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 directs an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization, giving more weight to better-supported and more-consistent opinions.

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

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider examination, treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Carlisle v. Saul · filed 2020-03-19(c)

“In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.” ... The ALJ, therefore, adequately explained that Dr. Timberlake’s opinions were not supported by his own treatment notes and were not bolstered by the other evidence of record. ... The ALJ adequately articulated “good cause” to reject Dr. Timberlake’s opinions, and substantial evidence supports that good cause.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, giving more weight to opinions with greater supporting evidence and consistency.

Wirth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-19(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) supports giving less weight to a medical opinion when the source lacks relevant mental-health treatment expertise.

Shular v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-20(c)(5)

Insofar as the ALJ’s finding as to Shular’s mental residual functional capacity contradicts Brooks’s opinions, the ALJ was justified in giving less weight to Brooks’s opinions than to Cordial’s because Brooks is not a mental health treatment provider. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and requires an ALJ to evaluate every such opinion using factors including the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(a)(2), (c), (d)

The Social Security regulations define medical opinions as statements from physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what a claimant can still do despite impairments, and physical or mental restrictions. ... When evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ considers various factors including: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. ... An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as judgments from acceptable medical sources about the nature and severity of impairments and directs adjudicators to evaluate them using factors such as examination, treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization, while considering every opinion.

Contreras v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-20(a)(2), (c)(2), and (d)

The Social Security regulations define medical opinions as statements from physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what a claimant can still do despite impairments, and physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). When evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ considers various factors, including: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. ... An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. ... Further, as a non-treating physician, the ALJ was not required to give more weight to Dr. Buckiewicz’s findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider an examining physician’s opinion even if the physician reviewed no medical records.

Simental v. Saul · filed 2020-03-23(c)

The regulations clearly state that an ALJ must consider the opinions of examining physicians. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Thus, the ALJ must consider Dr. Taylor’s opinion even if he had not reviewed any medical records at all.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, explanation, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialty.

Daniels v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-23(d)(2)

“Tf a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling weight’ because it is not ‘well- supported’ or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the [Social Security] Administration considers specified factors in determining the weight it will be given.” ... “Those factors include the ‘[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’ by the treating physician; and the ‘nature and extent of the treatment relationship’ between the patient and the treating physician.” /d. (quoting 20 C.F_R. § 404.1527(d)(2)()(11)) (alteration in original). “Additional factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided|,] the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole[, and] the specialty of the physician providing the opinion . . . .” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)–(6)); ... On this record, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving partial weight to Dr. Chin’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh it using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

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

An ALJ must state with particularity the weight she gives a medical opinion and the reasons for that weight. ... Factors to decide the weight include the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion and requires an ALJ to weigh it using specified factors, applying the same standards to treating, consultative, and non-examining reviewers.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(a)(1), (c)(1)–(6)

In assessing the weight to give a medical opinion, an ALJ considers the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and any other factor that supports or contradicts the opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). An ALJ applies the same standards whether the medical opinion is from a treating physician, a consultative examiner, or a non-examining, reviewing physician. Id. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified regulatory factors, including a medical source’s expertise, supportability, consistency, and knowledge of the disability program, when weighing medical opinions, including opinions from other medical sources.

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

Unless the ALJ gives controlling weight to a treating source opinion under section 404.1527(c)(2), he or she must consider all of the regulatory factors in weighing the various opinions including opinions from “other” medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); SSR 06-3p. The adjudicator must consider, inter alia, the provider’s area of expertise, supportability and consistency, and the medical source’s understanding of the disability program and the extent to which the medical source is familiar with other information in the record. Id. at 404.1527(c). The degree of explanation, the evidence presented in support of the opinion, and its overall consistency with the record are also considered. Id. at 404.1527(d); see also Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) makes the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole a relevant factor in evaluating that opinion.

Mandeville v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(c)(4)

While the fact that a claimant fails to pursue treatment is not directly relevant to the weight of a medical provider’s opinion, the consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole is a relevant factor in evaluating a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1042 (9th Cir. 2007); Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions that are better supported, more consistent with the record, and from specialists in relevant areas.

Parker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(5)

With respect to the ALJ’s first two reasons for discounting Dr. Stringfellow’s opinions, an inconsistency with the objective evidence can serve as a specific, legitimate reason for discounting a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”). Here, the ALJ reasoned that Dr. Stringfellow’s opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment notes, which indicated that Plaintiff’s pain was manageable and her physical and mental impairments were well-controlled with prescribed medication and medical marijuana. AR 107, 675-77, 1038-1122, 1200-01, 1288, 1389. ... The ALJ further reasoned that Dr. Stringfellow’s March 2015 statement that Plaintiff’s depression and anxiety had improved with Effexor was inconsistent with his November 2015 conclusion that Plaintiff had a range of marked mental limitations, especially since there was no evidence of a worsening in Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms that would account for these limitations. AR 107, 1114-16, 1312-13, 1439-41, 1452. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”) The ALJ has accurately characterized the medical record, and in citing the inconsistencies between Dr. Stringfellow’s opinion concerning Plaintiff’s physical and mental limitations and his own treatment notes, as well as the lack of support for Dr. Stringfellow’s November 2015 opinion, the ALJ has provided specific and legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Stringfellow’s opinion. ... A physician does not have to be a specialist in mental health to provide a medical opinion regarding mental health limitations, although the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty will generally be given more weight. See Sprague v. Bowen, 812 F.2d 1226, 1232 (9th Cir. 1987); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (The Social Security Administration generally gives more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.) Here, the ALJ’s decision included a detailed discussion of the medical record and concluded that Plaintiff’s mental health symptoms were generally stable and improved with prescribed treatment. AR 104-05. The RFC addressed Plaintiff’s mental health impairments by restricting her to no more than occasional interaction with the general public; no more than frequent interaction with co-workers or supervisors; and to work that does not require more than occasional changes in the work setting. AR 101, 106. Dr. McCollom, who examined Plaintiff in April 2015, opined that Plaintiff’s adaptive capabilities were compromised, that her physical pain would likely impact her productivity, and stated that she was not capable of independently managing her finances. AR 1009. However, Dr. McCollom also stated that Plaintiff was able to sustain attention and concentration and interact in a socially appropriate manner. Id. The ALJ reasoned that Dr. McCollom was a mental health specialist who conducted psychological testing and whose opinion was more consistent with the medical record. AR 106-07. The ALJ did not commit error by citing Dr. McCollom’s specialization and the inconsistency of Dr. Stringfellow’s opinion with the record, thereby assigning less weight to Dr. Stringfellow’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

The Regulations establish a hierarchy among medical opinions8 that provides a framework for determining the weight afforded each medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. ... The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability”; (4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and (5) “[s]pecialization.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(5), 416.927(c)(2)-(5); ... 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”). ... “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion received, and an ALJ may satisfy that duty by discussing the medical source’s treatment records without separately discussing the source’s opinion.

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

The regulations are similarly clear that the Commissioner “will evaluate every medical opinion [he] receive[s].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Although the ALJ would have been well-served to explicitly refer to Dr. Dunaway’s medical opinion as a treating source, the issue here is similar to the issue in Jones, namely that an ALJ’s discussion of a medical source’s records is sufficient for a reviewing court to uphold the Commissioner’s decision, even if the ALJ does not discuss the source’s “opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(i) requires ALJs to consider the findings and other opinions of state-agency medical and psychological consultants, who are experts in Social Security disability evaluation.

Fleming v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(e)(2)(i)

“State agency medical and psychological consultants … are highly qualified physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation. Therefore, ALJs must consider findings and other opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants[.]”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) allows an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the source’s examination and treatment relationship, the opinion’s support and consistency, the source’s specialization, and other factors.

