20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and decide what weight to give it.

Woodrow v. Saul · filed 2020-11-10(c)

The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record and decide what weight to give each. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Thus, the ALJ’s decision reflects a sufficient consideration of Dr. Madni’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) says opinions from other sources, including nurse practitioners, should be evaluated using factors such as the examining relationship, treatment relationship, length of treatment, and frequency of examination.

Spruyt v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-10(c)

Nonetheless, opinions from other sources, such as nurse practitioners, should be evaluated pursuant to the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which include the examining relationship; treatment relationship; length of treatment relationship; and frequency of examination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c) directs adjudicators to give more weight to medical opinions that are better explained and more consistent with the record.

Bridges v. Saul · filed 2020-11-12(c)

The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s analysis. An ALJ may reasonably consider the supportability and consistency of an opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. . . Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to consider the listed factors when evaluating a medical opinion, while requiring only minimal articulation of the reasoning.

Pflughoeft v. Saul · filed 2020-11-12(c)

Moreover, the AC must consider the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), although it need only “minimally articulate” its reasoning. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) requires the ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion of record when deciding a disability claim.

(SS) Ochoa Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-16(b) and (c)

The ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) and (c) (applying to claims filed before March 27, 2017); Mora v. Berryhill, No. 1:16–cv–01279–SKO, 2018 WL 636923, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the source’s examination of the claimant, treatment relationship, support, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Groner v. Saul · filed 2020-11-16(c)

In evaluating a medical opinion, the ALJ considers: (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(b)–(c) requires the ALJ to consider every medical opinion with the relevant evidence and evaluate its weight using the applicable factors.

Nichols v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-16(b), (c)

The ALJ “will always consider the medical opinions in [the] case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence . . . receive[d].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b); id. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). ... The Court finds that the ALJ at least minimally articulated her reasons for giving Roth’s opinion only some weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Edwards v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-16(c)

The regulations are clear that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider factors including the treatment relationship, its length, and specialization, and treats a physician’s conclusion on the ultimate issue of disability as an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Cornellier v. Saul · filed 2020-11-17(c)(2)(i)–(ii), (d)

Moreover, conclusions by physicians on the ultimate issue of disability “are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... In determining what weight to give medical opinions, the ALJ considers a range of factors, including the treatment relationship, the length of the treatment relationship, and specialization, among others. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) permits an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the degree of its support from objective medical evidence and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Labine v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-16(c)(3)-(4)

This argument is without merit as the Commissioner’s regulations specifically direct the ALJ to “assess [a claimant's] residual functional capacity based on all of the relevant medical and other evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545(a)(3), and to evaluate medical opinion evidence according to certain factors, which include the degree of support the opinion has from objective medical evidence, id. § 404.1527(c)(3), as well as its consistency with the record as a whole, id. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialty when assigning weight to medical opinions, and permits discounting opinions that lack support or conflict with the record.

Payne v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-11-19(c)

In addition to a physician’s treating relationship with the claimant, an ALJ considers several other factors when assigning weight to medical opinions, including the evidence the physician presents to support his or her opinion, whether the physician’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the physician’s specialty. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ may discount a physician’s opinion when the opinion is conclusory, the physician fails to provide objective medical evidence to support his or her opinion, the opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole, or the evidence otherwise supports a contrary finding. See id. ... The ALJ’s decision to discredit some of Dr. Iyer’s opinions because they were inconsistent with the record is permissible. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Schneider v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-24(c)(4)

“[T]he more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when its support from objective evidence and consistency with the record do not substantiate the proposed limitations.

Riggs v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-25(c)(3)-(4)

Factors an ALJ may consider when evaluating any medical opinion include (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 v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017). ... The Court is satisfied that the ALJ gave specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Ditto’s opinion and finding that Ms. Lee was not disabled.3 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ evaluating opinions from sources who are not acceptable medical sources to consider the same kinds of factors used for acceptable medical sources, including the treatment relationship, consistency, specialization, and support.

Terry v. Saul · filed 2020-11-25(c)(2)-(6)

Nevertheless, the ALJ was required to evaluate the opinions “based on the same kinds of factors that are used to evaluate acceptable medical sources, such as the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; the consistency of the opinion with other evidence; whether the treater is a specialist; and the quality of support of the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source to receive greater weight than one from an acceptable source depending on the case, while § 404.1527(d) reserves the ultimate disability determination to the Commissioner.

Rodriguez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-30(f)(1), (d)

Although it is proper to give the opinions of acceptable medical sources greater weight than the opinions of non-acceptable medical sources, the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source may, depending on the facts of a particular case, be given greater weight than the opinion of an acceptable medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1). The mere fact that NP Allen is a nurse practitioner was not a germane reason to reject her opinion. ... The ALJ correctly noted that it is within his purview, and not NP Allen’s, to make the ultimate disability determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); see also McLeod v. Astrue, 640 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2011) (a treating physician’s opinion is not binding on an ALJ with respect to the existence of an impairment or the ultimate determination of disability). This was a proper reason to give no weight to the ultimate disability determination by NP Allen. But it is not a germane reason with respect to other aspects of NP Allen’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned, and consider the listed factors.

Fessenden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-30(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to assess whether a treating source’s opinion is supported and consistent before giving it controlling weight, while § 404.1527(d)(1) treats an opinion that a claimant is unable to work as an issue reserved to the Commissioner that may be considered in assigning weight.

Armijo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-02(c)(2) and (d)(1)

The treating physician rule requires the ALJ to engage in a two-step inquiry. First, the ALJ decides whether the opinion is owed controlling weight. ... The second inquiry is triggered if the ALJ finds that the opinion is not owed controlling weight. Id. In that case, the ALJ must apply a set of six-factors supplied by the regulations to assess what if any weight to assign the opinion. ... The Court finds that the ALJ documented “sufficiently specific” reasons for declining to give Dr. Laughter’s opinion controlling weight. See id. ... As discussed supra, the ALJ in the instant case did make one of the required step one findings. See AR at 27–28; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Consequently, Baiett is distinguishable. ... A statement by a medical source that a claimant is “unable to work” is not a medical opinion because it is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). When such an opinion is rendered, the ALJ “must evaluate all the evidence in the case record to determine the extent to which the opinion is supported.” SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *2. ... The ALJ was thus permitted to consider both the fact that Dr. Laughter opined on an issue reserved to the commissioner and the evidence contradicting such an opinion. And because the ALJ gave good reasons for the weight given to this opinion, the Court holds that the ALJ did not err in this respect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(4) provides that a consultative physician’s opinion is not entitled to the same deference as a treating physician’s opinion and is evaluated under the listed weighing factors.

