling weight if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c)(2). If controlling weight is not appropriate, treating source opinions are weighed according to the same framework as other medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c). ... “Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for doing so.” Walker v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 911 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting Reece, 834 F.3d at 909); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and otherwise to give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Nimrod v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-21(d)(2)

“An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). If an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, then the ALJ must give “good reasons” for doing so that are “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (quoting Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is consistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when it is not controlling.

Pena v. Saul · filed 2021-09-23(c)(2)

When evaluating a treating source's opinion on the nature or severity of a claimant's impairments, the treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight when it is well-supported by, and consistent with, other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... When a treating physician's opinion is not controlling, the ALJ must consider several factors in determining how much weight it should receive. See Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015); see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, non-inconsistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, requires non-controlling opinions to be weighed using specified factors, and permits a social worker’s opinion to receive more weight than an acceptable medical source when it is better supported, better explained, more frequent, and more consistent with the record.

White v. Saul · filed 2021-09-24(c)(2)–(6), (f)(2)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighed 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, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). ... By failing to address LCSW Youdon’s specific findings, Judge Gill did not provide germane reasons for rejecting the opinions of LCSW Youdon, who had seen W.W. longer than any other medical provider in the record and had provided detailed explanations accompanying each weekly appointment over the course of W.W.’s two-year treatment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2) (recognizing that a social worker’s opinion may be entitled to more weight than an acceptable medical source if the social worker “has seen the individual more often than the treating source, has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for the opinion, and the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion and to consider specified factors when assigning less than substantial or considerable weight.

Alcalde v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-24(c)(2), (c)

With respect to applications filed before March 27, 2017, the opinion of a treating physician must, absent “good cause,” be given “substantial or considerable weight.” Williams v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 805 F. App’x 692, 694 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (noting that an ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion). “Good cause” exists where “(1) the opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) the opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Id. (cleaned up). And when assigning anything less than substantial or considerable weight to the opinions of a treating physician, an ALJ must consider several factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “For instance, the Social Security regulations command that the ALJ consider: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length and nature of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the medical opinion is amply supported by relevant evidence; (4) whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s specialization.” Schink v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 935 F.3d 1245, 1260 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Holt v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of (JRG1) · filed 2021-10-01(c)(2)

However, a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment must be given “controlling weight” only if it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is denied, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Good v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-13(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion 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, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Specifically, if an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight: [A]n ALJ must apply certain factors—namely, 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—in determining what weight to give the opinion. ... Furthermore, an ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the ALJ’s] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. ... opinion evidence within the written decision).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source medical opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Brady v. Saul · filed 2021-11-08(c)(2)

For claims—like Brady’s—filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that if “a treating source’s medical opinions on the issue(s) of nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the Commissioner “will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Thus, consistent with the applicable regulations, the ALJ did not substitute his own lay opinion for that of Dr. Berger’s. ... We, therefore, find that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of Dr. Berger’s opinion here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) provides that a well-supported treating-source opinion consistent with the record receives controlling weight and otherwise must be weighed using specified factors.

Edenhofer v. Saul · filed 2021-11-12(c)(2)-(6)

Setting aside the issue of waiver, a treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it so long as he provides an adequate explanation for doing so. Punzio v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 704, 710 (7th Cir. 2011); Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010); Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 842 (7th Cir. 2007). That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739, and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is consistent with the other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight.

Penny Baten v. Saul · filed 2021-11-19(c)(2)

Where a treating physician’s opinion was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it was required to be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source's well-supported, consistent medical opinion, otherwise directs consideration of specified factors and good reasons for the weight assigned, while reserving disability determinations to the Commissioner.