Reese v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-24(c)(1)–(6)

In evaluating any medical opinion, the ALJ may consider: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; (3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the source’s specialization; and (6) “other factors.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions, including state-agency consultants’ findings as opinion evidence, but does not require deference to non-treating consultants.

Allerton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-03-24(e)(2)(i)

In considering non-treating state agency physician opinions, an ALJ is “not bound by any findings made by State agency medical or psychological consultants, or other program physicians or psychologists,” but the ALJ must “consider findings of State agency medical and psychological consultants or other program physician, psychologists, and other medical specialists as opinion evidence[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i). While an ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion of record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, Drs. Gulbenk and Sauer are not treating physicians, and thus the ALJ is not required to defer to their opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining ability, and physical or mental restrictions.

Wallace v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-25(a)(1)

However, such statement is a clinical observation rather than a medical opinion, and because Dr. Bryant did not indicate what, if any, functional limitations resulted from the claimant’s compromised thought processes, the ALJ was not required to specifically discuss this statement. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1) (defining medical opinions as “judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant's] impairment(s), including [her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cain v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-25(c)

When deciding whether to accept or reject a medical opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the source is an examining or treating physician, the length of the treating relationship and the frequency of treatment, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the specialization of the source of the opinion, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives greater weight to treating-source opinions because treating sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant’s impairment unavailable from a one-time consultative examination.

Bautista v. Saul · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)

It is well-established that the opinions of a doctor who conducts a one-time examination generally are entitled to less weight than are the opinions of treating sources, who “‘are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of . . . consultative examinations. . . .” Hunt v. Berryhill, No. 16-CV-00313-JCS, 2017 WL 1177981, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and requires the ALJ to weigh them by considering the examining relationship, support, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization.

Hurry v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-27(a)(1), (c)

“medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [their] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). “When weighing each medical opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the doctor has examined the claimant; the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; the medical evidence supporting the doctor’s opinion; how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and the doctor’s specialization.” ... Based on its review of the ALJ’s decision and the record, the Court finds that the ALJ properly applied the appropriate standard in evaluating the weight to be accorded these medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating medical opinions and to explain, with good cause supported by substantial evidence, why a treating physician's opinion is discounted.

Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-27(c)

If a doctor’s statement rises to the level of a “medical opinion,” an ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to that medical opinion and the reasons therefor. ... In rendering this determination, an ALJ must consider: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the doctor’s area of specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... If an ALJ finds that the treating physician’s medical opinion should be given less than substantial or considerable weight, the ALJ must clearly articulate reasons showing good cause for discounting the opinion, and those reasons must be supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the SSA to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of the opinion’s source.

Sanchez v. Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(c)

The Commissioner’s regulations provide that, “[r]egardless of [their] source,” the SSA “will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s]. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Here, the ALJ did not mention Dr. Meenakshi’s or Dr. Lucila’s findings at all, and the Court cannot conclude with any confidence that the error was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating medical opinions but does not require the ALJ to expressly discuss each factor.

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

However, while the ALJ must consider those factors, he is not required to expressly discuss each one. ... In this case, the ALJ expressly stated that he considered the opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical-source opinions and recognizes that the Commissioner retains final responsibility for RFC-related decisions, so an ALJ need not adopt a medical opinion verbatim.

Mathenia v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-03-31(b), (c)(1)-(2), (e)

The court agrees. An ALJ must consider opinions from medical sources, but is not required to adopt verbatim a medical opinion because the RFC determination is ultimately reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) (“[T]he final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”). ... In sum, the ALJ failed to properly consider Dr. Altman’s opinion, and the court cannot say this error was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

“An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record.” Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1215; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Badillo, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(a)(1)

Under the relevant regulations, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1) and 416.927(a)(1), “[m]edical 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.” ... Because the records of Dr. Heise and Dr. Cohen do not contain judgments about the nature and severity of Badillo’s impairment, they are not medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) distinguishes medical opinions about a claimant’s restrictions from administrative findings reserved to the Commissioner; a treating physician’s functional limitation opinion is not automatically an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

White v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-31(d)

The ALJ also implies that Dr. Shea’s medical opinion regarding Plaintiff’s sitting abilities need not be given controlling weight because it is not a “medical opinion” but is instead an opinion on an issue reserved for the Commissioner. ... This reasoning is not legitimate. 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). Dr. Shea’s medical opinion regarding the sitting limitation is not a final decision as to Plaintiff’s RFC but is instead a medical opinion as to a physical restriction caused by her knee impairment, and the ALJ erred by failing to give specific or legitimate reasons for rejecting such opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to give weight to a non-examining expert’s opinion when the expert considered all evidence available at the time, even if the ALJ’s decision follows later.

Meadows v. Saul · filed 2020-04-01(c)(3)

There is always some time lapse between a consultant’s report and the ALJ hearing and decision, and the Social Security regulations impose no limit on such a gap in time. At the time they issued their opinions, the non-examining experts had considered all the evidence before them, satisfying the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) recognizes state-agency medical and psychological consultants as experts whose opinions merit significant consideration.

BOOTHBY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-02-12(f)

Yet the regulations specifically recognize that opinions proffered by state agency consultants merit significant consideration because they are considered experts in the Social Security disability programs. Chandler, 667 F.3d at 361, citing, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). Consequently, Boothby’s argument is not convincing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when evaluating a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor.

James v. Saul · filed 2020-03-05(c)

If the ALJ does not assign controlling weight to the medical opinion, the ALJ must consider: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship; (3) the degree to which an opinion is supported by evidence; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) the physician’s specialization related to the medical issues; and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. ... The ALJ need only consider the factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), but he need not discuss each factor explicitly.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Turner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-05(c)

In addition, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship is an acceptable factor for the ALJ to consider when assessing the credibility of a medical opinion. Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017)(citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including supporting explanation, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialty, with generally greater weight for opinions within a specialist’s field.

Rathke v. Saul · filed 2020-03-30(c)(2)(ii), (c)(5)

In evaluating a testifying medical expert’s medical opinion, an ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the expert’s medical specialty; (2) the supporting evidence in the record; (3) the supporting explanations provided by the expert; and (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) (2012); see also id. § 404.1527(c). ... Also, Dr. Belzer’s failure to provide a supporting explanation for his change in position is another permissible reason for the ALJ to discount his opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) (2012). ... Generally, more weight is given to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues that relate to his area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (2012); see Wright v. Colvin, 789 F.3d 847, 855 (8th Cir. 2015) (stating “[t]he ALJ was within his purview not to give these observations [of depression] much weight because they were not from specialists in the mental health field.”). ... Because Dr. Belzer’s opinion included an area that he is not an expert in, the ALJ permissibly gave it less weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using factors including the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, supportability, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

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

Opinions from non-treating sources are never assessed for controlling weight but are evaluated using the regulatory balancing factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). These opinions are weighed “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). “Other factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the opinion’ may be considered in assessing any type of medical opinion.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion using specified factors, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bailon v. Saul · filed 2020-03-17(c)

Even if a physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, that opinion must still be evaluated using certain factors. ... After considering these factors, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to meaningfully evaluate all medical-source opinions using the listed factors, but consultative examiners are not entitled to particular deference and the ALJ need not provide an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Boykin-Sullivan v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-10(c)

All medical source opinions, including those of non-treating consultative examiners like Dr. Madden, must be meaningfully evaluated according to the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(c). However, opinions of consultative examiners are not entitled to any particular deference and an ALJ need not give “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” of their opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, when weighing a medical opinion.