Rodriguez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-12-02(c)(1)-(4)

We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the weight that the ALJ accorded to Dr. Danger’s opinion. As a consultative physician, Dr. Danger was not entitled to the same deference that an ALJ would accord to a treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(4); § 404.1527(c)(2). Some of Rodriguez’s treatment notes undercut the severity of the limitations that Dr. Danger described and explain the ALJ’s decision to give partial weight to Dr. Danger’s opinion. Indeed, the ALJ relied on those treatment notes to determine that Rodriguez’s limitations were not as severe as Dr. Danger opined and to adjust his range of work to exclude working at production rate pace or performing tasks involving the safety and welfare of others.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider relevant regulatory factors when weighing medical opinions and explain reasons for giving an opinion less weight.

Harris v. Saul · filed 2020-12-03(c)(1)-(4)

The ALJ needed to consider the relevant regulatory factors, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and then “minimally articulate” his reasons for affording the opinions less weight. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Berger v. Astrue, 516 F.3d 539, 545 (7th Cir. 2008)). Here, the ALJ was aware that Dr. Lee was Harris’s treating psychiatrist who examined her almost monthly for at least three years, but he reasonably focused on how Dr. Lee’s conclusions were unsupported by, and inconsistent with, his notes in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Leyba v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-07(c)

Although ALJs need not discuss every piece of evidence, they are required to evaluate every medical opinion in the record and explain how much weight is assigned to each opinion and why. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b)-(c), 416.927(b)-(c); SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, SSR 96-5p 1996 WL 374183 at *5. In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician's opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the listed factors, and § 404.1527(f)(2) requires consideration and explanation of the weight given to other-source opinions that may affect the outcome.

Farewell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-07(c), (f)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to evaluate a medical opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and source specialty.

English v. Saul · filed 2020-12-08(c)

Although the ALJ correctly explained that under the regulations3 Napolitano was not an “acceptable medical source,”4 her opinion could still be considered under the standard factors for assessing a medical opinion: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the consistency and supportability of the source’s opinion; and the source’s specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(f)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) identifies factors, including familiarity with Social Security programs, that may be considered when evaluating medical opinions.

Cook v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-10(c)(2)-(6)

Included among the relevant factors to be considered is familiarity with SSA programs. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) makes a medical source’s specialization a relevant factor in weighing an opinion and permits greater weight for a specialist’s opinion, but does not permit rejecting a treating physician’s opinion solely because the physician is not a specialist.

Farnsworth v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-12-11(c)(5)

A medical provider’s specialization is a relevant consideration in weighing medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5). While the ALJ may give more weight to a specialist, it is error for the ALJ to reject a treating physician’s opinions solely based on this reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing it under the listed factors.

Frantz v. Saul · filed 2020-12-14(c)(2)-(6)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). “When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion, does not require an ALJ to explain every evaluation factor when valid reasons support the weight given, and reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner.

Neumann v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-15(c), (d)(1)-(2)

The treating physician doctrine recognizes that medical professionals who have a long history of caring for a claimant and his maladies generally possess significant insight into his medical condition. See Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 1994). An ALJ must, therefore, give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source if: (1) the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). ... The ALJ properly weighed Dr. Aburashed’s opinions and articulated valid reasons, supported by substantial evidence the record, for not giving them controlling weight. That is, the ALJ found that Dr. Aburashed’s opinions were inconsistent with the medical record in general and in particular with Dr. Aburashed’s own treatment notes.2 This was an adequate explanation, and the ALJ was not required to explain how he evaluated each factor in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 786 (6th Cir. 2017). ... Moreover, the issue of disability is reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not give non-treating medical opinions the same presumption of weight as treating-source opinions, and an ALJ need not explicitly enumerate every regulatory factor.

Magoon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-15(c)

As to Plaintiff's argument that the ALJ did not properly consider the opinions pursuant to Section 404.1527, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive. Drs. Padmaraju and Wassef are not treating physicians, and thus, their opinions are not subject to the same presumption of weight as those of a treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Further, an "ALJ is not required to explicitly enumerate all of the regulatory factors[.]"

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the treating relationship and its length or frequency, as well as supporting evidence, explanation quality, consistency with the record, and the source's specialty.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-12-21(c)

“[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). ... Moreover, the ALJ did not consider other factors such as the treating relationship, the nature of the treating relationship, or the length or frequency of the treatment, especially given the plaintiff’s long history with the treating source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider six factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require expressly applying each factor if the decision clearly identifies the opinion's weight and the reasons for that weight.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-23(c)(1)-(6)

The factors that the ALJ was required to consider under the applicable regulation were as follows: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including the length of the relationship, frequency of examination, and nature and extent of the relationship; (3) supportability of the opinions; (4) consistency of opinions with the record as a whole; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) (effective for claims filed from Aug. 24, 2012 to Mar. 26, 2017). But the ALJ was not required to “apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give [the] medical opinion[s].” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). Instead, the decision need only be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave . . . the opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to apply the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion that is not given controlling weight.

Blanton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-23(c)

If the ALJ does not give the opinion controlling weight, then he must apply the applicable factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to decide how much weight should be accorded to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to assign every medical opinion some weight, although not necessarily a specific evidentiary weight.

Bateman v. Saul · filed 2020-12-28(c)

Although the ALJ is not required to assign a medical opinion a specific weight, the ALJ must assign medical opinions some weight. See Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the examining and treating relationships, supportability, and consistency with the record as a whole.

REEDY v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-12-29(d)

In determining what weight to give a medical opinion, an ALJ must consider certain factors, including: the examining relationship, the treating relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... We conclude that the ALJ’s assignment of only partial weight to Dr. Jain’s opinion is adequately supported.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion from a non-treating, examining physician to consider its supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Baculik v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-29(c)(3)–(6)

Factors relevant to evaluation of an opinion from a non-treating, examining physician include “‘supportability’ in the form of the quality of the explanation provided for the medical opinion and the amount of relevant evidence—‘particularly medical signs and laboratory findings’—substantiating it,” “‘[c]onsistency,’ meaning how consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole,’” and “‘[s]pecialization,’ favoring ‘the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.’” (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4), (5)). The ALJ should also consider “any other factors ‘which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.’” (citing 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 every medical opinion received, regardless of its source.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-04(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 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, regardless of the opinion’s source.

Profitt v. SSA · filed 2021-01-04(c)

SSA regulations require that “[r]egardless of its source, [an ALJ] will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (emphasis added); Sharp v. Barnhart, 152 F. App’x 503, 507 (6th Cir. 2005) (“The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received . . .”) (alterations and quotations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed regulatory factors.