Gonzalez-Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-01(c)(2), (c), and (d)(1)

The opinions of a treating source should be given controlling weight if “the treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... When an ALJ does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight, however, he or she must determine the amount of weight to give the opinion based on factors such as (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) whether the treating source provided evidence in support of the opinion, (3) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and (4) whether the treating source is a specialist. ... The ALJ must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he gives the] treating source's opinion,” and should not discount that opinion entirely. ... However, opinions that a claimant is “disabled or unable to work” are legal conclusions “reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to apply specified factors and give good reasons when declining to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Counts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-03(c)(2)

If the ALJ does not afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must meet certain procedural requirements. Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). Specifically, if an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight: [A]n ALJ must apply certain factors—namely, 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—in determining what weight to give the opinion. Id. Furthermore, an ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the ALJ’s] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, requires consideration of specified factors and sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Roden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-27(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [[Plaintiff]’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If the ALJ does not afford controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, then the ALJ must meet certain procedural requirements. ... Furthermore, an ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the ALJ’s] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Accordingly, the ALJ’s reasoning “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... This analysis sufficiently sets forth good reasons for not affording Dr. Nockowitz’s opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Harper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-28(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of a patient’s impairment is given controlling weight, provided it is “well-supported by medically acceptable[,] clinical[,] and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Contrary to Harper’s argument that the ALJ did not supply any citations or analysis to support her finding, the ALJ devoted an entire paragraph to summarizing and analyzing Dr. McNair’s opinion, while also citing specific exhibits in the record. ... After review of the record, the ALJ’s finding that Dr. McNair’s opinion was unpersuasive is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of the record.

Schillinger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-02(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is entitled to controlling weight where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” of the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). This is known as the “treating physician rule.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source opinion that is well supported and consistent with the record, but permits the ALJ to withhold controlling weight when the opinion conflicts with substantial evidence.

Lynn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-23(c)(2)

Namely, Dr. Dunmyer’s and Ms. Burgess’s opinions that Plaintiff, due to his back pain, could not sit for more than 30 minutes and would require frequent, unscheduled breaks are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s frequent reports of no or mild back pain. Moreover, Dr. Dunmyer’s and Ms. Burgess’s opined limitations on Plaintiff’s use of his upper extremities are inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported activities of daily living, including household chores, yardwork, and caring for his children. The ALJ therefore appropriately declined to adopt their limitations or give their opinions controlling weight pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider the listed regulatory factors when determining how much weight to give it.

Casas v. Saul · filed 2022-02-25(c)

The ALJ must then consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) to decide how much weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-10(c)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported and record-consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and otherwise to weigh it using the listed factors, including consistency and supportability, while giving good reasons for the assigned weight.

Brunson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11(c), (c)(2), (c)(3)

Under this framework, the ALJ must “give consideration to all the medical opinions in the record” and “discuss the weight [the ALJ] assigns to such opinions.” ... The ALJ must give a treating physician’s medical opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ does not give a treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the level of deference to give it, using the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... However, the ALJ must “give good reasons in the notice of determination or opinion for the weight that is given the treating physician’s opinion.” ... This goes to the “supportability” factor, which requires the ALJ to consider the degree to which the medical source “presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion” and provides an explanation for the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). ... Where Dr. O’Brien provided no explanation regarding the basis for this opinion, the ALJ did not err in concluding her opinion was speculative and unsupported.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Beckett v. Saul · filed 2022-03-18(c)(2)

The regulations also address the weight to be given a treating source’s opinion: “If we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case, we will give it controlling weight.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors; an opinion inconsistent with substantial evidence is not entitled to controlling weight, and ultimate disability determinations are reserved to the Commissioner.

MECOUCH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-03-22(c)(1)–(6), (c)(2), (d)

However, “[a] treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is ‘inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Hubert v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 746 F. App’x 151, 153 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)); see also Brunson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 704 F. App’x 56, 59–60 (3d Cir. 2017) (“[A]n ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating physician when it is unsupported and inconsistent with the other evidence in the record.”). ... The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6). ... To the extent that Dr. Radbill stated that Plaintiff is permanently disabled and unable to work, R. 623, 692, this Court disagrees. See Louis v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 808 F. App’x 114, 118 (3d Cir. 2020) (“Whether or not Louis can perform occupational duties is a legal determination reserved for the Commissioner.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)); Zonak v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 290 F. App’x 493, 497 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[T]he ALJ was not obligated to give significant weight to Dr. Kumar’s opinion as to Zonak’s ability to work because the opinion related to the ultimate issue of disability—an issue reserved exclusively to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the opinion’s weight to be determined by considering factors including its consistency with the record.