Offord v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-04-13(c)(2)-(6)

There is no indication that the ALJ took into account any of the regulatory factors in assessing Dr. Grinder’s opinion: (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) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the physician's specialization in the medical condition at issue; and, (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, the opinion's support and explanation, its consistency with the record as a whole, and the source's specialized knowledge.

Talbott v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-13(f)(1)

Regardless of the source, when evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ may consider the length of the treatment relationship, the extent to which the opinion is supported and explained, the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, and whether the source has specialized knowledge. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(iv) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization when deciding how much weight to give a treating-source opinion, even if it is not given controlling weight, and to state the reasons for that weight.

Wagner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-13(c)(2)(i)-(iv)

The following factors must be considered by the ALJ when deciding how much weight the opinion should receive, even if the treating source is not given controlling weight: “(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.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(iv), 416.927(c)(2)(i)-(iv). The ALJ is required to set forth his reasons for the weight he assigns to the treating physician's opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner and permits an ALJ to discount a treating-source opinion when later assessments provide a more detailed longitudinal picture.

Louis v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-04-14

Whether or not Louis can perform occupational duties is a legal determination reserved for the Commissioner. ... The ALJ was therefore entitled to discount Frankel’s 2012 assessment where it was undermined by the more “detailed, longitudinal picture” provided by his later medical assessments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using relevant factors, including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradictory factors.

Stewart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-17(c)

An ALJ must weigh all medical opinion evidence using a “checklist of factors” found in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008). Those factors include: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship (including the length of treatment and frequency of examination and 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 physician’s specialization; and (6) other factors which either support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must discuss each medical opinion and the weight given to each opinion if the court is to provide meaningful review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to treating physicians’ opinions, whether the weight is great or small.

Reza v. Saul · filed 2020-04-14(c)(2)

The ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight accorded to opinions of treating physicians, whether that weight is great or small. Hamilton v. Astrue, 518 F.3d 607, 610 (8th Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, give a well-supported, consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight, and otherwise weigh opinions using the listed factors.

Skupien v. Saul · filed 2020-04-20(c)

The ALJ must evaluate “every medical opinion” in the record and assign a treating physician’s 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 record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... It was therefore error for the ALJ to not at least address them and assign them weight according to the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). See Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013); Bjornson v. Astrue, 671 F.3d 640, 647–48 (7th Cir. 2012).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the Commissioner to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, giving more weight to well-supported and record-consistent opinions.

Gamble v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-23(c)

Based on the regulations applicable to Gamble’s application, the ALJ properly considered the nature and frequency of Dr. Bartschat’s treatment relationship with Gamble as evidenced by the record and also considered Dr. Bartschat’s specialty. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Moreover, the decision reflects that the ALJ offered reasonable bases in giving this opinion little weight. A review of the ALJ’s decision as a whole reveals that the ALJ summarized and considered Gamble’s medical records and reasonably found that the medical records undermined some of the limitations opined. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a consultative examining psychologist’s opinion using the specified factors and to give good reasons for rejecting it.

Wilson v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2020-04-24(c)(2)-(6)

The opinion of a consultative examining psychologist must be assessed in light of the absence of a treating relationship between the examiner and the claimant, the support given for the opinion by the examiner, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the examiner’s relevant expertise. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). The ALJ must give "good reasons" for rejecting the opinion of any acceptable medical source, including that of a consultative examining psychologist. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Salazar v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-27(c)

The Commissioner’s regulations require that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we received.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) (2017), 416.927(c) (2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the regulatory factors, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if the substance of the regulation was applied and the rationale for the weight given is stated.

Davis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-27(c)

While Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ failed to apply the regulatory factors, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), in rejecting Dr. Lin’s opinion (No. 13-1 at 14), most of those factors diminish Dr. Lin’s opinion. ... “An ALJ does not have to explicitly walk through these factors,” so long as the Court can conclude that he or she “applied the substance” of the regulations and appropriately set forth the rationale for the weight given to the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, with examination replacing the treatment relationship as the relevant factor for non-treating sources.

Emond v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-04-29(c)(1)-(6)

The factors for considering opinions from non-treating medical sources are the same as those for assessing treating sources, with the consideration of whether the source examined the claimant replacing the consideration of the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to account for relevant factors and explain the connection between the evidence and the weight assigned.

Pavlicek, Andrew v. Berryhill, Nancy · filed 2020-05-01(c)

Finally, I reject Pavlicek’s argument that reversal is required because the ALJ did not specifically address each factor set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... This court’s inquiry is limited to whether the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and built an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and weigh them using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations; a consultative examiner's opinion is not entitled to particular deference.

Clevenger v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-01(c)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinions that she receives in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). When reviewing a medical opinion, the ALJ will consider the following factors in deciding the weight to afford it: (i) examining relationship; (ii) treatment relationship; (iii) supportability; (iv) consistency; (v) specialization; and (vi) other relevant factors bearing on the reliability of the opinion. (Id.) However, as a non-treating practitioner, a consultative examiner’s opinion is not entitled to any particular deference. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-physician opinions greater weight, but an ALJ may discount an unsupported opinion and need not accept a source’s conclusion that the claimant is disabled because that issue is reserved to the Commissioner.

Harrison v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-04(c)(2), (c)(3), and (d)(2)

Typically, an ALJ will give more weight to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s opinion “must be given substantial or considerable weight unless ‘good cause’ is shown to the contrary.” ... An ALJ is not required to accept as true an opinion from a medical source that a claimant is “disabled or unable to work” because the decision of these issues is reserved for the Commissioner. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The ALJ gave appropriate weight to Dr. Dixon’s opinions about the Plaintiff’s severe impairments. Despite Dr. Dixon’s treatment relationship with the Plaintiff, his findings are not generally supported by objective medical evidence in her record. See 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(3). ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s finding that good cause existed to discount Dr. Dixon’s is supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, there is no error here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to consider how well-supported a medical opinion is, giving more weight to an opinion with a better explanation.

Semmens v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-04(c)(3)

When evaluating how much weight to afford a medical opinion, regardless of the source, the ALJ should consider, among other factors, how well-supported the opinion is. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require an express discussion of each factor if the decision indicates they were properly considered.

Maliha K. v. Saul · filed 2020-05-04(c)(2)-(6)

Plaintiff further contends that the ALJ erred by failing to assess the opinion under the regulatory factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). (Joint Stip. at 12.) ... An ALJ “is not required to make an express statement that she considered all the factors outlined” in that regulation but rather, her decision need only contain some indication that the factors were properly considered. See Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562 n.4 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, the ALJ’s opinion contained adequate indications that the regulatory factors were considered in assessing the treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a) defines medical opinions as acceptable-source judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, while subsection (d)(1) reserves the statutory disability determination to the Social Security Administration and makes a doctor’s disability statement nonbinding.

Galgano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-06(a), (d)(1)

And to the third point, the ALJ was correct to afford “no significant weight [to Dr. Price’s opinion] that the claimant is disabled and unable to work as the ultimate question of disability is reserved to the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration.” According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a), “medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairments(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions” (emphasis added). However, § 414.1527(d)(1) makes clear that it is the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), not the treating physician, who may opine on whether a claimant “meet[s] the statutory definition of disability.” Indeed, a “statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the SSA] will determine that [a claimant] is disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Sections 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) favor medical opinions that are better explained and more consistent with the record when determining how much weight to give them.

Lish v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-27(c)(3), (c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, a finding that a physician’s opinion is too vague to be useful in making a disability determination can serve as a specific and legitimate reason for discounting that opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight the Social Security Administration will give that opinion); see also Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that statement that the plaintiff would have “decreased concentration skills” was too vague to be useful in the disability determination). ... As for the ALJ’s fourth reason, an inconsistency with subsequent evidence may serve as a specific, legitimate reason for discounting limitations assessed by a physician. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the Social Security Administration] will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs ALJs to weigh medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization, and § 404.1527(f) applies the same factors to opinions from other medical sources.