Siver v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-11(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using specified factors and gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-26(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ will consider the following factors for “every medical opinion [he or she] receive[s]’”: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) whether the source is a treating source, and, if so, the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence, “particularly medical signs and laboratory findings”; (4) the consistency of the opinion “with the record as a whole”; (5) whether the opinion is authored by “a specialist” and is “about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty”; and (6) other factors “which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); ... It is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions using the examining relationship, specialization, consistency, supportability, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Saunders v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-27(c)

These opinions are weighed “‘based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency, and supportability.’” Hobbs, at *3 (quoting Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376); 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)). ... Rather, opinions from one-time consultative examiners are not due any special degree of deference. ... The ALJ did not err by giving this opinion only partial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, and § 404.1527(c)(3) directs the Social Security Administration to give more weight to a medical opinion when its source provides a better explanation.

Kuerst v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-29(c), (c)(3)

Regarding the ALJ’s third reason, a finding that a physician’s opinion is not well explained 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). ... The Ninth Circuit has held that failing to discuss a medical opinion generally does not constitute harmless error. Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (“the ALJ’s disregard for Dr. Johnson’s medical opinion was not harmless error and Dr. Johnson’s opinion should have been considered”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (requiring the evaluation of “every medical opinion” received)); see also Marsh v. Colvin, 792 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[A]n ALJ cannot in its decision totally ignore a treating doctor and his or her notes, without even mentioning them.”). Further, for the reasons discussed above, the ALJ has not provided specific and legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Gritzka’s opinion, and the ALJ erred in not evaluating the opinions of Dr. Palasi, Dr. Patterson, and Dr. Connolly.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 reserves RFC determinations to the Commissioner and requires the ALJ to evaluate and assign weight to all medical opinions.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-04(d)(2), (b), (c)

The determination of a claimant’s RFC is an issue reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). In formulating the RFC, the ALJ evaluates all medical opinions in the record and assigns a weight to each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b), 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to evaluate opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, and § 404.1527(f)(2) requires an explanation of the weight assigned that is sufficient to permit review of the ALJ’s reasoning.

Schroeder v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-02-04(f), (f)(2)

Even though Ms. Griffin and Ms. Tumoris were not acceptable medical sources, the ALJ still considered their opinions. See Rice v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., No. SAG-16-2582, 2017 WL 2274947, at *3 (D. Md. May 24, 2017) (citing SSR 06-3P) (noting that “the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source . . . is relevant in determining the severity of an impairment and its impact on an individual’s ability to function”); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f) (explaining how opinions that do not come from acceptable medical sources should be evaluated). The ALJ explained that the opinions were entitled to “little weight” because they were inconsistent with other medical evidence. Tr. 24-25. The ALJ’s explanation of the weight assigned to the opinions is sufficient to allow this Court to follow the ALJ’s reasoning. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion using factors including examination, treatment, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record, while § 404.1527(d)(2) treats residual functional capacity and ability to work as matters reserved to the Commissioner, so a physician’s opinion on them is not dispositive.

Hollingsworth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-05(c), (d)(2)

When evaluating a doctor’s opinion, an ALJ may consider numerous factors such as whether the doctor examined the claimant, whether the doctor treated the claimant, whether the doctor uses evidence to support his or her opinion, and whether the doctor’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... A claimant’s RFC is a matter reserved for the ALJ’s determination, and while a physician’s opinion on the matter is considered, it is not dispositive. Id. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) identifies six factors for an ALJ to consider when weighing a medical opinion, and does not require an explicit conclusion as to each factor if the ALJ considered them.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2021-02-05(c)(1)-(6)

The six factors include the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)(6). Plaintiff's argument fails because the ALJ properly considered these factors by noting the type and length of Dr. Broadnax’s relationship with plaintiff, and also pointed to substantial evidence in the record that was inconsistent with her findings. The ALJ did not need to explicitly describe his conclusion as to each factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount an opinion that lacks support in the record or conflicts with the record as a whole and requires consideration of treatment-relationship factors when weighing other-source opinions.

McGuire v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-05

An ALJ may properly discount an opinion for this reason. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3); see also Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2005) (an ALJ need not accept an opinion that is “brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings”). Given the severity of limitations Dr. Montoya attributed to Plaintiff, it was reasonable for the ALJ to expect them to be supported by clinical findings. Instead, Dr. Montoya’s opinion was presented in the form of a checklist with the most severe box in every category checked off. AR 1280–82. Thus, the ALJ provided a specific, legitimate reason for discounting Dr. Montoya’s opinion by pointing to the lack of support in the record. ... Second, the ALJ found that Dr. Montoya’s opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole. AR 68. Where an opinion conflicts with the record as a whole, an ALJ may discount it. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4); Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154–55. ... These contradictions in the record provided the ALJ another specific, legitimate reason to discount Dr. Montoya’s assessment. ... In assessing the opinions of “other” medical sources, ALJ’s are required to consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of treatment. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). The fact that LPC Richards and NP McDonald’s treatment relationship with Plaintiff was one of relatively limited scope provided the ALJ with a germane reason to give their opinions limited weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using specified factors and explain the weight assigned, including when a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight.

Estrovitz v. Saul · filed 2021-02-08(c)

Even if the ALJ does not give treating source opinions controlling weight, the opinions are still entitled to deference, and the ALJ must still evaluate those opinions using the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and 416.927.1 Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. After considering the factors, the ALJ must provide good reasons in the decision for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider an examining psychologist's lack of familiarity with the claimant's longitudinal treatment and functioning when weighing the psychologist's opinion.

Ford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-08(c)(6)

The ALJ did not err in discounting the examining psychologists due to their lack of familiarity with Plaintiff’s longitudinal treatment and functioning. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to apply the regulatory factors and explain the rationale for the weight assigned, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor if the substance of the regulation was applied.

Greenberg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-10(c)

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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider each acceptable medical source opinion and assign it weight when evaluating medical opinion evidence.

Natale v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-11(c)

An ALJ must consider the acceptable medical source opinions of record and assign weight to each. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In this respect, an ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts and ambiguities in the medical evidence. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 722 (9th Cir. 1998). To reject the contradicted opinion of a treating or examining physician, the ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons for doing so. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1995).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A medical source's limited familiarity with the claimant's longitudinal record can be a specific, legitimate reason to discount the source's opinion.

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

Dr. Widlan’s limited familiarity with Plaintiff’s longitudinal record adequately explains why his opinions are less persuasive, and would also constitute a specific, legitimate reason to discount his opinions under the old regulations as well. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the agency to evaluate every medical opinion and directs it to weigh examining relationship, supportability, and consistency, generally giving more weight to examining, well-supported, and consistent opinions.