Olson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-23(c)(2), (c)(4)

The relevant regulations, §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, make repeated reference to considerations of an opinion’s consistency with other evidence in the record when determining the weight to be assigned to that opinion. They provide a treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (emphasis added); accord 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). They also provide that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight” generally assigned to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (emphasis added); accord 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight and otherwise weigh it using specified factors.

Klett v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-19(d)(2)

When an ALJ is presented with evidence from a treating physician, the ALJ shall accord that evidence controlling weight if the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairments) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If the ALJ determines that the medical evidence from a treating physician is not well-supported by accepted medical techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, then the ALJ must determine how much weight to accord that evidence based on a consideration of at least four factors: “(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; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment when, among other things, it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Money v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-02-25(d)(2)

Controlling weight is given to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician regarding the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment when, among other things, it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by clinical and laboratory evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.

Phillips v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-10(d)(2)

Furthermore, to the extent that Dr. Falatyn, by checking the box, actually opined that Phillips was disabled, his opinion is entitled to controlling weight only if it is well-supported by clinical and laboratory evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). However, as discussed above, Dr. Falatyn’s treatment notes, and in particular the treatment notes during the dates indicated on the check-list, do not support a finding that Phillips was disabled at any time. Therefore, Dr. Falatyn’s opinion, as expressed on the check-list form, does not support a finding of disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is supported by uncontradicted clinical evidence.

Snead v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-11

If Dr. Chaudhuri’s opinion found support in uncontradicted clinical evidence, then that opinion could potentially receive “controlling weight” under social security regulations as the opinion of Snead’s treating physician. See 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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's medical opinion.

Anderson v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-17(d)(2)

On remand, the ALJ shall evaluate the opinion of Eric Washington, M.D., pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and give good reasons for the weight accorded to this treating physician's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides that a treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Jacoby v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-23(d)(2)

controlling weight is appropriate only if the opinion is well supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record, Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1177 (7th Cir.2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Roush v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-30(d)(2)-(6)

In weighing the various opinions and medical evidence, the ALJ must consider other pertinent factors such as the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the medical specialty of the treating physician, the opinion’s supportability by evidence and its consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Rosado v. Barnhart · filed 2003-11-13(d)(2)

The ALJ’s duty to assist a claimant in obtaining complete medical records works in tandem with the so-called “treating physician rule,” which requires the ALJ to grant controlling weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician if the opinion is well supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

McCarty v. Barnhart · filed 2004-01-05(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, however, only if it is well supported by medical findings and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) makes a treating physician’s opinion controlling only when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-02-12(d)(2)

To be controlling, among other things, the treating physician’s opinion must not be inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

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)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's medical opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while allowing discounting when inconsistent with the medical evidence as a whole.

Aguiniga v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-15(c)(2)

An ALJ must assign controlling weight to a treating source's medical opinion if it is "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Treating source opinions are generally entitled to substantial weight, but an ALJ may "justifiably discount" such an opinion when it is "inconsistent or contrary to the medical evidence as a whole."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning a treating physician’s opinion either great or little weight.

Reece v. Colvin · filed 2016-08-24(d)(2)

Whether the ALJ gives the opinion of a treating physician great or little weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for doing so. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Martinez v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-08-25(c)(2)

The ALJ evaluates every medical opinion received and assigns it a particular amount of weight. See id. § 404.1527(c). “[C]ontrolling weight” is given to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Dr. Ricart was Martinez’s treating physician, so his opinion is generally entitled to controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Because the ALJ erred in failing to assign controlling weight to Dr. Ricart’s November 2008, May 2010, and September 2013 opinions, the RFC was not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship and support and consistency, and to explain why an opinion receives no weight.

Sottasante v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-22(c)

The medical opinion of a treating source is generally entitled to “controlling” weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ must weigh certain, factors in evaluating both treating and non-treating source statements, including the nature, length, and extent of the treat ing or examining relationship, as well as whether the medical opinion is supported by, and consistent with, medical signs and laboratory findings. ... Remand is required when an ALJ errs by failing to adequately evaluate the weight of a medical opinion in light of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The Social Security regulations required ALJ McDougall to provide reasons as to why Dr. Tzetzo’s opinion was not provided any weight in his determination. ... The ALJ erred in failing to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider specified treatment and opinion factors and explain any lesser weight assigned.