Bradford v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-28(c), (f)

In determining what weight to accord medical opinion evidence from an “acceptable medical source,” such as a medical doctor, an ALJ must consider various factors 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 uses these same factors when considering opinions from “other medical sources,” such as nurse practitioners or APRNs.4 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2 (Soc. Sec. Admin. Aug. 9, 2006).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency, and the source's specialization.

Ferguson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-29(c)

To determine the weight given to any medical opinion, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the evidence presented to support the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence, and the specialization of the medical professional.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using specified factors, and section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is consistent with substantial evidence.

White v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(c), (c)(2)

Medical opinions, regardless of the source, are evaluated by considering several factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Controlling weight will be given to a treating physician’s opinion that is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004). Unless controlling weight is given to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ is required to consider the following factors in determining the weight assigned to a medical opinion: whether or not the source examined the claimant; the existence, length and nature of a treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; evidentiary support offered; consistency with the record as a whole; and specialization of the examiner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions and the fact that the source examined the claimant, but does not require controlling weight or a statement of good reasons for the weight assigned to opinions from non-treating examiners.

DeBose v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(c)

The ALJ was not required to assign controlling weight to the opinions of Dr. Felker or Dr. House, and he was not required to state good reasons for the weight he assigned to their opinions. See Smith, 482 F.3d at 876. He was required to consider their opinions and the fact that they examined DeBose. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion in the record and expressly assign weight to each opinion when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Drabczyk v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-31(c)

As a general matter, when determining a claimant’s RFC, an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion contained in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c). ... As for the opinion of consultative examiner Dr. Miller, the ALJ, though acknowledging and discussing it at great length in her decision, failed to assign any weight to it. This is problematic not only because the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), but also because this is not a case in which the Court can ascertain the ALJ’s assessment of a medical opinion when the ALJ simply neglected to expressly assign a weight to it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating medical opinions, an ALJ must consider the source’s examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Shelley v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-31(c)(1)–(6)

An ALJ must weigh the following factors when considering medical opinions: (1) whether the source has an examining relationship with claimant; (2) whether the source has a treatment relationship with claimant; (3) supportability (as shown by relevant evidence and explanation); (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors, including the source’s familiarity with other information in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) allows an ALJ to consider the nature and length of a physician’s relationship with the claimant when assigning weight to the physician’s medical opinion.

Holmes v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-05(c)(2)

An ALJ may consider both the nature and length of a physician’s relationship with the claimant when determining how much weight to afford the physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record, considering the medical source’s relationship with the claimant when deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Baldauf v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-06(c)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(2), 404.1527. The ALJ is required to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The type of relationship a medical source has with someone seeking social security benefits provides a starting point for deciding how much weight to give that source’s opinion about a claimant. Generally, the views of doctors who have treated a claimant get top priority.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(5) identifies supportability, consistency, and specialization as factors for deciding the weight of a medical opinion.

KOVACS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-06(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5)

These were appropriate factors for the ALJ to rely on for giving great weight to Dr. Kahn’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), (4), (5), 416.927(c)(3), (4), (5) (setting forth the factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion, including supportability, consistency, and specialization of the medical source).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider an examining or treating provider's status when weighing a medical opinion, but that status alone is not a specific and legitimate reason to reject the opinion.

Sprinkle v. Saul · filed 2020-08-07(c)

The status of an examining or treating provider is a factor that an ALJ is to consider when weighing an opinion, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), and it dictates the weight assigned to the opinion, Holohan, 246 F.3d at 1201-02, but it does not rise to the level of a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting an opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh treating-source opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, without requiring controlling weight.

Boles v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-10(c)

The law applicable to Boles’s application provides that regardless of the source, the Commissioner will evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Typically, the Social Security Administration accords greater weight to the opinion of treating medical sources because treating physicians are best able to provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s alleged disability. See id. However, “the rule does not require that the testimony be given controlling weight.” Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Instead, a treating physician’s opinion is evaluated and weighed “pursuant to the following non-exclusive list: (1) whether the physician has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Thornsburg v. SSA · filed 2020-08-12(c)(4)

“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Hightower v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-13(c)

The ALJ was required to consider the opinions from Drs. Birdwell and Lawton utilizing certain regulatory factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & 416.920(c). The factors include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to address or mention a medical opinion, even if the ALJ could reject it.

Jackson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-13(b)

In Kneeland, the Fifth Circuit explained that an ALJ commits error when he fails to address or mention a medical opinion—irrespective of whether the ALJ could have rejected it. See 850 F.3d at 759–61 (citing, inter alia, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). ... Here, the ALJ erred by failing to even mention Dr. Patel’s 2017 opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s judgment about an impairment and its resulting limitations and requires the ALJ to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion.

Calixto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14(a)(1), (b)-(c)

The ALJ is required to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b)-(c), 416.927(b)-(c). A medical opinion is defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). Mr. Korsgaard’s treatment notes are not medical opinions as defined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). Therefore, the ALJ was not required to weigh them or provide reasons for not adopting his opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, unless a treating source's opinion receives controlling weight, weigh it using the specified treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors.

Carrier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14(c)(1)-(6)

The SSA’s regulations require an ALJ to “evaluate every medical opinion [he or she] receives, regardless of its source.” ... Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh every opinion of record considering several relevant factors, including the nature and length of the treatment relationship, whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, consistency with the record as a whole, and whether the source is a specialist in the relevant area. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions using the regulatory factors and permits giving an opinion less or no weight when it lacks relevant support or explanation or conflicts with the record as a whole.

Hummel v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-14(c)

The ALJ is charged with a duty to evaluate all the medical opinions in the record under the factors set forth in the regulations and to resolve any conflicts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. An ALJ may give an opinion less weight or no weight if it does not present relevant evidence or a sufficient explanation to support it, or if it is inconsistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and the doctor's specialization when weighing each medical opinion.

Youngblood v. Saul · filed 2020-08-13(c)

“When weighing each medical opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the doctor has examined the claimant; the doctor’s relationship with the claimant; the medical evidence supporting the doctor’s opinion; how consistent the doctor’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and the doctor’s specialization.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) directs an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion's support and consistency with the record.

Burns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-14(c)(3)-(4)

But an ALJ, although a layperson, is tasked with considering whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4); Bayliss, 427 F.3d at 1216 (rejecting physician’s opinion due to discrepancy or contradiction between opinion and the physician’s own notes or observations is “a permissible determination within the ALJ’s province”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an administrative law judge to evaluate medical opinions using the regulatory factors, but a consultative opinion need only be credited when it is supported by the record and the judge need not exhaustively analyze every factor.

Benitez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-19(c)

As outlined above, since Dr. Lynch is a consultative examiner, ALJ Collins was only required to credit his opinion if it was supported by the record. ALJ Collins was not required to undertake an exhaustive analysis of the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources using the listed factors, but does not require listing each factor in the decision.

Yang v. Saul · filed 2020-08-19(c)(1)-(6)

An ALJ is to weigh the opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources in accordance with the following factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including (a) the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination as well as (b) the nature and extent of the relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) (1)-(6), 416.927(c) (1)-(6). The ALJ is not required to list each of the regulatory factors for opinion evaluation in the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, absent controlling weight, consider the listed factors when deciding the weight given to non-controlling opinions.