Matias v. Saul · filed 2021-02-12

Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive. Unless we give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion. (1) Examining relationship. Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you. . . . (3) Supportability. 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. Furthermore, because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions. We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources. (4) Consistency. Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion. ... Because the Additional Medical Evidence indicates that Plaintiff’s well-documented issues with her right wrist were getting worse, which would indicate greater limitations on Plaintiff’s functioning, and in light of the applicable principles regarding the weight given to the opinions of examining physicians, this Court concludes there is a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the ALJ’s Decision would have been different if the ALJ had considered the Additional Medical Evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to consider specified treatment-relationship and opinion factors when evaluating the opinion.

Rucker v. Saul · filed 2021-02-16(d)(2), (f)(2)

An ALJ is required to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight only if it is “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and is consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008)). ... Having not afforded Dr. Udrea’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ was required “to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion.” Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009)). The ALJ adequately did so when he acknowledged that Dr. Udrea was Rucker’s treating specialist but noted that Dr. Udrea had examined Rucker only a few times before offering her opinion, Rucker was still adjusting to medication, Dr. Udrea gave little explanation for her opinions, and the marked and extreme limitations were inconsistent with Rucker successfully learning and using coping strategies, maintaining logical thought processes, and improved concentration. (Tr. 31.) ... Although the ALJ did not explicitly refer to Fox’s specific opinions that Rucker would need a sit / stand option, an unscheduled break, and unrestricted bathroom access, Rucker has not shown that the ALJ’s failure to do so was error. The authority she cites does not support her assertion. The general reasons the ALJ provided for discounting Fox’s opinion overall were good reasons for discounting these specific aspects of her opinion, and that was all that was required. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors when deciding the weight of a medical opinion and meaningfully discuss that consideration so judicial review is possible.

Dockery v. Saul · filed 2021-02-16(c)(1)–(6)

One such procedure is the requirement that the ALJ consider all of the enumerated factors in the regulations in deciding the weight to give any medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416(c)(1)–(6). In this case, the ALJ did not engage in a meaningful discussion of the factors so as to facilitate judicial review. Mascio, 780 F.3d at 637.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion when deciding a disability claim.

(SS) Rico v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-17(b) and (c)

The ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) and (c) (applying to claims filed before March 27, 2017); Mora v. Berryhill, No. 1:16–cv–01279–SKO, 2018 WL 636923, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018). ... The ALJ did not address this second evaluation in her opinion, and the Commissioner acknowledges this omission but contends it was harmless. ... The Court finds that the ALJ erred in failing to address Dr. Moses’s November 2014 opinion, see Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (“The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence”), and turns to whether the error was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion less weight after considering the regulatory factors, including its supportability and consistency with objective medical evidence.

Power v. Commissioner, of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-17(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

As a general rule, the medical opinion of a treating source is given great weight, and if it is well-supported by the medical evidence and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record, it is given controlling weight. However, after considering the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) factors, an ALJ may decide to give it less weight. ... Inconsistency with the objective medical evidence is a permissible reason for discounting treating source opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the source relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors, and permits little weight for an opinion unsupported by the record.

Douthitt v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-02-17(a)(1), (b), (c), (c)(2), and (d)

An ALJ is required to consider medical opinions along with all other relevant evidence in a claimant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” § 404.1527(a)(1). ... The ALJ stated that no treating or examining provider submitted a function by function assessment of Douthitt’s abilities and limitations. She gave little weight to Dr. Bassett’s opinion that Douthitt could not use his left arm for work because the record evidence did not support that limitation. The record is replete with examination findings that Douthitt had a full range of motion in his left shoulder and lacks evidence that he could not use his arm to work.12 See § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and explain the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion and permits declining controlling weight when the opinion lacks clinical support or is inconsistent with the record.

GRANIERI v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-02-18(c)(2)-(6)

A treating physician’s opinion “does not bind the ALJ.” Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 196 n.2 (3d Cir. 2011). When assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must demonstrate that he or she has considered it and explain why it was or was not given weight. In general, a treating physician’s opinion carries greater weight than that of a one-time consultant, especially one who has not examined the patient. However, where an opinion is not supported by the clinical evidence, is internally inconsistent, or is inconsistent with evidence in the record, the ALJ may choose not to assign a medical opinion controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2). That weighing process, however, cannot be assumed, but must appear in the record: “[If] the opinion of a treating physician conflicts with that of a non-treating, non-examining physician, the ALJ may choose whom to credit but cannot reject evidence for no reason or for the wrong reason.” Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000). I find under the foregoing standards that the ALJ properly considered the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ assessing medical opinions to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialty, and other relevant factors.

Terranova v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-18

In assessing the medical opinions of record, an ALJ is required to consider the factors specified by 20 C.F.R. §404.1527, which include: (1) the nature of the physician’s relationship to the claimant – treating, examining, etc.; (2) the supportability of the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with other evidence of record; (4) the physician’s area of specialty, if any; and (5) other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of factors such as the relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and familiarity with the claimant’s history when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Smith v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-19(c)

Consultative examiners, such as McKinney and Weaver, are designated as “other medical sources,” requiring the ALJ to consider several factors when determining the weight to give the opinions. Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502; Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873, 875 (6th Cir. 2007)). These factors include the length and nature of the relationship, evidence supporting the opinion, whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, whether the physician was practicing in his or her specialty, and other factors such as the familiarity with claimant’s history and record. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) recognizes controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion subject to contradiction, while § 404.1527(c)(4) favors greater weight for an opinion consistent with the medical evidence and the record.

Dickson v. Saul · filed 2021-02-24(c)(2), (c)(4)

While a treating physician’s opinion generally receives “controlling weight,” see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), “if the treating doctor’s opinion is contradicted by another doctor, the ALJ may discount the treating physician’s opinion by giving specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record,” Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The ALJ offered specific and legitimate reasons to reject Dickson’s treating physicians’ opinions. Namely, the ALJ assigned those physicians’ opinions little weight because they were inconsistent with the medical evidence and the physicians’ own notes and this reasoning is supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ assigned great weight to Dr. Karen Mansfield-Blair’s opinion because it was consistent with the medical evidence and Dickson’s daily activities. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as judgments by acceptable medical sources about impairments and restrictions, denies controlling weight to a non-treating source's opinion, and gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Johnson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-24(a)(1), (a)(2), (c)(2), (d)(1), (d)(3)

According to the applicable regulation, “[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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (a)(1). As noted by the ALJ, Dr. Smith was unable to provide any definitive statements on what Plaintiff could do despite his impairments, and he did not provide any physical restrictions. While the ALJ was required to evaluate the opinion, because Dr. Smith was not Plaintiff’s treating physician, his opinion was not entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) and (c)(2). Here, the ALJ provided specific reasons for the weight given to Dr. Smith’s opinion. ... An opinion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work constitutes an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, which is not entitled to any special significance, even if from a treating source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), (3) (“We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using six factors, including examination and treatment relationship, supportability and consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Thomas v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-25(c)(1)-(6)

In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treatment relationship with the claimant and, if so, the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the source’s opinion with respect to all of the evidence of record; whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including what the claimant can still do and the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions; treatment records standing alone are not medical opinions that must be assigned weight.

