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 treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using listed regulatory factors.

MAKOWSKI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-02-18(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)–(ii), (c)(3)–(6)

A treating physicians’ opinion is entitled “controlling weight” only if it is “well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... If a treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh medical opinions based on listed regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(ii), (c)(3)– (6) (length and frequency of the treatment relationship, “nature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the opinion’s “supportability” and consistency with the record as a whole, the opining physician’s specialization, and factors such as the opining physician’s familiarity with the standards of the Social Security program).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who gives a treating-source opinion less than controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability, and failure to apply those factors explicitly can warrant remand.

Johansen v. Saul · filed 2019-11-07(c)(2)(ii), (c)(3)-(4), (c)(6)

Because the ALJ did not give controlling weight to Dr. Lubenow’s opinions, he had 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, 555 F.3d at 561; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the checklist can be grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to weigh factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization.

Scognamiglio v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-09(c)(1)–(6)

As discussed, if an ALJ does not afford controlling weight to a claimant’s treating physicians’ opinions, the ALJ must determine the opinions’ proper weight by considering factors that include: (i) the frequency of examination as well as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating source’s opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the entire record; (iv) whether the treating source is a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6); Shaw, 221 F.3d at 134.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the listed factors, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if the record reflects consideration of the relevant factors.

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-06

In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of the opinion, (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the treating source, and (6) other relevant factors. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). While the ALJ is not required to explicitly discuss each of these factors, the record must nevertheless reflect that the ALJ considered those factors relevant to his assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed regulatory factors when evaluating a treating physician's opinion.

Mitchell v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-15(c)

Considering these facts, the ALJ was required to consider the factors set forth in section 1404.1527(c), which the record reflects was not done, either implicitly or explicitly.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when evaluating a medical opinion, but does not require an explicit written discussion of every factor if the decision indicates they were adequately considered.

Joanne M. Warren v. O'Malley · filed 2020-07-08(c)(2)-(6)

In Trevizo, the Ninth Circuit discussed the ALJ’s obligation to consider a physician’s opinion “according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). ... The ALJ recognized that Dr. Grossman was Plaintiff’s treating physician, reviewed his treating notes and opinion, acknowledged his specialization as an orthopedic surgeon, and relied on the inconsistency of Dr. Grossman’s opinion with the record, namely his own opinions. Because the ALJ adequately considered Dr. Grossman’s opinion, his failure to explicitly describe and apply each of the regulatory factors in his decision did not constitute legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment length and frequency, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, medical support, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Allen v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-09(c)(2), (c)

Under the statutory analysis, the ALJ must evaluate: “(1) the physician’s length of treatment of the claimant; (2) the physician’s frequency of examination; (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) the support of the physician’s opinion afforded by the medical evidence of record; (5) the ... consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (6) the specialization of the treating physician; and, (7) any other considerations.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a treating-source opinion, but does not require an explicit factor-by-factor discussion when the ALJ explains the rationale and the weight given so the court can follow the reasoning.

Muratovic v. Saul · filed 2020-09-22(c)(2)-(6)

Finally, the undersigned notes that although the ALJ did not explicitly discuss all of the factors listed in § 404.1527(c) in evaluating Dr. Pevnick’s opinion, he was not required to do so. ... The ALJ cited 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 in his discussion and discussed some of the relevant factors in his decision, including the consistency of Dr. Pevnick’s opinion with his own treatment notes and other evidence and the fact that Dr. Pevnick was Plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist. (Tr. 16). The ALJ also “explained his rationale in a manner that allows the [Court] to follow his line of reasoning, including stating the amount of weight given to this evidence.” Nishke, 878 F.Supp.2d at 984. No more was required to comply with the relevant regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every listed factor when evaluating a treating-source opinion, so long as the ALJ's reasoning and assigned weight are adequately explained.

Karahodzic v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-21(c)

Although the ALJ did not explicitly discuss all of the factors listed in § 404.1527(c) in evaluating Dr. Zia’s opinion, she was not required to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the specified treatment-relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when deciding what weight to give a treating-source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Tucker v. Saul · filed 2020-10-14(c)(2)-(6)

If the treating physician’s opinion is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it is not entitled to controlling weight. ... In that event, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to accord the opinion. ... The factors include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the treating source; and (6) any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(I)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6). ... Accordingly, the Court finds the ALJ did not err in considering Dr. Stiles’ opinion on remand. ... Previously, the Court found the ALJ erred by failing to address the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2-6) in determining how much weight to afford Dr. Stiles’ opinion. (A.R. 1121.) On remand, the ALJ did not reference 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 or directly address the factors. The ALJ did, however, thoroughly discuss Dr. Stiles’ records and opinions, and in so doing touched on each of the factors. ... The Court finds any error in following the remand order, is therefore harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, nature and extent of treatment, specialization, and the opinion’s support and consistency with the record when controlling weight is not given.