Sceranka v. Saul · filed 2020-08-19(a)(2), (c)

The Commissioner’s regulations also set standards for the evaluation of medical evidence, and define medical opinions as “statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [a claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [a claimant] can still do despite impairments(s), and [a claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Where no medical source opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner’s regulations direct the ALJ to consider the following factors, where applicable, in deciding the weight given to any non-controlling medical opinions: length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally denies controlling weight to non-treating and non-examining opinions and directs the ALJ to consider supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-20(c)(2), (d)(2)

On the other hand, when the opinion comes from a non-treating or non-examining source, it is usually not entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Rather, the ALJ should consider relevant factors, including supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions and explain the weight assigned to each.

Torrez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-21(e)(2)(ii)

Regarding medical opinion evidence, the ALJ must consider all medical opinions of record and is required to discuss the weight she assigns to each opinion. Keyes-Zachary v. Astrue, 695 F.3d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a medical opinion may receive greater weight when it is more consistent with the record, with supporting evidence, explanation quality, and the source’s familiarity with the case record relevant to the weighing decision.

Beatty v. Saul · filed 2020-08-24(c)(4), (c)(6)

An ALJ may choose to give more weight to an opinion that is more consistent with the evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”); Nguyen v. Chater, 100 F.3d 1462, 1464 (9th Cir. 1996). Relevant factors when evaluating a medical opinion include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the quality of the explanation provided in the opinion, and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole. Lingenfelter, 504 F.3d at 1042; Orn, 495 F.3d at 631; 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c)(6), 404.1527(c)(6) (assessing the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record”). However, Ms. Inglin addressed only Plaintiff’s physical functioning and not her mental functioning, and therefore the opinions are not inconsistent. Tr. 962-64. Dr. Cooper did not explicitly state whether she believed Plaintiff could work or not; she gave opinions regarding specific areas of functioning, including an opinion Plaintiff would require up to a “moderate level of supervision,” would have some problems with supervisors and coworkers, and would need reminders and possible help to keep her surroundings in good order. Tr. 723. Dr. Cooper’s opinion is not clearly inconsistent with Ms. Pingel’s opinion. This was not a germane reason to reject Ms. Pingel’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a residual functional capacity determination is not a medical opinion and that an opinion more consistent with the record as a whole may receive greater weight.

(SS) Ingles v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(c)(4), (d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assess the weight of a treating physician’s opinion using relevant regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, consistency, supportability, and specialization.

Elhenicky-Acosta v. Saul · filed 2020-08-24(c)

Even still, the ALJ was ultimately required to assess the weight given to Dr. Schaible’s opinion in accordance with the regulatory checklist of factors. ... The ALJ failed to consider the length, nature, and extent of Dr. Schaible’s treatment relationship with Plaintiff; the consistency of Dr. Schaible’s opinions with other evidence of record; and any medical specialty of Dr. Schaible. ... The failure of the ALJ to assess the regulatory factors requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) identifies the medical source’s understanding of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements as a factor in weighing the source’s opinion.

Theroux v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-27(c)(6)

First, the regulations recognize one factor to be considered in weighing medical source opinion is “the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6); see also Gibbens v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 659 F. App’x 238, 247 (6th Cir. 2016) (“State agency medical consultants are highly qualified medical sources who are also experts in the evaluation of medical issues in disability claims under the Social Security Act[.]”) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical signs and laboratory findings, consistency with the record, and whether the physician is a specialist.

Hulsey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-28

When considering medical opinions, an ALJ is required to consider the length of treatment, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the physician is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, when a treating-source opinion is not given controlling weight, to determine its weight using the regulatory factors.

Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The ALJ must evaluate “every medical opinion [he] receive[s].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must still determine what weight to give it according to the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant; whether the physician’s opinions were sufficiently supported; how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; and whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue, among other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all relevant medical evidence and resolve conflicts among it when evaluating medical opinions.

Mendoza v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-28

However, an ALJ considers all relevant medical evidence and is responsible for resolving its conflicts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, support, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

Blackwell v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-09-01(d)

“In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ considers many factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether the opinion is amply supported, whether the opinion is consistent with the record and the doctor’s specialization.” Kelly v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 401 F. App’x 403, 407 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) & 416.927(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider specified factors when determining what weight to give it.

Arnett v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-01(c)(1)-(6)

“An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional. . . . An ALJ must also consider a series of specific factors [outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6)] in determining what weight to give any medical opinion.” Hamlin v. Barnhart, 365 F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004), citing Goatcher v. United States Department of Health & Human Services, 52 F.3d 288, 290 (10th Cir. 1995). The pertinent factors include the following: (i) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (iii) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (iv) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (v) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (vi) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. See Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300-1301 (10th Cir. 2003), citing Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001), citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh opinion evidence under specific criteria and permits discounting a treating physician’s opinion that is conclusory, brief, or unsupported.

Gewalt v. Saul · filed 2020-09-02

The ALJ must evaluate and weigh opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017, using specific criteria. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. “When presented with conflicting medical opinions, the ALJ must determine credibility and resolve the conflict.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). “Greater weight must be given to the opinion of treating physicians, and in the case of a conflict ‘the ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons for disregarding the opinion of the treating physician.’” Id. (quoting Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992)). But if a treating physician’s opinion is conclusory, brief, unsupported by the record, or by objective medical findings, the ALJ may discount that opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion using the listed factors, which also apply to opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources.

Cox v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-02(c), (f)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner based on “all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” including medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 404.1545(a)(3), 404.1513(a)(2). An ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion in the record and assign a weight to each. Id. § 404.1527(c). “When presented with conflicting medical opinions, the ALJ must determine credibility and resolve the conflict.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). In evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ may consider: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; (3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the source’s specialization; and (6) “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) (stating that these factors apply to opinions from medical sources who are not “acceptable” medical sources). At the time of Plaintiff’s hearing, a nurse practitioner was not an “acceptable” medical source.4 See Popa v. Berryhill, 872 F.3d 901, 907 (9th Cir. 2017). Thus, in order to reject FNP Vitiello’s opinion, the ALJ needed to provide “germane” reasons for doing so. See id. at 906.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats the opinions of non-examining physicians who assess claims at the initial and reconsideration levels as expert opinion evidence.

Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-02

Regulations provide that the opinions of the non-examining physicians, such ... as the ones that offered their assessments at the initial and reconsideration levels in this case, must be treated as expert opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, but failing to explicitly discuss every factor is typically not, by itself, grounds for remand.

Luzar, Jeremy v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-09-03(c)

Finally, Luzar criticizes the ALJ for not discussing each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) for determining how much weight to give to a medical opinion. But a failure to explicitly discuss each regulatory factor is typically not a stand-alone basis for remand. See, e.g., Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415–16 (7th Cir. 2008); Nelson v. Saul, No. 19-cv-79-jdp, 2019 WL 6522402, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 2019). And Luzar doesn’t explain how any of the factors not discussed would undermine the ALJ’s decision. So Luzar’s challenge to the ALJ’s rejection of Pannu’s opinion fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions of record, regardless of their source, and evaluate them under the regulation before assigning weight.

Arning v. Saul · filed 2020-08-28(c)

The Social Security Regulations require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions of record, regardless of their source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (“In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive.”); SSR 06-03p (The ALJ must “consider all of the available evidence in the individual’s case record in every case.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported treating provider’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the record, while § 404.1527(c)(5) generally favors opinions from specialists on issues within their specialties.

Tudor v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-03(c)(2), (c)(5)

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). ... Importantly, the opinions of specialists about medical issues related to their areas of specialization are entitled to greater weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654; see also Benecke v. Barnhart, 379 F.3d 587, 594 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) (A doctor’s specialized knowledge is especially relevant with respect to conditions that are “poorly understood” within the rest of the medical community.).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to apply the substance of its medical-opinion factors and explain the rationale for the weight assigned, but does not require an explicit discussion of every factor.