Felicetti v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-23(a)(1)

Pursuant to the Commissioner’s regulations, “[m]edical opinions are statements . . . 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). Drs. Bateman’s and Munson’s treatment records, standing alone, do not constitute medical opinions to which the ALJ would have been required to assign weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the source's treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Williams v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-24(c)

In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treatment relationship with the claimant and, if so, the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the source’s opinion with respect to all of the evidence of record; whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion by considering its listed factors and assigning it weight.

Wolf v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-25(c)

The ALJ provided no analysis, failed to assign weight to the opinion, and provided no discussion of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) allows an ALJ to consider an opinion’s consistency with the record, while § 404.1527(d) gives no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Hutchinson v. Saul · filed 2021-03-01

The consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole is a legitimate factor for an ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... The regulations make clear that an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, such as whether a person is able to work, is not due “any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Therefore, the ALJ did not err in disregarding those portions of the doctors’ opinions that specifically comment on Plaintiff’s ability to work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating medical opinion evidence, but does not require specific findings on each factor or an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Constantino v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-02(c)(2)-(6)

While the ALJ is charged with considering the factors set forth at 20 CFR §404.1527 when evaluating medical opinion evidence, he is not required to articulate specific findings as to each of these factors. Indeed, neither the regulations or Sixth Circuit case law requires an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider each acceptable medical source opinion and assign it weight.

O'Bryant v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-03(c)

An ALJ must consider the acceptable medical source opinions of record and assign weight to each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... On this issue, the Court finds that the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for giving Dr. Nolan’s medical opinion “moderate weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to base the RFC assessment on the medical opinions and totality of the record and to consider each medical opinion together with the other relevant evidence.

(SS) Criton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(b), (d)

The ALJ’s determination of a claimant’s RFC must be based on the medical opinions and the totality of the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 404.1546(c). ... In weighing and evaluating the evidence, the ALJ must consider the entire case record, including each medical opinion in the record, together with the rest of the relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... Here, the ALJ cited medical evidence and treatment records to support her RFC finding that Plaintiff could perform light work. ... The ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by the record as a whole and by Plaintiff’s improved functions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the source’s examination and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other supporting or contradictory considerations.

Gassiraro v. Saul · filed 2021-03-05(c)

All medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners, are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) the length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of the opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanations; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3) permits an ALJ to evaluate the evidence and explanations supporting a medical source's findings.

Gephart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-08(d)(3)

An ALJ is entitled to evaluate the evidence and explanations that support a medical source's findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s statement reflecting judgments about an impairment and its functional restrictions, and requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using listed factors.

Schmitz v. Saul · filed 2020-07-24(a)(1)

The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received according to a list of factors set forth by the Social Security Administration. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairments, including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... Accordingly, this evidence is not a “medical opinion,” and the ALJ was not required to provide reasons to reject it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements from physicians, psychologists, and other acceptable medical sources as medical opinions, denies nonacceptable sources special treating-source weight, but permits consideration of relevant evidence and the section's factors when weighing them.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-24(a)(1), (c)

This is an incorrect assumption. APN Miller is not considered an “acceptable medical source” for purposes of this case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a). Her report therefore does not constitute a “medical opinion.” Rather, “[m]edical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources. . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). It follows that APN Miller’s opinion is not entitled to any special weight under § 404.1527(c), the so-called “treating source rule.” SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *2. ... While APN Miller’s opinion is not entitled to any special deference, the ALJ did consider it. The ALJ is required to consider “all relevant evidence” and may, as appropriate, consider the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c) in the process of weighing the opinions of nonacceptable medical sources. SSR 06-3p, at * 4-5.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed factors.

Cuda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-24(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Guerin v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-03(c)

However, an examining medical-source opinion “may be dismissed or discounted” if the ALJ properly evaluates the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and § 416.927(c) and provides “specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting it.” ... The evaluation should consider (1) whether the provider had an examining relationship; (2) whether the provider had a treatment relationship, taking into account (i) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record; (5) the specialization of the provider in the area; and (6) “other factors” raised by the claimant. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider non-treating medical opinions under the regulatory factors and explain the weight assigned, but those opinions are not entitled to controlling weight.

Harrison v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-08-03(c)

Unlike treating-source opinions, however, opinions from examining and non-examining sources are never entitled to controlling weight, and the ALJ is not required to give "good reasons" for the weight given to non-treating source opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Smith v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 482 F.3d 873, 876 (6th Cir. 2007) ("SSA requires ALJs to give reasons for only treating sources"). The ALJ is merely to consider their opinions under the relevant regulatory factors and is not bound by any findings made by these sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Under this deferential standard, ALJs are required only to (1) consider the opinions and (2) explain in the decision the weight given to the opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating medical opinions and to explain the weight assigned to each opinion.

Lucero v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-18(d)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when evaluating all medical opinions: (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. ... Neither the regulations nor the Court require a factor-by-factor recitation, but the ALJ’s findings must be “sufficiently specific to make clear” the weight assigned to the source opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats statements from acceptable medical sources as medical opinions when they reflect judgments about an impairment's nature, severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining capabilities, or physical or mental restrictions, but not mere treatment notes lacking such functional judgments.

Horne v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(a)(2)

The regulations define “medical opinions” as “statements from 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 impairment(s), and [a claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). “Medical opinions do not include the results of objective tests, such as any clinical or diagnostic techniques,” and they “differ from mere treatment notes, which merely list the symptoms detailed by the [p]laintiff and/or tests performed by the doctor.” ... As an initial matter, the records described above do not detail Horne’s functional limitations based on her diagnoses and symptoms and, in the Court’s view, appear to constitute treatment notes. As explained above, these notes list Horne’s symptoms and diagnoses or diagnostic impressions, detail certain tests administered and explain results, and describe various treatment plans, which, without more, are generally not considered medical opinions. ... Significantly, the reports cited by Horne do not contain “judgments regarding what [Horne] can or cannot do relative to [her] diagnoses and symptoms.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions under the treating-physician rule and consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when determining the weight to give an opinion.