Newman v. Colvin · filed 2016-09-29(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... If an ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, however, he must explain her reasons for doing so. ... Furthermore, if an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he is required to consider several factors including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, and to provide good reasons when assigning it less weight.

Douglas v SSA · filed 2016-09-30(c)(2)

The ALJ must “consider” all medical opinions of record, along with all relevant evidence received. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). The ALJ must also “evaluate every medical opinion.” §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Where the ALJ discounts a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must address the opinion. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... A treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... To determine how much weight a treating source’s opinion should receive, the ALJ must consider the “length of the treatment relationship,” the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, the treating source’s area of specialization, if any, and any other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Where the ALJ discounts a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ is required to provide “good reasons” for doing so. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, and does not permit an ALJ to discount that opinion merely because it conflicts with the ALJ’s own residual-capacity assessment.

Sharp v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-14(c)(2)

In addressing this issue, we first observe that an ALJ must accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion regarding a claimant’s ability to work, if that opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Thus, “[b]y negative implication, if a physician’s opinion is not supported by clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, it should be accorded significantly less weight.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996); see generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Ultimately, the ALJ is not bound by a treating physician’s opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work, because that determination is reserved for the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). ... The regulations direct that an ALJ evaluate statements from treating physicians before, rather than after, determining a claimant’s residual capacity. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3). Thus, the regulations do not allow an ALJ to consider whether a treating physician’s opinion is consistent with the ALJ’s residual capacity assessment when determining what weight to accord that physician’s opinion. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Groom v. Colvin · filed 2016-11-28(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives opinions by treating physicians controlling weight when they are well-supported or not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the administrative record.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2016-12-03(c)(2)

Subsection (c)(2) of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, moreover, provides that opinions by treating physicians are granted “controlling weight,” provided the opinions are (1) “well-supported” or (2) “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the administrative record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Valdez v. Colvin · filed 2017-02-03(c)(2)

An ALJ must accord “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s medical opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” ... This and other conclusions of the ALJ about notes based only on Valdez’s subjective complaints were justified given that the notes were not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Hamman v. Colvin · filed 2017-02-24(c)(2)

A treating physician's opinion should be given controlling weight when it "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record." Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2002); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Here, Dr. Varadhachary noted that Hamman's symptoms were only "partially explained" by her "small fiber neuropathy," but failed to explain what other medical evidence may support his opinion. Further, the majority of his assessment consisted of checked boxes and conclusory statements, which are of limited evidentiary value. Holmstrom v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 715, 720–21 (8th Cir. 2001). The ALJ therefore did not err in declining to give Dr. Varadhachary's opinion controlling weight, particularly given the other substantial evidence in the record supporting the ALJ's residual functional capacity assessment. See Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is medically well-supported and consistent with substantial record evidence; subsection (c)(2)(i) generally favors opinions from sources with longer, more frequent treatment relationships.

Rideout v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-10(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion should be given controlling weight when it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” Krogmeier v. Barnhart, 294 F.3d 1019, 1023 (8th Cir. 2002); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Substantial evidence thus supports the ALJ’s decision to afford no weight to Dr. Rose’s opinion because after Rideout’s hospitalization “he [did] not have a treating relationship with the claimant and he did not provide any objective medical tests to support his medical opinion.” ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) affords controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Dommes v. Colvin · filed 2016-12-06(c)(2)

Under the “treating physician’s rule,” controlling weight is afforded to a plaintiffs treating physician’s opinion when (1) the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (2) the opinion is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as opinions of other medical experts.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Simon-Leveque v. Colvin · filed 2017-01-17(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Social Security Administration to give controlling weight to a well-supported treating-source opinion that is consistent with the record and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Western v. Saul · filed 2019-09-06(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, which includes Plaintiff’s claims, the regulations provide that if “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, [the Social Security Administration] will give it controlling weight,” and further provide that the Administration “will give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