Erbes v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04

While 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 provides a number of factors that an ALJ considers when evaluating medical opinions, an ALJ does not have to explicitly walk through each of these factors, so long as the Court can conclude that he applied the substance of the regulations and appropriately set forth the rationale for the weight given to the opinions. Hall v. Colvin, 37 F. Supp. 3d 614, 625 (W.D.N.Y. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires meaningful consideration of the applicable supportability and consistency factors when evaluating a consultative examiner’s opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis and reserves final responsibility for determining residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Leary v. Commissioner for Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-04(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d)(2)

The ALJ is charged with the final responsibility for determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the residual functional capacity “is reserved to the Commissioner”). ... Consultative examiners’ opinions must be meaningfully evaluated according to the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(c), but an ALJ need not give “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based on the source’s examination and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

Moulis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-08(c)(1)–(6)

In evaluating any medical opinion, the ALJ may consider: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; (3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the source’s specialization; and (6) “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675. ... The lack of support from Dr. Soto’s own objective findings and her lack of explanation were valid reasons for discounting her opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)9; Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming rejection of a treating physician’s opinion that “was in the form of a checklist, did not have supportive objective evidence, was contradicted by other statements and assessments of [claimant’s] medical condition, and was based on [claimant’s] subjective descriptions of pain”); Thomas, 278 F.3d at 957 (stating that the ALJ may reject the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and, when weighing a nonexamining physician’s opinion, evaluate the supporting explanations and whether the opinion considered pertinent information, including treating and examining-source opinions.

Garcia v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(c)(3)

An ALJ must take into account all medical opinions of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). The regulations “distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians).” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). “Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining physician’s opinion carries more weight than a reviewing [(nonexamining)] physician’s.” Holohan v. Massanari, 246 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). “The weight afforded a non-examining physician’s testimony depends ‘on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.’” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)). The ALJ also evaluates the degree to which the opinion of a nonexamining physician “consider[ed] all of the pertinent information in [a claimant’s] claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)–(6) identifies supporting evidence, explanation quality, consistency with the record, and physician specialty as factors in evaluating any medical opinion.

Mendoza v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-08(d)(3)–(6)

“[F]actors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided[,] the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole [and] the specialty of the physician providing the opinion . . . ” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)–(6)); see also Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 1989) (an ALJ need not agree with everything contained in the medical opinion and can consider some portions less significant than others). ... Because Dr. Martin’s opinion was contradicted by the opinions of the state consultants, the ALJ was required to provide specific and legitimate reasons in partially rejecting Dr. Martin’s opinion. He did not do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors, including consistency with the record as a whole, when deciding how much weight to give a non-controlling physician’s opinion.

Wilson v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(c)(4)

The Commissioner, when determining the weight of a non-controlling physician opinion should consider factors including: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examinations; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examinations or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area of medicine upon which the opinion is rendered; and (6) any other factors brought to the Commissioner’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The ALJ noted Dr. Bierrenbach’s opinion’s inconsistencies with the medical record, the fourth factor, consistency, of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, in the decision to afford Dr. Bierrenbach’s opinion limited weight. See (Tr. 31).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)–(6) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the evidence supporting it and the explanation, its consistency with the record as a whole, and the source’s specialty.

Cortez v. Saul · filed 2020-08-31(d)(3)–(6)

“[F]actors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the ... opinion and the quality of the explanation provided[,] the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole[, and] the specialty of the physician providing the opinion. . . .” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)–(6)); see also Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 1989) (an ALJ need not agree with everything contained in the medical opinion and can consider some portions less significant than others).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, unless a treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight, weigh it using the listed factors.

Lawrence v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-11(c)

The SSA’s regulations require an ALJ to “evaluate every medical opinion [he or she] receives.” Pena v. Chater, 968 F. Supp. 930, 937 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff’d, 141 F.3d 1152 (2d Cir. 1998); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Unless a treating source’s opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh every opinion of record, considering several relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization; a treating opinion need not receive controlling weight if it is unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence, and the source's explanation affects the weight assigned.

Meling v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(c), (c)(2), (c)(3)

The Social Security regulations instruct that the weight assigned to medical opinions is determined based on factors including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, the length and nature of treatment, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). That said, “special weight” is generally accorded to opinions of the claimant’s treating physician. Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 825 (2003). See also Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (“By rule, the Social Security Administration favors the opinion of a treating physician over non-treating physicians.”). Nonetheless, the ALJ is not required to rely on testimony from a treating physician. If the opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ need not give it controlling weight. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (an ALJ may discredit treating physicians’ opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings). If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in assigning its relative weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider its supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, but does not require the ALJ to discuss each regulatory factor.

West v. Saul · filed 2020-09-16(c)(3)-(4)

Notably, the factors include “supportability,” defined as “relevant evidence to support a medical opinion,” and “consistency . . . with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), 416.927(c)(3)-(4). Moreover, the regulations do not require an ALJ to discuss each factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion in the record but does not require the ALJ to adopt any particular opinion when formulating a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Hammer v. Commissioner, Social Security of (TV1) · filed 2020-09-18(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh medical opinions under specific criteria, give greater weight to treating physicians, and provide specific, legitimate reasons to discount a treating opinion; opinions from other sources are considered but are not entitled to deference.

Flores v. Saul · filed 2020-09-21(c), (f)

The ALJ must evaluate and weigh opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017, using specific criteria. See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. “When presented with conflicting medical opinions, the ALJ must determine credibility and resolve the conflict.” Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). “Greater weight must be given to the opinion of treating physicians, and in the case of a conflict ‘the ALJ must give specific, legitimate reasons for disregarding the opinion of the treating physician.’” Id. (quoting Matney v. Sullivan, 981 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1992)). But if a treating physician’s opinion is conclusory, brief, unsupported by the record, or by objective medical findings, the ALJ may discount that opinion. Id. “In any event, the ALJ is the final arbiter with respect to resolving ambiguities in the medical evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). ... The regulations provide for the consideration of opinions from “other sources,” including nurse-practitioners, physician’s assistants or therapists. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f); SSR 06-03p. Still, “other sources” are not entitled to deference. See § 404.1527; SSR 06-03p. “The ALJ may discount testimony from these ‘other sources’ if the ALJ ‘gives reasons germane to each witness for doing so.’” Molina, 674 F.3d at 1111 (quoting Turner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2010)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 guides an ALJ's evaluation of medical opinions by factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Kearns v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)

The Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to employ when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, weigh it using the listed factors, and state with particularity the weight assigned and the reasons for that weight.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)

The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability”; (4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and (5) “[s]pecialization.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(5), 416.927(c)(2)-(5); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f); see also McNamee v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 164 F. App’x 919, 923 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted) (stating that “[g]enerally, the opinions of examining physicians are given more weight than those of non-examining physicians[;] treating physicians[’ opinions] are given more weight than [non-treating physicians;] and the opinions of specialists are given more weight on issues within the area of expertise than those of non-specialists”). An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). While “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion,” Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 279); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997). ... Pointing to mild findings in treatment notes and in objective imaging results, the ALJ gave “no weight” to Dr. Guy’s opinions and found that “Dr. Guy’s examination records and the longitudinal treatment records do not corroborate the conclusion of moderate to marked limitations.” Tr. at 29-30. The ALJ also cited earlier “notations” in the Decision (which include certain findings regarding noncompliance) in giving no weight to Dr. Guy’s opinions. Tr. at 30. ... Accordingly, if the ALJ finds that Plaintiff’s noncompliance is not excused by her lack of insurance and inability to afford treatment, the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Guy’s opinions would be supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to give more weight to opinions that are better supported by evidence and more consistent with the record as a whole.