Skelton v. Saul · filed 2020-05-11(c)

If a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it is entitled to controlling weight. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631 (9th Cir 2007). If a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ considers several factors in determining what weight it will be given. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. Those factors include the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination” and the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii)). Additional factors relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of any medical opinion, not limited to that of a treating physician, include: (1) the supportability of the opinion; (2) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the specialization of the treating or examining source; and (4) any other factors that are brought to the ALJ’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 1 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) identifies factors an ALJ should consider when assessing the value of a medical opinion.

Peralta v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-12(c)

To aid in the ALJ’s analysis, the Regulations set forth several factors that should be considered when assessing the value of each medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300-01 (10th Cir. 2003) (the “20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 factors”). While not every factor will be applicable in every case, the ALJ must at least explain his decision in a manner that is “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers.” Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119 (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors including examination, treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization when weighing medical opinions, and to explain the rejection of material portions.

Townsend v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)

SSA regulations provide that an ALJ will consider the following factors in determining the weight to give a medical opinion: (1) whether the provider has examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider has treated the patient and the extent of any such treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by evidence, including medical signs and laboratory findings; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether the source specializes in an area of medicine relevant to the opinion provided; and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); ... Where an ALJ “adopts only portions of a medical opinion,” he or she “must explain why the remaining portions were rejected.” ... However, he failed to acknowledge that Dr. Huyck is a specialist in occupational medicine and an examining physician who is familiar with SSA regulations. The ALJ’s failure to address these factors was in error, as was his rejection of a material component of Dr. Huyck’s opinion without an adequate explanation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) makes the ALJ responsible for evaluating a medical opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole.

Marshall v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-15(c)(4)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ–not the opining physician–is charged with evaluating the “consistency of [an] opinion with the record as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to address the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, while reserving the ultimate determination of whether a claimant is disabled to the Commissioner and not requiring a treating physician to explain an opinion in regulatory disability terms.

Decker v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-15(c), (d)(1)

There is no requirement that a treating physician explain his or her opinion in terms of the requirements for disability under the Act—indeed, the decision whether an individual meets the statutory requirements for disability is an issue reserved to the Commissioner. ... Further, the ALJ failed to address the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) for evaluating medical opinions, particularly the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, and the evidence in support of Dr. Diez de Pinos’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs administrative law judges to weigh nontreating and nonexamining opinions using the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, rather than assigning controlling weight.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-15(c)(1), (c)(3)-(6)

Instead, administrative law judges weigh these opinions based on whether there is an “examining relationship”, supportability, consistency, specialization of the source, and other factors” that “tend to support or contradict the opinion”.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor if the stated reasons permit meaningful appellate review.

Marler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-20(c)

Although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor, the reasons stated must be “sufficiently specific” to permit meaningful appellate review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in the case record a factor in deciding the weight of that source's medical opinion.

McVey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-21(c)(6)

Under the regulations, when deciding the proper weight to give medical opinions, one factor to consider is “the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in [the] case record. . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and permits controlling weight for a treating-source opinion that is well-supported and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Bourdeau v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-21(a)(2), (d)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, an ALJ is required to weigh and evaluate “every medical opinion.” Controlling weight may be given to a “treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairments 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. A “treating source” is a claimant’s “own acceptable medical source who provides . . . medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship” with a claimant. Id. at §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions but does not require discussion of every factor.

Blacker v. Saul · filed 2020-05-22(c)

In evaluating the weight assigned to medical opinions from treating sources, nontreating sources, and nonexamining sources, an ALJ must consider the following factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c): ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... An ALJ is not required to discuss every factor set forth in the relevant regulations. See Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (stating that when an ALJ does not discuss every factor, it “does not prevent this court from according his decision meaningful review”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to evaluate medical sources using the length and nature of the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency with the record, and the doctor's specialization.

Baglio v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-26(c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ can evaluate medical sources by using factors including the “length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the doctor.” See Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization; subsection (c)(3) gives more weight to better-explained opinions, while subsection (d) reserves disability and related determinations to the Commissioner.

Raburn v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-05-27(c), (c)(3), (d)

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. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c); see Davis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 449 F. App’x 828, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (stating that the ALJ will give more weight to the medical opinions of a source who has examined the plaintiff and opinions that are supported by medical signs and findings and are consistent with the overall “record as a whole”). ... According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), the determination of whether an individual is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner, and no special significance will be given to an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner. Section (d)(2) provides that although the Commissioner will consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as the RFC and the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding those issues is reserved to the Commissioner. ... Social Security regulations state that “[t]he better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

King-McDonald v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-29(c)

Further, the ALJ must evaluate any medical opinion according to the requirements set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Thus, in determining what weight to afford Dr. Hassman’s opinion, the ALJ was required to consider (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of Dr. Hassman’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion and the record as a whole; (4) whether Dr. Hassman is a specialist; and (5) other factors that would support or contradict Hassman’s opinion. The ALJ wholly failed to address these factors here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and assign it weight, considering factors such as examination, treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Engels v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-02(c)

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 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Macdonald v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-03(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 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider factors such as the medical relationship, examination frequency, consistency with the record, and objective support when deciding its weight.

Alter v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-09(b), (c)(1)-(6)

The ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion he receives. 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1527(b). In determining how much deference to give a physician’s medical opinion, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes between the opinions of treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)). Generally, an ALJ should give the greatest weight to a treating physician’s opinion and more weight to the opinion of an examining physician than a non-examining physician. See Andrews v. Shalala, 53 F.3d 1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 1995); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) (listing factors to be considered when evaluating opinion evidence, including length of examining or treating relationship, frequency of examination, consistency with the record, and support from objective evidence). However, an ALJ ‘“need not accept the opinion of any physician, including a treating physician, if that opinion is . . . inadequately supported by clinical findings.’” Bray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 554 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Thomas v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 947, 957 (9th Cir. 2002)). “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.” Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31). To meet this requirement, the ALJ must provide “a detailed and thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and making findings.” Cotton v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1403, 1408 (9th Cir. 1986). “The ALJ must do more than offer his conclusions. He must set forth his own interpretations and explain why they, rather than the doctors’, are correct.” Embrey v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 418, 421-22 (9th Cir. 1988).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator to consider all listed factors when deciding the weight to give a medical opinion.