(SS) Derek W. Carlon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-10(c)(2)

Further, Plaintiff’s treating physician’s opinion, if obtained, would be entitled to controlling weight from the ALJ, which could affect the outcome of the case. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“If . . . a treating [physician’s] opinion . . . is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight”); Reddick, 157 F.3d at 725 (“Where the treating doctor’s opinion is not contradicted by another doctor, it may be rejected only for clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record.” (citation omitted)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

PERSCHKA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-11(c)(2)

In fact, the regulations provide that for claims, such as this one, filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion is to be given “controlling weight” so long as the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 43; Plummer, 186 F.3d at 429. As a result, the ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, and not on the basis of the ALJ’s own judgment or speculation, although she may afford a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating-source opinion only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Rudy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-13(c)(2)

Here, the Court can predict with great confidence that little weight would be given to Dr. Wesp’s opinion and it would not change the ALJ’s decision. Although the opinion was from a treating physician, it was not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and it was “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

MEACHAM v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-09-13(c)(2)

With respect to treating physicians specifically, the regulations provide that an ALJ shall give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and it is not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Trobaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-13(c)(2)

The ALJ must give treating-source opinions “‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source's well-supported, consistent opinion, and the treating-source rule does not apply to an opinion from a physician who saw the claimant only once.

Roth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-18(d)(2)

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); Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000). ... However, the Court agrees with the Commissioner that at the time Dr. Augustin completed the form, she had only met with plaintiff once, and, therefore, was not in a treating relationship with plaintiff. ... Thus, at the time that she completed the DMV form, Dr. Augustin was not a treating source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons when assigning it less weight.

Graham v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)

First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight. “[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (third brackets in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. In doing so, it must “explicitly consider” the following, nonexclusive “Burgess factors”: “(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.” Selian[, 708 F.3d at 418] (citing Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2))). At both steps, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... An ALJ’s failure to “explicitly” apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight at step two is a procedural error. Selian, 708 F.3d at 419-20.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits a treating source's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by clinical findings and not inconsistent with the record, but permits discounting it when inconsistent with other evidence.

Barker v. Saul · filed 2019-09-23

As respondent has correctly stated, treating source opinions may be accorded controlling weight if they are well-supported by clinical findings and are not inconsistent with evidence as a whole. ... But the ALJ is legally correct in discounting a treating physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with, or contradicted by, other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

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

If the treating physician’s opinion 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, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and requires consideration of specified factors when deciding what weight to give it.

Reyes v. Saul · filed 2019-09-24(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739, and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Couture v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-26(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when 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.

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

A treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported and consistent with the record, and otherwise assign appropriate weight after considering relevant factors.

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

While treating physicians are “usually entitled to controlling weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96-2p,1 an ALJ may discredit the opinion if it is inconsistent with the record.” ... “When not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ assigns a medical opinion appropriate weight after considering relevant factors, such as whether the opinion was supported by evidence, whether the opinion was consistent with the record as a whole, and the specifics of the treating relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).” ... “Although the ALJ perhaps could have done more to explain her reasons for discounting Dr. Wilford’s opinion, she did note the pattern of conservative treatment and explained why she did not find some of the Plaintiff’s subjective allegations persuasive. She also noted that certain opinions were not supported by objective testing and found that the entire medical record did not support Dr. Wilford’s extreme limitations. This is a sufficient basis for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned when it is not given controlling weight.

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

Under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment must be given controlling weight if the Commissioner finds that: (1) the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) the opinion is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. See Gayheart v. Commissioner of Social Security, 710 F.3d 365, 375 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ must articulate good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a treating source. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 378 F.3d 541, 545 (6th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2) (“[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of regulatory factors and good reasons for the weight assigned.

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

A treating source’s medical opinion is “entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ does not give a treating source medical opinion controlling weight, then she must consider the five regulatory factors “to determine what lesser weight should instead be accorded the opinion.” Brown, 873 F.3d at 256; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). “The regulation 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)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) calls for controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Kogen v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-27(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, it should be given controlling weight. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability factors when determining the weight to give the opinion.