Strom v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-13(c)(2)-(6)

Generally, an ALJ should consider the extent of the treating physician’s relationship with the patient, including the frequency of examination and the nature and extent of treatment, as set forth in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676. Whether the medical source being evaluated is a specialist in the particular area being addressed is also highly relevant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors and determine the opinion’s appropriate weight.

Lorber v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-21(c)(1)–(6)

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

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 consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified treatment and opinion factors.

Ferrington v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-02-02(c)(2)

“For claims filed before March 2017, a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” ... “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” to determine how much weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed regulatory factors, including supportability, consistency, treatment relationship, and specialization, and explain the weight assigned.

Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-12(c)(2)-(6)

Nevertheless, the ALJ did not specifically discuss the 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) factors in assessing the weight to accord Dr. LaRuffa’s opinion. ... While supportability and consistency are two regulatory factors the ALJ must consider in weighting a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ’s discussion of those factors alone fails to show the ALJ considered the other regulatory factors in weighting Dr. LaRuffa’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to meaningfully consider each regulatory factor before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

REAVES v. SAUL · filed 2021-02-26(c)

In the present case, as in Dowling, even if the AL]’s general explanation provided a basis for not giving Dr. Sison’s opinion conttolling weight, “it does not follow that the ALJ had free reign to attach whatever weight to that opinion that [she] deemed fit,” and there is no indication that the ALJ actually undertook the required analysis of each of the relevant factors. See Dowling, 986 F.3d at 385.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a physician as a treating source when the claimant has an ongoing treatment relationship established by a frequency of visits consistent with accepted medical practice, and § 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to consider listed factors and provide good reasons when assigning less than controlling weight to a treating-source opinion.

Ramirez v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15(a)(2), (c)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2) and 416.927(a)(2), a “[t]reating source means [the claimant’s] own acceptable medical source who provides you, or has provided you, with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [the claimant].” An ongoing treatment relationship generally is one where “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).” Id. at §§ 404.1527(a)(2) & 416.927(a)(2). ... When a treating source’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ applies the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)–(ii) and (c)(3)–(c)(6) of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 in determining what weight to give the opinions and provides “good reasons” for the weight given. Id. at §§ 404.1527(c)(2) & 416.927(c)(2). ... Accordingly, because the ALJ’s RFC assessment and rejection of Dr. Molokwu’s opinions on Plaintiff’s reaching and manipulative limitations are neither specifically mentioned in the rejection of the entirety of Dr. Molokwu’s opinion nor accompanied by sufficiently specific reasons that would allow this Court to conduct a meaningful review, the Court finds that the ALJ erred by rejecting Dr. Molokwu’s opinions on Plaintiff’s reaching and manipulative limitations without providing good reasons as required by 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2) and 416.927(c)(2). See also SSR 96-2p, at *5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the regulatory factors when weighing a medical opinion but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Hampton v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c)

Lastly, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff fails to explain how proper consideration of the regulatory factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) would have changed the ALJ’s consideration. ... She fails to cite any authority, controlling or otherwise, to challenge Magistrate Judge Patti’s assertion that there is no per se rule requiring an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis. ... The Court finds that Plaintiff’s assertion, without more, is insufficient for this Court to find that Magistrate Judge Patti committed an error in finding the ALJ provided good reasons for affording Dr. Jaleel’s opinion “little to no weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to meaningfully consider each of six factors before deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Robles v. Saul · filed 2021-03-26(c)(2)

Therefore, the ALJ’s failure to consider each of the § 404.1527(c)(2) factors constitutes error. “While an ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician, it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that [the ALJ] meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.” Dowling, 986 F.3d at 385 (citing Arakas, 983 F.3d at 107 n.16).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the ALJ to weigh it using specified factors, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if it provides good cause for rejecting the opinion.

Bennett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion, (4) consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue, and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). “However, the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors. Rather, the ALJ must provide ‘good cause’ for rejecting a treating physician’s medical opinions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not always require an administrative law judge to set forth a factor-by-factor analysis when declining to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion where competing opinions of examining physicians exist.

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

Therefore, where there are competing opinions of examining physicians, the ALJ need not necessarily set forth her analysis of the Section 404.1527(c) factors when declining to give controlling weight to a treating physician. See id. at 466–67.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to meaningfully consider each listed factor when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, even though a detailed factor-by-factor discussion is not required.

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

The Fourth Circuit has recently reaffirmed that [t]he ALJ’s failure to consider each of the Section 404.1527(c) factors [is] error. While an ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician, it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion. ... Here, too, the ALJ merely stated that he had “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527,” but he never identified the factors themselves or demonstrated that they had been applied.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) lists the factors an ALJ uses to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion, but a detailed factor-by-factor analysis is not required when the opinion is given less or little weight without being entirely rejected.