Le Bow v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-10(c)

In addition, the ALJ’s failure to provide a rationale for rejecting the conflicting portion of Dr. Krueger’s opinion and declining to discuss the § 404.1527 factors is a violation of Social Security rules and regulations. See SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7 (“[I]f the RFC assessment conflicts with an opinion from a medical source the [ALJ] must explain why the opinion was not adopted.”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“[W]e consider all of the [] factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when evaluating a medical opinion, even though the ALJ need not discuss each factor explicitly.

Noble v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-10(c)

Ifa treating source is not given controlling weight, the ALJ will consider such factors as the length, frequency, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, and the supportability, consistency, and specialization of the treating providers medical opinion. ... The regulations do not require the ALJ to specifically discuss the factors, but only to consider them. ... Here although the ALJ noted the § 404.1527(c) factors there is no indication that the ALJ properly considered them when evaluating Dr. Maukonen’s medical opinion. ... The ALJ fails to explain why these one-time examinations should be given more weight than the years of treatment Plaintiff received from Dr. Maukonen. ... Therefore, the ALJ improperly discredited Dr. Maukonen’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner to apply the listed factors, state the legal rules used, and explain the weight assigned to the evidence.

Montgomery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-11(d)

In evaluating medical opinions on issues that are reserved to the Commissioner, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). The ALJ must clearly state the legal rules that he applies and the weight that he accords the evidence considered. ... Overall, the ALJ applied a consistent standard to the medical opinion evidence from plaintiff’s treating physicians, the consultative examiner, and several independent medical examiners. Although no opinion was assigned controlling weight, he assigned the greatest weight to those portions of the opinions that were most consistent with the available treatment record. This decision to discount specific portions of the various opinions was within his discretion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors; a treating opinion need not receive controlling weight if it is unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Kavanaugh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-12(c), (c)(2)

The 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, among other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... If a treating physician’s 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. ... 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 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors such as supportability, consistency, examining and treatment relationships, and expertise, and permits each statement to be weighed independently.

Brooks v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-23(a), (b), (c)(2)-(6)

The opinion of a reviewing agency physician must be assessed in light of the absence of a treating or examining relationship between the physician and the claimant, the support given for the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the reviewer’s relevant expertise. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). Each statement by a medical source reflecting that source’s judgment regarding a claimant’s impairments constitutes a medical opinion that may properly be weighed independently of the source’s other such statements. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a), (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When assessing a medical opinion, an ALJ gives more weight to an examining source, to an opinion that is more consistent with the record, and to a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s area of expertise.

Garcia v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2020-06-24(c)(1), (c)(4), and (c)(5)

An ALJ is guided by several factors when assessing a medical opinion, including: (1) “giv[ing] more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a [non-examining] medical source,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1); (2) giving more weight to a medical opinion the more consistent it is with the record, id. § 404.1527(c)(4); and (3) “giv[ing] more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist,” id. § 404.1527(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the source's relationship with the claimant, the support for the opinion, and its consistency with the medical evidence as a whole.

Edmondson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-06-26(c)

The court applies three factors in evaluating the weight an ALJ has given to an opinion provided in a medical source statement: (1) the medical source’s relationship with the claimant; (2) the evidence the medical source had to support the opinion; and (3) the degree of consistency between the medical source’s opinion and the medical evidence in the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the absence of a treating relationship and a source's status as an acceptable medical source, along with other relevant factors, when weighing a medical opinion.

Wahler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-29(c)

It was not error for the ALJ to consider the absence of a treating relationship between PT Stom or the fact that she is not an acceptable medical source alongside the other factors discussed, and consideration of those facts is in fact required by the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ragsdale v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-30(c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, inconsistency with the medical 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.”); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (An ALJ may give less weight to medical opinions that conflict with treatment notes).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

BURTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-06-24(c)(4)

The lynchpin to the consideration of medical opinion evidence is consistency. Id. § 404.1527(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 consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require a factor-by-factor recitation if the findings clearly explain the assigned weight and its reasons.

Zumerchik v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-02(c)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when evaluating all medical opinions: (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. Allman v. Colvin, 813 F.3d 1326, 1331–32 (10th Cir. 2016). Neither the regulations nor the Court require a factor-by-factor recitation, but the ALJ’s findings must be “sufficiently specific to make clear” the weight assigned to the source opinion and the reasons for that weight. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed using the regulation’s listed factors.

Valencia v. Saul · filed 2020-07-06(b), (c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ must take into account all medical opinions of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... The medical opinion of a treating physician is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... “When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency of the record.” ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ledford v. Saul · filed 2020-07-06(c)

Still, ALJs must evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight given to each medical opinion, and provide the reasons for assigning such weight. ... As with the opinion of Dr. Morton, the ALJ evaluated Dr. Marcus’s opinion and sufficiently explained why he gave little weight to her opinion as to Plaintiff’s social limitations and great weight to the remainder of her opinion. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in evaluating the medical opinion of Dr. Marcus.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to apply the treating-source evaluation factors to non-treating medical opinions, substituting examination of the claimant for the treatment relationship.

Stearns v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-06(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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wade v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-13(c)

An ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion in the record and assign a weight to each. Id. § 404.1527(c). ... 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); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and, in assessing its weight, consider factors including the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Gray v. Berryhill · filed 2020-07-16(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs adjudicators weighing a medical opinion to consider the provider relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Valdez v. Colvin · filed 2020-07-16(c)(1)–(6)

SSA regulation 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) lists factors used in deciding the weight given to a medical opinion, which should be employed at the second step of the Krauser analysis. The evaluation should consider (1) whether the provider had an examining relationship; (2) whether the provider had a treatment relationship, taking into account (i) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record; (5) the specialization of the provider in the area; and (6) “other factors” raised by the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives more weight to a medical opinion when it is supported by relevant evidence and a good explanation, and when it is consistent with the record as a whole.

Cramer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-17(c)(3), (c)(4)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. McNamara’s opinion because his statement that plaintiff had evidence of stage 2 to 3 liver disease was not supported by any references to medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”); ... With respect to the second reason, contradicting medical and non-medical evidence to Dr. McNamara’s ultimate opinion on disability existed. An inconsistency with the medical 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.”); Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) (an ALJ may give less weight to medical opinions that conflict with treatment notes).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole and its support from the source’s own findings when assigning the opinion weight.

McHugh v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-17(c)

The Court finds no error. The ALJ was permitted to consider whether Dr. Mansfield-Blair’s opinion was consistent with the record as a whole and the degree of supportability from the source’s own findings. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Thus, the ALJ’s reasons are clear and convincing. They are also supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, so an examining source is not automatically entitled to more weight than a non-examining source.