Rayford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

Second, under the regulations that apply to claims filed before March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018). ... Aside from the “good reasons” requirement, in addition, “[i]f an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... In this case, the ALJ largely failed to consider the required factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Murphy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-30(d)(2)

“Social Security regulations require that an ALJ give ‘controlling weight’ to the medical opinion of an applicant’s treating physician so long as that opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give less weight to a treating-source opinion based on the treatment relationship and consistency with the record when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Scattoreggio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2), (c)(4)

Both were appropriate reasons for the ALJ to assigning Dr. Bongiovanni’s opinion little weight. Specifically, the ALJ may consider “the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship” and “whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), (4), 416.927(c)(2), (4). Moreover, the Court finds the ALJ was correct in his assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating source’s medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Griffin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)(2)

As a treating physician, Dr. Holmes’ opinion on Plaintiff’s ability to perform lifting, if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [Plaintiff’s] case record,” should be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Holmes’ lifting restriction is speculative, and, thus, his rejection of Dr. Holmes’ opinion on her ability to lift is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives controlling weight to a treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while allowing less weight when the opinion is contradicted or internally inconsistent.

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

In general, the "opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence." ... “However, the ALJ may set aside the opinion of a treating physician that is contradicted by the weight of other record evidence.” ... Furthermore, “[a] physician's opinions are given less weight when his opinions are internally inconsistent.” ... This Court finds no error in the ALJ's assessment of Dr. Burke’s opinion, which was internally inconsistent, based on only two meetings with Plaintiff, and contradicted by Dr. Burke’s own treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability.

Borostowski v. Saul · filed 2019-10-08(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The Court finds that the ALJ adequately considered the factors set forth in 20 C.F..R. § 404.1527(c)(2) and logically connected the evidence in the record to her determination of the weight given to Dr. Lorenz.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence; if it is not controlling, § 404.1527(c) requires consideration of specified weighing factors.

Gross v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-08(c)(2)

With regard to the medical opinions of treating physicians, the regulations provide: If we find that a treating source’s medical 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 in [the] case record, we will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If a treating source’s medical opinion is not assigned controlling weight, an ALJ must consider several factors in determining the weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship, including its nature and extent; (2) the supportability of the opinion; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the source is a specialist; and (5) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). An ALJ is permitted to give little weight to the opinion of a treating physician if there is persuasive contrary evidence, see Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992), but the ALJ must discuss any contrary evidence with specificity so that a reviewing court can conduct a meaningful review. Monroe, 826 F.3d at 191. Here, the ALJ did just that. The ALJ properly gave little weight to Dr. Hsu’s opinion. (Tr. 22.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record.

Bush v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-10(c)(2)

In any event, under the regulations, a treating source’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The Commissioner has the better argument here. ... Against these clinical records, the checkboxes shown above stand out as inadequately considered.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record; if it is not given controlling weight, the decision-maker must explain the weight assigned with sufficient specificity.

Durr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-11(c)(2)-(6)

At Step Four, an ALJ must weigh every medical opinion that the Social Security Administration receives. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, unless the ALJ articulates good reasons for discrediting that opinion. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). “Treating-source opinions must be given ‘controlling weight’ if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’; and (2) the opinion ‘is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must determine the weight it is due by considering the length and frequency of treatment, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the treating physician is a specialist. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). Nothing in the regulations requires the ALJ to explain how he considered each of the factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Nevertheless, the ALJ must provide an explanation “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the [ALJ] gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376; see also Cole v. Astrue, 661 F.3d 931, 938 (6th Cir. 2011) (“In addition to balancing the factors to determine what weight to give a treating source opinion denied controlling weight, the agency specifically requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight he actually assigned.”). When the ALJ fails to adequately explain the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion, or otherwise fails to provide good reasons for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, remand is appropriate. Cole, 661 F.3d at 939.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, and an ALJ must give good reasons for declining that weight.