Leal v. Saul · filed 2021-05-14(c)

Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2000) (An ALJ must perform a detailed analysis of the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 before giving less than controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion); ... However, only when rejecting a treating physician’s opinion must the ALJ perform a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s view under the criteria set forth above. ... (An ALJ is not required to perform the six-step analysis discussed in Newton when the treating physician’s opinion is not entirely rejected but is rather given less or little weight); ... Having reviewed the record, the undersigned finds Plaintiff’s first argument is without merit as substantial evidence supports the weight the ALJ gave to Dr. McLeod’s opinion, a more detailed analysis was not required under Newton and the ALJ had no duty to obtain additional evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to meaningfully consider all six listed factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Triplett v. Saul · filed 2021-06-23(c)

“While an ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician, it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that [she] meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion but does not require an explicit factor-by-factor discussion if the ALJ explains the evaluation sufficiently for meaningful review.

MULLEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-07-16(c)

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). ... As a preliminary matter, “[a]n ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor in his [or her] decision.” ... “Instead, an ALJ need only ‘explain his [or her] evaluation of the medical evidence for the district court to meaningfully review whether his [or her] reasoning accords with the regulation’s standards.’” ... Although the ALJ did not explicitly go through a factor-by-factor analysis, she specifically considered Dr. Porwal’s numerous examinations of Plaintiff in 2016 and 2017, and factored in Dr. Porwal’s treating relationship with Plaintiff when she explained the weight that she assigned to the doctor’s opinions. ... In addition, as detailed above, the ALJ explained that she discounted Dr. Porwal’s opinion because it was inconsistent with his treatment of Plaintiff, which consisted of injections and which admittedly provided Plaintiff relief. ... In any event, even if the ALJ erred by not expressly considering Dr. Porwal’s area of specialization, any such error was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis, but an adjudicator must identify specific discrepancies and explain why a treating physician’s conclusion is discounted; substantial evidence alone does not excuse noncompliance, though the omission may be harmless.

Pruitt v. SSA · filed 2022-02-02(c)(2)

Although the regulations do not require an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” of all the factors enumerated at § 404.1527, ... “it is not enough to dismiss a treating physician’s opinion as ‘incompatible’ with other evidence of record; there must be some effort to identify the specific discrepancies and to explain why it is the treating physician’s conclusion that gets the short end of the stick.” ... “[E]ven if substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s weighing of each of the treating physician opinions, ‘substantial evidence alone does not excuse non-compliance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527([c])(2) as harmless error.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) does not require a detailed analysis of the treating physician factors when the ALJ relies on contrary medical opinions from other treating or examining physicians.

Lopez v. Astrue · filed 2012-03-08(d)

The court finds Newton inapposite to the facts of this case. In Newton, the Fifth Circuit held that the ALJ must perform the detailed analysis required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) only “absent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician” that controverts the treating physician’s opinions. ... Here, the ALJ did rely on the controverting medical opinions of other treating or examining physicians and considered those opinions over those of Bohnsack and Simonds.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) requires an ALJ to consider and weigh agency consultants’ opinions, but an express discussion of every such opinion is not necessary when the decision shows their substance was considered.

Rowe v. Saul · filed 2019-11-12(e)(2)(i), (ii)

Plaintiff alleges that the ALJ’s RFC does not comply with Mascio and the relevant social security regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2)(i), (ii); 416.927(e)(2)(i), (ii) (2018), because she failed to evaluate and weigh all agency opinions and address Rowe’s ability to “stay on task.” ... In addition, even though the ALJ did not expressly discuss all the opinions of the Agency consultants, the absence of such a discussion does not require a remand of her decision. ... Also, it is clear that the ALJ fully considered the substance of the Agency opinions that Rowe contends were ignored.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats therapists as sources whose opinions cannot receive controlling weight, but permits the ALJ to evaluate those opinions using the applicable medical-opinion factors and explain the weight given.

Adams v. Saul · filed 2021-05-12

At the time of Adams’ applications, therapists—unlike licensed psychologists—were not considered “acceptable medical sources” under the Commissioner’s rules and regulations, meaning their opinions could never be afforded controlling weight no matter how persuasive they are. ... Nevertheless, an ALJ may consider opinions from therapists using the same factors as for acceptable sources; those factors include the length, nature, and extent of the claimant’s relationship with the therapist; the frequency of examination; whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the therapist is a specialist. ... After considering the applicable factors, the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) permits the length of a treating relationship to be considered when weighing a treating medical opinion, but the relationship's limited duration alone is insufficient to reject the opinion.

(SS) Snell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(c)(2)(i)

The length of the treating relationship is an appropriate consideration in evaluating the weight a treating opinion should be accorded. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). But a limited treating relationship alone cannot support an ALJ’s rejection of a treating opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Montague v. Saul · filed 2020-06-10(c)(6)

An ALJ may give more weight to an opinion that is based on more record review and is supported by the longitudinal evidence. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) (specifying that the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight to give that opinion); Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1042 (recognizing that the ALJ is to consider the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole and assess the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion); Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1041 (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes the medical source’s familiarity with other information in the claimant’s case record relevant when weighing the source’s medical opinion.

Frazier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-11-14(c)(6)

The extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6). However, Dr. Jackson’s treatment notes indicate that she reviewed previous x-rays when assessing Plaintiff’s back pain allegations. Tr. 938. This finding is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ evaluating evidence from a non-acceptable medical source to consider the factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), but permits a sufficiently specific explanation without an explicit discussion of every factor.

Bishop v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-02-24(f)(1)

In determining the weight given to a non-acceptable medical opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... These include such factors as the examining relationship, treating relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization of the source, and other factors. ... The ALJ, however, is not required to “explicitly discuss” each factor ... so long as the ALJ’s opinion is “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.” ... Here, the ALJ noted the one-time treating and examining relationship by Hendrick, a physical therapist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) provides that an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source is not entitled to controlling weight, but the ALJ must explain the weight given or make the reasoning reviewable by a claimant or subsequent reviewer.

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

Instead, the ALJ was required to explain the weight given to the opinion or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow his reasoning. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the listed opinion-evaluation factors for an “other source” opinion; an adjudicator may not reject that opinion solely because its author is not an acceptable medical source.

Bowerman v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-16(c)

Although the ALJ noted at the outset of step four that he considered the opinion evidence pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, he made no reference to these factors in his analysis of Dr. West’s opinion and it is therefore unclear whether he considered any of them (Tr. 17, 24). ... Instead, the ALJ rejected Dr. West’s opinion solely because he was not an acceptable medical source, which is an insufficient basis for disregarding his opinion (Tr. 24).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source using the regulatory factors, including consistency, supportability, testing, and specialty; under § 404.1527(f)(1), such an opinion may outweigh an acceptable medical source’s opinion, including a treating source’s opinion.

Powell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-31(c), (f)(1)

And the regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s claim provided for consideration of such opinions in light of the factors articulated in Section 404.1527, and made clear that, “[d]epending on the particular facts in a case, and after applying the factors for weighing opinion evidence, an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source may outweigh the opinion of an acceptable medical source, including the medical opinion of a treating source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1); SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *5.5 Yet the ALJ failed to conduct such an assessment of PT Notter’s opinions, and further failed to acknowledge several of his opinions (that Plaintiff can sit, stand, and reach only rarely) which may have precluded all work. (AR 637).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 distinguishes acceptable medical sources from other sources and requires an other-source opinion to be evaluated for its evidentiary value, including its consistency, supporting evidence, explanation, expertise, and other corroborating or refuting factors.

Olson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-12

According to SSR 06-3p, the social security regulations distinguish between "medical sources" and "other sources." 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. Information from “other sources” cannot establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment. Instead, there must be evidence from an “acceptable medical source” for this purpose. However, information from such “other sources” may be based on special knowledge of the individual and may provide insight into the severity of the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual's ability to function, therefore “other sources” must be evaluated. The following factors are ones to be considered in weighing opinions from those who are not defined in the regulations as “acceptable medical sources”: how long the source has known and how frequently the source has seen the individual; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; the degree to which the source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion; how well the opinion is explained; whether the source has a specialty or area of expertise related to the individual’s impairment; and any other factors that tend to support or refute the opinion. SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939 at *4- 5. The Ruling instructs that not every factor for weighing an opinion will apply in every case. Rather, the evaluation of an opinion will depend on the particular facts of the case and the case must be adjudicated on its merits based on a consideration of the probative value of the opinions and weighing of all the evidence in the case. Id. at *5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ evaluating an opinion from an other medical source to consider factors including treatment frequency, consistency with other evidence, supporting evidence, thoroughness of explanation, and the source's area of expertise.

Decker v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-13(c) and (f)

The regulations direct an ALJ to use various factors in evaluating the opinions of these “other medical sources,” including frequency of treatment, consistency with other evidence, degree of supporting evidence, thoroughness of explanation, and whether the source has an area of expertise. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and (f), 416.927(c) and (f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) provides the factors an ALJ should use to evaluate an other-source opinion, including treatment history, consistency, supportability, and relevant specialty or expertise.

Flory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-06(c)

To evaluate such other source opinions, an ALJ should apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), i.e., length of treatment history; consistency of the opinion with other evidence; supportability; and specialty or expertise in the medical field related to the individual’s impairment(s). ... The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis of nurse Budding’s opinion in this regard does not reflect consideration of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and is thus unsupported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) treats a physician’s assistant as not an acceptable medical source whose opinion cannot receive controlling weight, but requires the ALJ to consider it as an “other source.”

Hill v. Saul · filed 2020-05-20(f)

Under the applicable regulations,14 a physician’s assistant is not an acceptable medical source, whose opinion may be given “controlling weight,” but the ALJ should evaluate it among the “other sources” whose opinions may be considered in her analysis. ... Thus, even though PA Brunt was not an “acceptable medical source,” the ALJ’s reasons for giving his opinion “little weight” are not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator to consider the examining relationship, treatment length and frequency, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when evaluating a medical opinion.

Youngwirth v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-27(c)(1)-(c)(6), (f)(1)

VanDerBeek’s status an “other medical source” does not by itself warrant rejecting his opinion. The ALJ must still weigh other factors, such as the examining relationship, length and frequency of treatment and examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) identifies factors for evaluating an opinion from an "other source," including the source’s relationship, consistency, supporting evidence, explanation, expertise, and other relevant factors.

Marston v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-01(d)

The factors for evaluating opinion evidence from “other sources” include: (i) the length of the relationship and frequency of contact, (ii) whether the opinion is consistent with other evidence, (iii) the extent the source provides relevant supporting evidence, (iv) how well the source’s opinion is explained, (v) whether claimant’s impairment is related to a source’s specialty or area of expertise, and (vi) any other supporting or refuting factors. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 06-03p at *4-5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). The ALJ’s treatment of Ms. Whitehead’s opinion met these standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to consider and explain the weight given to opinions from “other sources” that may affect the case’s outcome.

Layton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-08(f)(2)

But the ALJ still must consider and explain the weight assigned to the opinions of “other sources” that “may have an effect on the outcome of the case,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2), in a way that “allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning,” SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *6 (Aug. 9, 2006).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by it, § 404.1527 requires medical opinions from other sources to be evaluated using factors including the source’s treatment relationship, frequency of contact, consistency, explanation, specialization, and other supporting or refuting considerations.

Witt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(c)

The same factors that apply to the evaluation of medical opinions of “acceptable medical sources” are also applicable to opinion evidence provided by “other sources.” Id. at *4 (citing 20 C.F.R. 404 1527(d)). Factors to be considered in evaluating opinions from “other sources” who have seen the claimant in their professional capacities include how long the source has known the individual; how frequently the source has seen the individual; how consistent the opinion of the source is with other evidence; how well the source explains the opinion; whether the source has a specialty or area of expertise related to the individual’s impairment; and any other factors that tend to support or refute the opinion. Id. at *4-5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) does not permit an ALJ to reject a social worker's opinion solely because the social worker is not an acceptable medical source, and the opinion must be considered under the applicable evaluation factors.

Santiago v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(f)(1)

However, an ALJ may not discount a social worker’s opinion solely because it does not come from an acceptable medical source. ... “Opinions from other sources should be evaluated based on the same factors for the evaluation of the opinions of acceptable medical sources.” ... Moreover, the Commissioner’s “regulations place particular importance on a claimant’s treating relationship with a provider, and specifically recognize that a social worker’s opinion may even outweigh an acceptable medical source’s opinion based on an ongoing treatment relationship.” ... (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires opinion evidence, including opinions from other sources, to be evaluated using factors such as the relationship, consistency, supporting evidence, explanation, specialty, and other supporting or refuting factors.

Muise v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The factors for evaluating opinion evidence from “other sources” include: (i) the length of the relationship and frequency of contact; (ii) whether the opinion is consistent with other evidence; (iii) the extent the source provides relevant supporting evidence; (iv) how well the source's opinion is explained; (v) whether claimant's impairment is related to a source's specialty or area of expertise; and (vi) any other supporting or refuting factors. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *4-5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here, the ALJ mentioned Mr. Broniste’s MSS, but wholly failed to apply these factors when evaluating it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an adjudicator evaluating an other medical source’s opinion to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship and frequency, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradicting factors.

(SS) Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-13(c) and (f)(1)

Factors used to evaluate the opinions of “other” medical sources include: (1) examining relationship; (2) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (3) supportability of opinion; (4) consistency with the record; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors supporting or contradicting the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c) and (f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ evaluating an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source to use the same factors used for acceptable medical sources, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradictory factors.

(SS) Zialcita v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-07(f)

The factors to be considered in evaluating the opinion are the same factors used to evaluate acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). These factors are the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, length and frequency of treatment, the supportability of the opinion, consistency with the medical record, specialization of the source, and other factors that either support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits the factors used to evaluate medical opinions from acceptable medical sources to be applied to opinions from other sources.

GONZALEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-04

The factors used under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 to evaluate medical opinions from “acceptable medical sources” may also be applied to opinion evidence from “other sources.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats physician assistants as other medical sources whose opinions are evaluated using factors including consistency and supportability rather than receiving special weight.

(SS) Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-11(c), (f)(1)

The ALJ’s reasoning for discounting PA-C Harbour’s opinion was substantially more detailed than Plaintiff suggests. ... Plaintiff’s discussion is non-responsive to the ALJ’s articulated reasoning. The ALJ’s reasoning for discounting PA-C Harbour’s opinion was germane and was well grounded in the relevant regulatory factors. See Molina, 674 F.3d at 1112 (finding that inconsistency with other evidence of record is a germane reason to reject the opinion of a physician’s assistant); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and (f)(1) (identifying consistency and supportability as factors used to evaluate “other” medical sources, including physician’s assistants).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from other medical professionals, such as chiropractors, when they address issues also addressed in opinions from acceptable medical sources.

(SS)Caudel v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(f)(1)

Finally, an ALJ must consider opinions of other medical professionals—such as chiropractors—who may offer “judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) (2015); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (describing circumstances when opinions from “other sources” may be considered acceptable medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to review and weigh a licensed mental health counselor’s opinion using the process for opinions from non-acceptable medical sources and other sources.