Ruenger v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-07-21(c)

Unless the ALJ gives a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ will consider various factors in deciding the weight to give to any medical opinion, including: the examining relationship, with more weight generally given to the medical opinion of an examining source than a non-examining source; treatment relationship, if any; supportability, with more weight given to opinions supported by relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; consistency, with more weight given to opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole; specialization, with more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... This is an incorrect statement of the law, which does not have a blanket requirement that an ALJ credit an examining source over a non-examining one. ... Under the regulations as outlined above, whether the physician has examined the claimant is just one factor the ALJ considers. ... Because the ALJ appropriately considered the consistency of the opinions with the examination findings and explained his reasoning for discounting the opinion of the examining source, he did not err.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Osburn v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-21(c)

The evaluation should consider (1) whether the provider had an examining relationship; (2) whether the provider had a treatment relationship, taking into account (i) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination and (ii) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record; (5) the specialization of the provider in the area; and (6) “other factors” raised by the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fields v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-22(b), (c)

The Regulations require an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). In deciding what weight to assign an opinion, an ALJ must consider the following factors: examining relationship; treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other factors. Id. at (c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions received when evaluating a disability claim.

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

The ALJ must consider all medical opinions that he receives in evaluating a claimant’s case. 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 received, regardless of its source.

Christopher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-09(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) requires the ALJ to consider every medical opinion, regardless of its source.

Proulx v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(c)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion received, regardless of its source.

Venezia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-01(b)-(c)

The ALJ must consider every relevant medical opinion in the record. ... While the ALJ gave little weight to the opinions expressed in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 forms, she failed to consider the 2017 form. See Tr. 31-33. This failure constitutes legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received and explain the treatment of pertinent medical opinions.

Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-08-02(c)

As such, the ALJ’s omission of any substantive evaluation of the Compensation and Pension examination was a harmful error and warrants remand. ... Under the Social Security regulations applicable to this case, the ALJ was obligated to “evaluate every medical opinion we receive”. 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 received, regardless of its source.

O'Connor v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-09-20(c)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). ... The ALJ’s failure to acknowledge or assign weight to the opinion contained therein frustrates judicial review to the extent that the matter must be reversed and remanded for further consideration.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received, including a licensed psychologist’s report that discusses a claimant’s symptoms and resulting impairments.

Sigman v. King · filed 2025-02-18(a)(1), (c)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received. ... Dr. Carraway’s report further qualifies as a “medical opinion” because the report discussed Plaintiff’s symptoms and how those symptoms resulted in various impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... Although the ALJ mentioned some information that is consistent with Dr. Carraway’s report, see AR 19 (discussing Plaintiff’s somatization disorder and GAF score of 45), the ALJ still did not explicitly reject or credit Dr. Carraway medical opinion. Failing to do so was in error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Bouvia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-30(c)

The Ninth Circuit has held that failing to discuss a medical opinion generally does not constitute harmless error. Hill v. Astrue, 698 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2012) (“the ALJ’s disregard for Dr. Johnson’s medical opinion was not harmless error and Dr. Johnson’s opinion should have been considered”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (noting that this regulation requires the evaluation of “every medical opinion” received)). ... Accordingly, while the ALJ erred in not evaluating the opinions of Dr. Covell and Dr. Fitterer, another remand would be unlikely to clarify the record further.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received; rejecting treating physicians’ opinions without discussing their limitations or explaining the rejection is error.

Petrucci v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-10(c)

Here, the ALJ has rejected the opinions of Dr. Ericson, Dr. Goel, and Dr. Broers without discussing the limitations contained in these opinions -- or explaining why the limitations they assessed were inconsistent with the medical record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received, including an examining physician’s stated functional limitations.

Arnold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(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(d)(2) and (3) requires the ALJ to consider medical-source opinions about whether an impairment meets or equals a listing, but leaves the final determination to the ALJ.

Sims v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(d)(2), (3)

Moreover, although the ALJ considers opinions from medical sources on issues such as whether impairments meet or equal the requirements of any listing, the final responsibility for deciding the issue is left for the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), (3). So, Dr. Ferguson’s diagnosis is not determinative.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Anthony v. Saul · filed 2020-03-24(c)(5)

A medical provider’s specialization is a relevant consideration in weighing medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Here, the ALJ noted that Dr. Lyko opined certain mental limitations despite not having mental health expertise. Tr. 27.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jones v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-25(b)

The ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence. 20 C.F. R. §§ 404.1527(b), 416.927(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to consider the supportability and consistency of opinion evidence, including when weighing other-source and state-agency opinions.

Moser v. Saul · filed 2020-04-27(c), (f)

The consistency of a medical opinion with the record as a whole and other opinion evidence is a germane factor for an ALJ to consider in evaluating the weight due to an “other source.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). ... In evaluating evidence from state agency consultants, ALJs may evaluate these opinions in the same way that they assess other medical opinion evidence in the file, including considering the supportability and consistency of the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1519a(b), 404.1527(c), 416.919a(b), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Bechtold v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(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(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

(SS) Wiedman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-11(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(b) requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence.

Rangel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-15(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(c)(2) gives a treating provider's medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the case record; otherwise, the opinion is weighed using the listed factors.

Vieira v. Saul · filed 2020-05-21(c)(2)-(6)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be weighed using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors; a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight only when well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Booze v. Saul · filed 2020-06-22(c)

All medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners, are weighed based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight, but is not inherently entitled to it. Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 2006). A treating physician’s opinion “does not automatically control or obviate the need to evaluate the record as [a] whole.” Leckenby v. Astrue, 487 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2007). A treating physician’s opinion will be given controlling weight if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Hacker, 459 F.3d at 937. “Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, the regulations provide that the ALJ must ‘always give good reasons’ for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation.” Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1013 (8th Cir. 2000). ... The longevity of treatment is an important factor in evaluating medical opinions as stated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Therefore, the ALJ did not err in failing to grant controlling weight to this opinion. ... the Court finds that the ALJ’s analysis is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs the weighing of medical opinions by considering factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's specialty.

Jernigan v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-27(c)(2)

In weighing the opinions of examining and non-examining sources, “the ALJ should consider factors including the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the evidence that the physician offered in support of her opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and whether the physician was practicing in her specialty.” Ealy, 594 F.3d at 514; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... The ALJ’s analysis thus shows that she considered Killian’s opinions in light of the relevant factors, see Ealy, 594 F.3d at 514, and ultimately found that aspects of those opinions were not entitled to significant weight given their inconsistency with other evidence in the record, including Jernigan’s daily activities and work history.