Burgos v. Saul · filed 2019-10-17(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, like Burgos’s here, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Larson v. Astrue, 615 F.3d 744, 749 (7th Cir. 2010). An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for declining to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician. Larson, 615 F.3d at 749.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-18(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s condition is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic-techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... It was procedural error for the ALJ to fail to fully consider the Burgess factors and to fail to provide “good reasons” for assigning less than controlling weight to the opinions of Dr. Kennedy and Dr. Benjamin, both of whom opined that J.S.’s condition met the requirements of two Listings: §§ 101.02 and 101.03. (AR 898-99, 905-06).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Haynes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-21(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s application was filed before March 27, 2017. The applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), provides, in part: ... If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. [Emphasis added] If the ALJ decides not to give the opinion controlling weight, he is to weigh it applying the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). Supportability and consistency are two important factors to be considered in weighing medical opinions. In a nutshell, “[t]he regulations state that an ALJ must give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by ‘medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [,]’ and (2) it is ‘not inconsistent’ with substantial evidence in the record.” ... Here, the ALJ explained that she gave little weight to Dr. Cahill’s opinion because it was inconsistent with the state agency medical consultants who assessed plaintiff’s RFC based on a review of the medical records. Also, it was inconsistent with Dr. Cahill’s own findings on the August 2015 exam.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

McClinton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-09(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

Trottier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-22(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is to be given controlling weight because of the length and nature of the relationship as long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is not well-supported by diagnostic techniques and is inconsistent with the substantial evidence, it is no longer entitled to controlling weight. In such instances, an ALJ must weigh the opinion using such factors such as: the examining relationship; the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using specified factors and provide good reasons for discounting it.

Carbaugh v. Saul · filed 2019-10-23(c)

In general, an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). Otherwise, the ALJ must “offer good reasons for discounting” the opinion of a treating physician. Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted); Scott, 647 F.3d at 739. And even where a treater’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine what value the assessment does merit. Scott, 647 F.3d at 740; Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. In making that determination, the regulations require the ALJ to consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating source's medical opinion more weight and allows controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record; an ALJ may discount it with reasons supported by the evidence.

Careccia v. Saul · filed 2019-10-29(c)(2)

“[A] treating physician's opinion regarding an applicant's impairment will be granted ‘controlling weight,’ provided the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.’” Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012–1013 (8th Cir.2000), quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The record must be evaluated as a whole to determine whether the treating physician’s opinion should control. Tilley v. Astrue, 580 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2009). The ALJ may discount or disregard a treating physician’s opinion if other medical assessments are supported by superior medical evidence, or if the treating physician has offered inconsistent opinions. Hogan v. Apfel, 239 F.3d at 961 (8th Cir. 2001). ... If an ALJ discounts a treating physician’s opinion, his or her opinion must explain why the opinion was discounted. ... As demonstrated above, the ALJ’s decision includes his reasons for not giving controlling weight to the treating source statements.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Watson v. Saul · filed 2019-10-30(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments is given “controlling weight” so long as it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Matos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-04(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that medical opinions from the claimant’s treating sources regarding the nature and severity of the impairments claimed be given controlling weight as long as such opinions are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record? 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); accord Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008). However, “the opinions of a treating source need not be given controlling weight where they are contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record.” Martes v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 344 F. Supp. 3d 750, 758 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh the opinion.

Schofield v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-05(c)(2)

The applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), provides, in part: Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your 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. If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... Here, the ALJ explained that he gave little weight to the treaters’ opinion because (1) it was “conclusory,” the product of a pre-printed form, and “provided no explanation of the objective evidence relied on in forming that opinion;” and (2) the treatment records did not contain significant clinical or laboratory findings to support the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight unless it lacks support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and a checkbox format alone does not justify departing from that rule.

DIMTER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-11-13(d)(2)

The Third Circuit “ha[s] consistently held that the ALJ must give ‘controlling weight’ to the opinion of a treating physician unless that opinion is not supported by ‘medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques [or] is . . . inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in . . . [the] record.’” ... In this case, the ALJ gave less than controlling weight to Dr. Draganescu’s assessment ... the Court holds that it was error to discount Dr. Draganescu’s assessment based on the form used to provide the assessment. ... Therefore, even in the absence of the OAR’s express approval of the form, the Court would not find that the “check-box” nature of the form, in-and-of itself, is sufficient justification to support departure from the general rule that treating physicians’ opinions are typically given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight only when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

VanNote v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-08(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; an opinion given less than controlling weight requires good reasons.

Sanders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-15(c)(2)

The opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). However, a treating physician’s opinion is not afforded controlling weight when the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999). If the ALJ gives the treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must provide good reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to evaluate it under the regulation's factors and give specific, evidence-supported reasons for the weight assigned.

Montoya v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-11-20(c)(2)

In analyzing whether a treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must perform a two-step process. First, the ALJ must consider whether the opinion “is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” ... If the opinion meets both criteria, the ALJ must give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight. ... To give anything less than controlling weight, the ALJ must demonstrate with substantial evidence that the opinion (1) is not “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” or (2) is “inco‐nsistent with 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(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Vazquez v. Saul · filed 2019-11-21(c)(2)

In evaluating a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, the ALJ must determine whether that opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record”; if the opinion is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence, the ALJ must give it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Nowling v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1110, 1122 (8th Cir. 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wacker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-25(c)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinion when it is “well[ ] supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial [record] evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Turcinovic v. Berryhill · filed 2019-11-26(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight; otherwise, the ALJ must apply listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Edmonds v. Saul · filed 2019-12-04(c)(2)

Here, because Dr. Gajraj is a treating physician, his opinion “as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128, (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) [now (c)(2)]). Where, as here, the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” he must “apply the factors listed” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 417 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). The ALJ must then give “good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good, specific reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Lael v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-12-05(c)(2)

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. ... The ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion that Lael required a sit-stand option. The ALJ failed to explain his disagreement with this portion of the opinions, beyond stating that her medical records from Advanced Pain Management (“APM”) generally failed to show any motor or extremity sensation deficits.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Stout v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-05(c)(2)

That rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to ‘a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s)’ if the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 Fed. Appx. 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013) (alterations in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion the most weight and makes it controlling when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the claimant’s record.

Graff v. Berryhill · filed 2019-12-06(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight, and may be “controlling” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight.

Blessent v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-09(c)(2)

Section 404.1527(c)(2) states that if the ALJ finds “a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) 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, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is consistent with the substantial evidence to receive controlling weight.

Webb v. Acting Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-12(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

ANDERSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-12-12(c)(2)

The regulations provide that an ALJ shall give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and it is not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... While the ALJ was not required to give this opinion controlling weight, the ALJ was required to evaluate the opinion in accordance with the proper standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, requires consideration of specified factors and good reasons when controlling weight is denied, and does not require special weight for a treating source's conclusion that a claimant is disabled because that determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Steckroth, III v. Social Security, Commissioner of · filed 2019-12-13(d)(2), (e)(1), (e)(3)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight where it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must then determine how much weight to give the opinion, “by considering a number of 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 any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakely v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ must give good reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for the ultimate weight given to a treating source opinion. Id., citing Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 SSR LEXIS 9 at *12, 1996 WL 374188 at *5. An ALJ is not required to give any special weight to a treating source’s conclusion that a claimant is disabled, however, as this conclusion is reserved to the Commissioner alone, based on all the evidence of record. 20 C.F. R. § 404.1527(e)(1), (e)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence, and to give sufficiently specific good reasons when assigning it less weight.

Gora v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-12-17(c)(2)

At Step Four, an ALJ must weigh every medical opinion that the Social Security Administration receives. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, unless the ALJ articulates good reasons for discrediting that opinion. ... If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he must determine the weight it is due by considering the length and frequency of treatment, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the treating physician is a specialist. ... Nothing in the regulations requires the ALJ to explain how he considered each of the factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Nevertheless, the ALJ must provide an explanation “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the [ALJ] gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” ... However, the ALJ didn’t explain this finding or cite any evidence to support it. The good reason rule requires more than simply stating that the opinion is “inconsistent with the record.” ... In failing to adequately explain why he assigned partial weight to Dr. Gottesman’s opinions overall, the ALJ failed to properly apply the agency’s treating physician rule and his decision must be vacated.