McCaskey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)

For instance, the more a medical source presents evidence to support an opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight that medical opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence in the record.

Berry v. Saul · filed 2020-09-22(b)

The ALJ must also consider all the medical opinions “together with the rest of the relevant evidence [on record].” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b). ... The ALJ conducted a proper assessment of the opinion evidence. ... The Court finds that the ALJ did not err in her assessment of the opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion the agency receives.

Haynes v. Saul · filed 2020-09-22(c)

The Commissioner is required to evaluate every medical opinion the agency receives. ... Therefore, not only did the ALJ not consider the opinion, which she was required to do, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), MacGregor, 786 F.2d at 1053, but she also did not give the opinion controlling weight, see Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440, which is particularly relevant because the opinion appears to run contrary to the findings outlined in the RFC, [compare R16 with R889].

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explain how the evidence supports the weight assigned to a medical opinion, including why activities or medical records are inconsistent with it.

Bailey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-22(c)

In finding that the ALJ did not evaluate Dr. Rojugbokan’s opinion as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and Social Security Ruling 96-2p, the Magistrate Judge explained: The ALJ stated Dr. Rojugbokan’s opinion was not supported by Plaintiff’s activities, but he did not explain how those activities were inconsistent with that opinion. He also made the conclusory statement that Dr. Rojugbokan’s opinion was not supported by the “few medical records,” without citing specific medical records that were contrary to his opinion. ... After review, however, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge not only that the ALJ failed to cite to the “few medical records” that were inconsistent with Dr. Rojugbokan’s opinion, but also that the ALJ failed to provide sufficient logical explanation to support his RFC assessment by not adequately explaining how the evidence upon which he relied supports an RFC for light work with additional nonexertional limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh it based on the source’s relationship with the claimant, including the treatment relationship and the opinion’s support, explanation, consistency, and specialization; opinions from non-acceptable medical sources are treated as other-source evidence.

Brambila v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-23(a)(1), (c), (f)(1)

Thus, Defendant is correct that NP Knight “is not an acceptable medical source, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a); and his opinions are not medical opinions, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).” (Def. Br. at 25-26.) Instead, NP Knight’s opinions are considered to be from an “other” medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513. ... The ALJ is required to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The relationship between the medical opinion source and the claimant provides a starting point in deciding how to weigh that source’s opinion about the claimant. Generally, the views of doctors who have treated the claimant get top priority. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). Opinions of doctors who have examined but not treated the claimant are next in rank. Id. Those doctors who have neither treated nor examined the claimant generally get the least consideration. Id. Additionally, “[u]nder certain circumstances, the opinion of a treating provider who is not an acceptable medical source may be given greater weight than the opinion of a treating provider who is.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017). This might arise when the non-acceptable medical source provider “‘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.’” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record when reviewing disability evidence.

Kilpatrick v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-24(c)

An ALJ is required to evaluate and weigh every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence when evaluating a disability claim.

(SS) Basto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions by weighing the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, while treating opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner as non-medical opinions.

EZELL v. SAUL · filed 2020-09-24(b), (c)(1)-(6), (d)

As the finder of fact, the ALJ is charged with the duty to evaluate all the medical opinions of the record and resolve conflicts that might appear. ... When considering medical opinions, the following factors apply for determining the weight to give to any medical opinion: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion, such as “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight” that opinion is given; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist and, if it is, it will be accorded greater weight; and (5) other relevant but unspecified factors. ... Opinions on issues regarding whether a claimant is unable to work, the claimant’s RFC, and the application of vocational factors, “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of the case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.” ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision; and she accorded the consultative opinions proper weight and considered numerous factors when evaluating the doctors’ opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. The ALJ explained the weight she gave to these opinions with sufficient specificity to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, determine whether a treating source's opinion receives controlling weight, and otherwise consider the specified factors when assigning weight.

Stevenson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-25(c)

As Plaintiff filed her applications prior to March 27, 2017, the rules in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 apply to the ALJ’s assignment of weight to the medical opinions in the record. The regulations require ALJs to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416,927(c). The process of assigning weight to medical opinions in the record begins with a determination whether to assign controlling weight to the medical opinion of the treating source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). If controlling weight is not assigned to the treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) of this section in deciding how much weight to accord each of the medical opinions in the record, including the medical opinion from the treating source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Alemzadeh v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(b)

“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)). The ALJ errs by not explicitly rejecting a medical opinion. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014). The ALJ also errs by failing to set forth sufficient reasons for crediting one medical opinion over another. See id.

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 the source's expertise.

Major v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(c)

When evaluating any opinion, including the opinion of a consultative examiner, an ALJ is to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). ... These factors include the: length of treatment relationship; frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; relevant evidence used to support the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the entire record; and expertise and specialized knowledge of the treating source. See 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c)(1)-(6). ... “Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight” that will be assigned to that medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(4). ... Third, the ALJ appropriately considered “[o]ther factors[,] ... which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider the consistency of medical opinions with the record as a whole when weighing them.

Short v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)(4)

To the extent the opinions were consistent with one another, the ALJ was required to take that into consideration in weighing them. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, assign it a weight, and consider factors including examination, treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Axtman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-29(c)

In making the RFC determination, an ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion in the record and assign a weight to each. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In general, opinions of treating sources are entitled to the greatest weight; opinions of examining, non-treating sources are entitled to lesser weight; and opinions of non-examining, non-treating sources are entitled to the least weight. Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012. ... In evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ may consider: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; (3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the source’s specialization; and (6) “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675.6 ... The Court finds the ALJ erred by failing to provide a specific and legitimate reason for rejecting Dr. Thompson’s opinion that Petitioner was limited to only occasional handling on the right side.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Hoyle v. Saul · filed 2020-09-29(c)(1)-(6)

When evaluating and weighing the medical opinions, the ALJ should consider several factors including (1) the examining relationship, (2) the treatment relationship, including the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination and the nature and extent of the relationship; (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416(c)(1)-(6). Generally, more weight will be given to an opinion of a medical source who has examined the Plaintiff than to a non-examining source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). If the ALJ does not provide reasons “supported by citations to the record evidence, for rejecting the opinions” then the reviewing court cannot find that the conclusion regarding the weight of the medical opinion was supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions according to their source, generally giving more weight to treating and examining physicians than to non-examining physicians, and to support rejection of a contradicted treating or examining opinion with specific, legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

(SS) Dia Her Yang v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(d)(1)-(3)

The weight to be given to medical opinions depends upon whether the opinion is proffered by a treating, examining, or non-examining professional. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-831 (9th Cir. 1995). “Generally, the opinions of examining physicians are afforded more weight than those of non-examining physicians, and the opinions of examining non-treating physicians are afforded less weight than those of treating physicians.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)-(2)); see also Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (“While the opinion of a treating physician is thus entitled to greater weight than that of an examining physician, the opinion of an examining physician is entitled to greater weight than that of a non-examining physician.”). ... “If a treating or examining doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may only reject it by providing specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Manning v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(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”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider specified factors when deciding what weight to give it.

Durland v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-30

The claimant first asserts that the ALJ erred in evaluating the medical source opinion evidence from treating physician Dr. Law and consultative physician Dr. Gordon by engaging in prohibited “picking and choosing” among their findings and by failing to discuss all the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional. . . . An ALJ must also consider a series of specific factors in determining what weight to give any medical opinion. ... The ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Law’s opinion and Dr. Gordon’s opinion, as described above, meets these standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3), (4), and (6) permits an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s explanation, supportability, and other relevant factors when assigning weight.