Franasiak v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(f)

As a licensed mental health counselor, Ms. Sweat is not an acceptable medical source and, thus, cannot give a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a), 416.902(a) (defining acceptable medical sources). Ms. Sweat’s opinion is entitled to the same review and weighing process given opinion evidence from non-acceptable medical sources and other sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) makes a claimant’s failure to pursue treatment not directly relevant to the weight assigned to a medical provider’s opinion unless the ALJ explains how it undermines that opinion.

Barner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-26(c)

As to the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff failed to pursue treatment, the fact that a claimant fails to pursue treatment is not directly relevant to the weight of a medical provider's opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Without further explanation of how this specifically undermined Dr. Bartlett’s opinion, this is not a specific and legitimate reason to discredit it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity for the Commissioner rather than medical sources.

Volpe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-10(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence and provides that the ALJ bears final responsibility for determining RFC.

Jefferson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-02(b), (d)(2)

The ALJ properly considered and provided reasons for not fully accepting the medical opinions of record. ... “The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).” ... Because the ALJ bears the final responsibility for determining RFC, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1546(c), and because the ALJ here rationally interpreted the medical opinion and other evidence of record in assessing plaintiff’s RFC, the decision has the support of substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC to the ALJ, even though the ALJ considers medical opinions.

McCall v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-02(d)(2)

Moreover, contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ did not need a specific “RFC” opinion to assess Plaintiff’s functional limitations. See Chapo v. Astrue, 682 F.3d 1285, 1288 (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “there is no requirement in the regulations for a direct correspondence between an RFC finding and a specific medical opinion on the functional capacity in question”); Howard v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 945, 949 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The ALJ, not a physician, is charged with determining a claimant’s RFC.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (explaining that, while an ALJ considers medical opinions in assessing RFC, the final responsibility for determining an RFC is reserved to the ALJ).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner rather than a medical professional.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-23(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves the determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Welsh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-17(d)

As a preliminary matter, the determination of a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) recognizes that, at the administrative hearing stage, the ALJ is responsible for determining the claimant’s residual functional capacity.

WATSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-01-19(e)

At the administrative hearing stage, an ALJ is charged with determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c); see also Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.”) (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner, although the adjudicator must consider the medical evidence.

Shanks v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-08(d)(2)

RFC determination is an administrative assessment, and the final responsibility for determining RFC rests with the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1545. It is based upon all the evidence in the record, not just the relevant medical evidence. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC to the Commissioner, although the ALJ considers medical opinions in assessing it.

Delong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-21(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the ALJ, so an RFC determination is administrative rather than a medical opinion.

Frost v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-03(d)(2)

An RFC finding “is administrative in nature, not medical, and its determination is within the province of the ALJ, as the Commissioner’s regulations make clear.” Curry v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., No. 20-1472, -- F. App’x ---, 2021 WL 1942331, *2n.3 (2d Cir. May 14, 2021); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Therefore, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ did not err in formulating an RFC absent a medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative determination reserved to the ALJ rather than a medical opinion.

Nachar v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(d)(2)

An RFC finding is administrative in nature, not medical, and its determination is within the province of the ALJ. Id. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not make the RFC mirror any particular medical opinion.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-01(d)(2)

As stated previously, the ALJ has the responsibility to determine a claimant’s RFC, based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1545(a), 404.1546(c). To require an RFC to mirror a medical opinion would conflict with an ALJ’s duties.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) assigns responsibility for determining residual functional capacity to the ALJ rather than physicians.

Garcia v. Saul · filed 2021-07-14(d)(2)

The determination of RFC rests with the ALJ, not the physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner, rather than a medical opinion.

Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(d)

The regulations explicitly state that the issue of RFC is “reserved to the Commissioner” because it is an “administrative finding[] that [is] dispositive of the case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats a claimant’s RFC as an administrative finding rather than a medical opinion, requires consideration of medical-source opinions on RFC, and reserves final responsibility for deciding RFC to the Commissioner.

Foster v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-10(d)(2)

An opinion on a claimant’s RFC is “not [a] medical opinion[].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Rather, it is an administrative finding based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence.” Id. §§ 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1527(d)(2), 404.1546(c). An ALJ “consider[s] opinions from medical sources” on the issue of a claimant’s RFC, but “the final responsibility for deciding [this issue] is reserved to the Commissioner.” Id. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Vertigan v. Halter, 260 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves assessment of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner rather than a medical professional.

Fiutko v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-23(d)(2)

At the hearing level, the ALJ has the responsibility of assessing the claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1546(c); SSR 96-5p, 61 Fed. Reg. 34,471-01 (July 2, 1996); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating the assessment of a claimant’s RFC is reserved for the Commissioner). Determining a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved to the Commissioner, not a medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical-source opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors, including for opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources.

Robie v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-01-16(c), (f)

The fact that Shaw is a chiropractor and therefore not an acceptable medical source is not a sufficient reason to discount his opinion because the ALJ was still required to evaluate the opinion according to the requirements set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources are considered using the same factors that are applied to opinions from acceptable medical sources).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) directs an ALJ to consider other-medical-source opinions, generally give them less deference, explain their weight, and provide enough reasoning for review, especially when assigning them greater weight than a treating source's medical opinion.

Burleson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-27(f)

The revised regulations incorporate the policy in SSR 06-03p of separating acceptable medical sources (licensed physicians and certain other qualified specialists) from “other” medical sources, and generally giving less deference to other medical sources. ... It also incorporates the policies of requiring the ALJ to consider “other” medical source opinions, explain the weight given to such opinions, provide sufficient analysis to allow a subsequent ... review to follow the ALJ’s reasoning, and to provide sufficient detail and explanation if the ALJ gives greater weight to an opinion from an “other” medical source than a medical opinion from a treating source. ... Because Ms. Dyche is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker (“LCSW”) and Ms. Lieberman is a Certified Nurse Midwife (“CNM”), each is considered an “other” medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats APRN opinions as opinions from an “other medical source,” rather than an acceptable medical source, and their evaluation considers treatment frequency, consistency, explanation, supporting evidence, and relevant expertise.

Stokes v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-26

Although 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 does not specifically list APRNs as “other medical sources,” district courts within the Eighth Circuit have ruled that they should be considered as such. ... Factors to consider when evaluating “other sources” are: how often the provider has seen the patient, how consistent the opinion is with other evidence, how well the source explains the opinion, the existence of relevant supporting evidence, and whether the provider has an area of expertise related to the patient’s impairment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits evidence from other medical sources to inform the severity of an impairment and its effects on a person's functioning, although those sources cannot establish a medically determinable impairment.

Nunez v. Saul · filed 2022-07-21(f)

Because Dr. Fassler and Dr. Georgiou independently established mental health issues, Niveyro’s opinions and medical records can, and should, be used to evaluate the severity of the issue. See SSR 06-03P (S.S.A. Aug. 9, 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (other medical sources “cannot establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment,” but may provide “special knowledge of the individual” and “insight into the severity of the impairment(s) and how it affects the individual’s ability to function.”); see also Muntz v. Astrue, 540 F. Supp. 2d 411, 421 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) (pointing to physician assistant testimony as substantial evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from medical providers who are not acceptable medical sources and permits rejection of those opinions only for germane reasons.

McMurtrey v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-18(f)

“In addition to considering the medical opinions of doctors, an ALJ must consider the opinions of medical providers who are not within the definition of ‘acceptable medical sources.’” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). While not entitled to the same deference as “acceptable” medical sources, statements from “other” medical sources relevant to a claimant’s symptoms or how an impairment affects her ability to work is competent evidence that cannot be disregarded without comment. ... The ALJ may reject the opinion of an “other source” by giving “reasons germane to each witness for doing so.” ... For the reasons addressed in Section I, the ALJ’s reasoning is not supported by the record, which documents ongoing, severe, and persistent PTSD that continues to impact Plaintiff’s ability to sustain in a full-time, competitive work setting. The ALJ therefore erred in rejecting VanBeuzekom’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to evaluate opinions from medical providers who are not acceptable medical sources under the same factors used for acceptable medical sources, and such an opinion may receive greater weight when better supported or more consistent with the record.

Schwarzbach v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-03(f)

The regulations make it clear that other medical sources are to be considered under the same factors as those of acceptable medical sources and are sometimes given more weight than an acceptable medical source if they have seen the individual more often than a treating source, have provided better evidence and a better explanation for their opinion, and if the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); see also SSR 06-03p. Because PA Orchard is a physician’s assistant, he is considered an other medical source and must be evaluated as such. ... The ALJ is incorrect. PA Orchard’s opinion can be used to show the severity of the Plaintiff’s impairments and how they affect the individual’s ability to function, which is what it is being offered for here. Despite the ALJ’s assertion, PA Orchard is entitled to offer a medical opinion regarding the claimant’s functioning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) allows an ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source using the same factors used for acceptable medical-source opinions.

Mosley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-10-21(f)

Under the regulations governing this case, Ms. Dee, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, is not an acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ may evaluate opinions of other medical sources using the same factors used to evaluate medical opinions of acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). But the ALJ need only give specific, germane reasons for rejecting opinions from other sources that are not acceptable medical sources. Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 919 (9th Cir. 1993). Inconsistency with the medical evidence is a germane reason to reject other witness testimony. See Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as judgments from acceptable medical sources about an impairment and directs that opinions supported by relevant evidence and better explanations receive more weight.

Brumbaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-04(a)(1), (c)(3)

Regardless, a nurse practitioner’s medical opinion should still be evaluated and discussed. However, Ms. Sleesman’s letter is not a medical opinion. “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(a)(1). “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Ms. Sleesman’s letter failed to include any functional limitations and failed to back up her speculation with any medical evidence in the record. The ALJ did not err in giving Ms. Sleesman’s letter little weight, finding it vague, speculative, conclusory, and failing to cite to medical evidence or to specify functional limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion.

CARUNCHIO v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-03-23(d)(2)

Furthermore, RFC is not a medical opinion; it is solely an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e) places ultimate responsibility for determining a claimant’s disability and residual functional capacity with the administrative law judge, rather than treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants.

MERCADO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-27(e)

At the administrative hearing stage, the administrative law judge is charged with determining the claimant’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 404.1546(c); see also Chandler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 667 F.3d 356, 361 (3d Cir. 2011) ("The ALJ—not treating or examining physicians or State agency consultants—must make the ultimate disability and RFC determinations.") (citations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(3) places responsibility for assessing and assigning a claimant's residual functional capacity solely with the administrative law judge, rather than with any particular medical source.

MCNABB, JR. v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-08-09(d)(2)-(3)

The responsibility for ... assessing and assigning a claimant’s RFC rests solely with the ALJ, not with any particular medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability by relevant evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and specialization.

Gilbert v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-09(d)(2)-(d)(6), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

In evaluating the opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). These factors include: “(1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion, with respect to relevant evidence such as medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician rendering the opinion; and (6) any other factor raised by the applicant.” Meece v. Barnhart, 192 Fed. Appx. 456, 461 (6th Cir.2006) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(d)(6)). Upon careful review and as explained below, the undersigned finds, that the ALJ’s evaluation of the opinion evidence comports with Agency regulations and controlling law. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount medical-opinion evidence when it is inconsistent with the record and to consider supportability and consistency when assigning weight.

SOPKO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-03-09

ALJ also explained that he discounted Broyles’s opinion because it was not supported by the record as a whole. (R. 21) Inconsistency with other evidence is a valid reason for discounting opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527; 416.927; see also, Rita L.S. v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 16-01981, 2018 WL 4361039, at * 7 (D. Or. Sept. 13, 2018) (stating that “[s]pecific, legitimate reasons for rejecting a physician’s opinion may include its reliance on a claimant’s discredited subjective complaints, inconsistency with medical records, inconsistency with a claimant’s testimony, inconsistency with a claimant’s daily activities, or internal inconsistency.”) Further, his conclusion in this regard is supported by substantial evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Moye v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). The ALJ here failed to address any of Dr. Morgan’s reports except the most recent, November 2017 report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator evaluating medical opinions to consider significant, probative evidence of a claimant’s mental functioning and not ignore it.

(SS) Western v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-11(a)(2)

Probative evidence of an individual’s mental functioning may not be ignored. See, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2); see also, e.g., St. Clair v. Colvin, 2014 WL 5421261 at *6, 208 Soc. Sec. Rep. Service 593 (W. Wash. Oct. 23, 2014) (finding the ALJ erred by failing to address “independent observations,” “such as that plaintiff appeared unkempt, expressionless, and hostile” because they were “significant, probative observations that the ALJ should have discussed”). Thus, the ALJ erred in reviewing the findings from Dr. Murphy’s consultative examination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion by considering the regulation's listed factors.

Conrow v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-06(c)

The relevant regulations are not ambiguous in requiring that the ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion we receive,” by considering a list of factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to compare a medical opinion with the record as a whole when weighing it.

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

It is, in fact, the role of the ALJ to compare specific medical opinions against the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with all other relevant record evidence, and § 404.1527(c) requires evaluation based on factors including the medical source's relationship with the claimant, support for the opinion, consistency with the record, specialization, and understanding of the Social Security system.

Minahan v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-11(b), (c)

An ALJ is required to consider medical opinions along with all other relevant evidence in a claimant’s record. § 404.1527(b). An ALJ evaluates medical opinions based on the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the extent to which the source provides evidence to support the opinion, the extent the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record, the specialization of the medical source, and other ... factors including the understanding the source has of the social security system. § 404.1527(c); see also Prybylski v. Saul, 2019 WL 7568228, at *8 (D.N.H. Dec. 12, 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion based on the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship.

Hearring v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)

A doctor’s opinion may be discounted based on the length and frequency of the treatment relationship and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)'s factors, although formally applicable only to opinions from acceptable medical sources, are basic principles for considering opinions from all medical sources who have seen the claimant professionally.

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

“The factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, which under the regulation apply only to medical opinions from acceptable medical sources, nevertheless ‘represent basic principles that apply to the consideration of all opinions from medical sources ... who have seen the individual in their professional capacity.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a non-controlling medical opinion using the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Leonard P. v. Saul · filed 2020-03-12(c)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on the (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in the medical conditions at issue; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

While Dr. Basnayake was not a treating physician, she set forth a medical opinion that should have been analyzed using the same factors considered when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Among the factors an ALJ must consider when evaluating medical opinion evidence are: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and state the weight assigned to each opinion and the reasons for that weight.

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

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). While “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion,” Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987)); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005); Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440.