Cady v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-01(c)(3), (4), (6)

The timing, level of explanation, and supportability of an opinion are all permissible considerations for ALJs evaluating medical opinions, and the ALJ properly relied on those considerations here. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4), (6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(4) directs the ALJ to consider the degree of support for a medical opinion, particularly objective medical evidence, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Kartje v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-05(c)(3)–(4)

Therefore, Dr. Fiel’s opinion was properly discounted because of its lack of support from the objective medical evidence it was purportedly based upon (the August 15, 2014 MRI) as well as its inconsistency with other evidence in the record noted by the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)–(4); Batson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A]n ALJ may discredit . . . opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole . . . or by objective medical findings.”) (internal citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions to be evaluated under specified factors; qualifying treating-source opinions receive controlling weight, while other opinions must still be weighed and their weight explained.

Wyrick v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-10-06(c)(2)-(6), (f)

Such opinions may not be ignored and, unless a treating source opinion is given controlling weight, all medical opinions will be evaluated by the Commissioner in accordance with factors contained in the regulations. ... “[I]f the opinion is deficient in either of these respects, then it is not entitled to controlling weight.” ... If the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the inquiry does not end. Id. A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... The regulations require that the ALJ will also consider the opinions of medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and the opinions of nonmedical sources using the regulatory factors enumerated above and will explain the weight given opinions from these sources. 20 C.F.R. '' 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). ... Rather, because there is no treating source opinion regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairments in this case, the ALJ was required to weigh all the opinions in accordance with the regulatory factors. That is what he did.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received, regardless of its source, when determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Carlin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-09(c)

When determining a plaintiff’s RFC, an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received, “[r]egardless of its source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating opinion evidence to consider relevant factors, including the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole.

Rettzo v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-13(c)

The regulations governing an ALJ’s consideration of opinions by non-medical sources, like Plaintiff’s husband, provide that in deciding what weight to accord to the testimony, the ALJ should use the following factors (to the extent they are relevant): length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the extent to which the source presented relevant evidence to support his or her medical opinion, and the extent to which the basis for the source’s conclusions were explained; the extent to which the source’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; whether the source is a specialist; and, any other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Here, the ALJ accurately concluded that Plaintiff’s husband’s testimony was not consistent with the record and discounted it. This is a proper basis to discount this testimony, and it is supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion using the regulation’s non-exhaustive factors.

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

Instead, ALJ Auble was required to evaluate Ms. Ruth’s opinion using the non-exhaustive factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires evaluation of every medical opinion regardless of its source.

Jones v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner · filed 2020-10-09(c)

That regulation provides, inter alia, that, regardless of its source, every medical opinion is evaluated. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider the listed relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Sigsbee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-14(c)

The regulations also state “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” 20 CFR §404.1527(c). In evaluating any medical opinion, an ALJ must consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, length of the treatment relationship, relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors. Id. The ALJ did not evaluate Dr. Gupta’s opinion using any of these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stiner v. Saul · filed 2020-10-15(a)

The Regulations define medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a). Social Security Ruling 86-8 states that “presumptions, speculations and suppositions should not be substituted for evidence.” Here, the fact that Dr. Metoya did not discuss Plaintiff’s limitations if he sought treatment does not diminish the value of the opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a). And such speculation may have even undermined the value of the opinion under S.S.R. 86-8.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions and consider the listed factors when weighing them.

Leos v. Saul · filed 2020-10-19(c)

ALJ Greenberg failed to address Dr. Power’s opinion even though the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to deference. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. And because the ALJ ignored Dr. Power’s opinion, he failed to comply with the regulations, which require the ALJ to evaluate all medical opinion evidence he receives, and failed to analyze the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Without this evaluation, the Court is unable to determine whether the ALJ properly weighed the opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, regardless of its source.

Carlson v. Saul · filed 2020-10-19(c)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions in the record. Roddy v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 631, 636 (7th Cir. 2013); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”); see also SSR 96-5, 1996 WL 374183, at *3 (July 2, 1996) (“[O]pinions from any medical source on issues reserved to the Commissioner must never be ignored. The adjudicator is required to evaluate all evidence in the case record that may have a bearing on the determination or decision of disability, including opinions from medical sources about issues reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor.

Davis, Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-19(c)

The Regulations require the ALJ to consider the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and whether the physician is a specialist. See 20 CFR 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). An ALJ is not required explicitly go through each and every factor of the Regulation, however ALJ Banks was very thorough in citing evidence that was inconsistent with Dr. Meng’s significant limitations. Hall v. Colvin, 37 F. Supp. 3d 614, 625 (W.D.N.Y. 2014).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires every medical opinion to be evaluated, while subsection (c)(6) permits consideration of an acceptable medical source’s knowledge of Social Security disability programs and evidentiary requirements.

Tella v. Saul · filed 2020-10-26(c), (c)(6)

The regulations provide that the amount of an acceptable medical source’s knowledge of Social Security disability programs and their evidentiary requirements may be considered in evaluating an opinion, regardless of the source of that understanding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6). Nonetheless, the regulations also require that every medical opinion will be evaluated, regardless of its source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) says that the weight given to a non-examining medical opinion depends on the degree of supporting explanation it provides.

Rawls v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-27(c)(3)

Section 404.1527provides that “because non[-]examining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [a claimant], the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source's medical opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explain the weight given to a State agency medical or psychological consultant's opinion when controlling weight is not given to the treating source.

Daemer v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-28(c)(2)

The SSA will give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight, on the issue of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s), if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).2 Unless a treating source's opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ must explain the weight given to the opinions of a State agency medical or psychological consultant. Id. ALJs must consider, but are not bound by, any findings made by State agency medical or psychological consultants. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) (2012). When an ALJ considers medical opinions, she or he will evaluate the findings using the following factors: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the medical opinion, how consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the specialization of the physician, and other factors brought to the SSA’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors, including the examining relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, when deciding the weight of a medical opinion, including opinions from examining and non-examining physicians.

Shields v. Saul · filed 2020-11-02(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors when assigning weight.

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

The ALJ considered the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine the weight to give to Dr. Esplin’s opinions. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631-32; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). The ALJ recognized Dr. Esplin as Petitioner’s treating physician and accurately detailed the records documenting the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship. (AR 29-32.) Further, the ALJ addressed the supportability and consistency of Dr. Esplin’s opinion with the other objective medical evidence and the record as a whole, concluding Dr. Esplin’s opinion was inconsistent with the functional capacity evaluation (FCE), and was not supported by the Petitioner’s nearly normal electrodiagnostic testing and frequent normal physical examinations. (AR 32.) In doing so, the ALJ articulated specific and legitimate reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Esplin’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of the opinion’s source.

Wilcox v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-04(d)

An ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion [she] receives, regardless of its source.” Pena v. Chater, 968 F. Supp. 930, 937 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)). ... The Court finds that the ALJ adequately explained the weighing of the medical opinion evidence here. ... The ALJ properly evaluated these medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires the weight given to a non-examining medical opinion to reflect its supporting explanations and consideration of all pertinent evidence.

Becker v. Saul · filed 2020-11-03(c)(3)

Because non-examining sources have no examining or treating relationship with a claimant, the weight given to their medical opinions depends on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). The ALJ should evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all the pertinent evidence in a claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, including an other-source opinion, and explain its weight using the regulation’s factors.

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-04(c)

At the very least, the ALJ was obligated to acknowledge Mahler’s opinion and explain why he credited Dr. Santarpia’s one-time evaluation more than Mahler’s longitudinal assessment in light of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors.