20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

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

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

Nevertheless, regulations to the Act impose a duty upon an ALJ to consider a non-treating medical source’s opinion pursuant to the factors articulated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and recapitulated above. ... The ALJ’s evaluation reflects direct consideration of the factors promulgated under § 404.1527(c). For example, the ALJ considered the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the other medical opinion evidence, and the extent to which the opinion is consistent with objective data and findings. As such, the ALJ applied the correct law in reaching his determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kumar v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-25(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as acceptable medical sources’ judgments about an impairment and the claimant’s remaining abilities and physical or mental restrictions, so a statement addressing only school accommodations and not work limitations is not a functional work opinion.

Munoz v. Saul · filed 2020-10-05(a)(1)

An ALJ is not required to provide reasons for rejecting statements within medical records when those records do not reflect physical or mental limitations or otherwise provide information about the ability to work. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite your impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”). Here, Dr. Barnard opined that Plaintiff’s intellectual and learning disorders required accommodation at school. Plaintiff fails to establish that her past work or the identified gainful work necessitate similar accommodation for audio materials or the use of a calculator. ... the ALJ reasonably interpreted Dr. Barnard’s opinion as not offering functional work limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-04(b)

An “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)(3) supports discounting a medical opinion that lacks supporting explanation, while § 404.1527(d) gives opinions on whether a claimant is disabled no special significance.

Dominguez v. Saul · filed 2021-03-02(c)(3), (d)

The Court finds the ALJ did not err. The ALJ reasonably discounted the letter as not including any specific functional limitations or any explanation for Plaintiff’s inability to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). The regulations make clear that opinions on the ultimate issue of disability are not due any special significance. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires the Commissioner to consider treating and examining-source opinions on issues such as residual functional capacity, while reserving final responsibility for deciding those issues to the Commissioner.

SIMMONS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-08(e)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2), the Commissioner will “consider opinions from treating and examining sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . [although] the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.” ... Although the ALJ did not credit every aspect of their opinion evidence, the ALJ did fully consider the opinions of Drs. Wener, Bittinger, Granville, Williamson, and Littell, and assigned weight to their opinions accordingly. (T-26). The ALJ properly provided specific reasons to assign less than fully favorable weight to these opinions. Id. The ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence or aspect of a medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Nyberg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-07(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) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Dunfee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-08(c)

The ALJ is required to evaluate medical opinions using the following factors: the examining relationship; the treatment relationship (including length of treatment and frequency of examination and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship); the opinion’s support; the opinion’s consistency with the record; the physician’s specialization; and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ afforded this opinion little weight, finding that it is “not consistent with the record, which contains Dr. Bjonback’s own notes” [R. 577]. ... The ALJ provided a thorough explanation for why she provided Dr. Bjonback’s opinion little weight. The ALJ looked to Dr. Bjonback’s own treatment notes and a nerve conduction study in finding that Dr. Bjonback’s opinion was not supported by the record. The ALJ provided the requisite logical bridge and supported her conclusion with evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical-opinion evidence, explain the reasons for the weight assigned, and consider its consistency with the record; a treating opinion need not be accepted uncritically.

FABIAN v. SAUL · filed 2021-06-30(c)

Inconsistency is an appropriate, valid, and acceptable reason for weighing opinion evidence. See, 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527; 416.927 (Evaluating Opinion Evidence). Moreover, an ALJ is not required to accept the treating physician’s opinion uncritically. Rather, the ALJ must weigh the opinion evidence along with all of the evidence of the record, as the ALJ did in this case. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Lee-Klein v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-06(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)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors in assigning weight.

Van Dusen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-11(c)(2)-(6)

The factors are whether there is an examining relationship; whether there is a treatment relationship, and if so, the length of the relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the relationship; whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider each medical opinion with the entire case record and to consider observations from other medical and nonmedical sources about a claimant’s ability to work.

Pahalad v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-07(b), (f)

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); ... The ALJ also must consider the opinions of other “medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and [the testimony] from nonmedical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). The ALJ is required to consider observations by “other sources” as to how an impairment affects a claimant’s ability to work. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence when determining disability.

Wiggins, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-30(b)

Consistent with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b) and 416.927(b), the ALJ considered the non-examining source opinions along with the other evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion in the record.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-01(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) permits an ALJ to consider the opinion of a non-treating physician when determining the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment.

Pulido v. Saul · filed 2021-11-10(f)

“The regulations specifically provide that the opinions of non-treating physicians may be considered.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)). ... While Dr. Gentle was a non-treating physician, the ALJ was still permitted to consider Dr. Gentle’s opinion. (Id.; see Hacker, 459 F.3d at 939 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f))).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinion evidence as statements from acceptable medical sources about an impairment's nature, severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, capabilities, or restrictions, so treatment records alone are not medical opinions.

SCRIMENTI v. SAUL · filed 2021-10-28(a)(1)

Medical opinion evidence is defined ... as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). The records referred to by Plaintiff from Dr. Hensler and Dr. Hogue are just that – treatment records. They are not medical opinions as defined by the regulations. Therefore, I find no merit to this argument.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

(SS) Pratt v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-05(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) requires consideration of the relevant factors when evaluating medical-opinion evidence, and an ALJ's statement that opinion evidence was considered under § 404.1527 is sufficient to satisfy that requirement.

Simanson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-04-19(c)

The ALJ, however, stated that he “considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 CFR 404.1527.” (R. at 30.) This Court has determined that such a statement is sufficient to meet the ALJ’s burden, and “[c]onsideration is all that is required.” See, e.g., Polk v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-19-04705-PHX-JAT, 2020 WL 3969825, at *6 (D. Ariz. July 14, 2020); Proctor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. Cv-19-05503-PHX-MTL, 2020 WL 6796767, at *14 n.4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 19, 2020). Thus, the ALJ complied with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), and the ALJ did not err in assigning little weight to Dr. Hnat’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Former § 404.1527 generally gave more weight to opinions from examining and treating sources because of their relationship with the claimant, but that framework no longer governs claims subject to the revised regulations.

Woods v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-22

The new regulations apply to Woods because she filed her claim on or after March 27, 2017. ... Under the 1991 rule, an ALJ gives “more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined [the claimant] than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined [her].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). In addition, the ALJ gives “more weight to medical opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [her] medical impairment(s).” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The revised social security regulations are clearly irreconcilable with our caselaw according special deference to the opinions of treating and examining physicians on account of their relationship with the claimant. ... Our requirement that ALJs provide “specific and legitimate reasons” for rejecting a treating or examining doctor’s opinion, which stems from the special weight given to such opinions, see Murray, 722 F.2d at 501–02, is likewise incompatible with the revised regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and explain the weight assigned to each opinion.

Vigil v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-06-21(c)

The applicable regulations and case law require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and discuss the weight assigned to those opinions.12 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); see also Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1215 (“[a]n ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, although the weight given each opinion will vary according to the relationship between the disability claimant and the medical professional.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the pre-amendment version of § 404.1527(c), treating physicians’ opinions generally receive more weight than consultants’ or non-examining sources’ opinions, and an ALJ must give good reasons for declining to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight.

Kimball v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2022-07-12(c)

Under § 404.1527(c), prior to amendment, generally a treating physician’s opinion was entitled to more weight than the opinions of consultants or non-examining sources, and the ALJ was required to give good reasons for the weight given to a treating source’s opinion if the ALJ did not give it controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source and bars discounting a workers’ compensation opinion solely because it arose in that proceeding.

Alvarado v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-20

An opinion given in connection with a workers’ compensation claim may be considered just like another other medical opinion. Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1014 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Although Dr. Yellin’s examination was performed in connection with a workers’ compensation claim, the ALJ was entitled to consider this opinion in relation to Prosch’s social security claim.”). “That a medical opinion was issued in connection with another disability proceeding does not change th[e] general rule” that an ALJ must evaluate medical source opinions. Slater v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-4038-KEM, 2022 WL 884920, at *4 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 24, 2022); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”). The difference between the disability standards for workers’ compensation claims and DIB claims is not reason alone to discount the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the record, including opinions predating onset or postdating the date last insured when they may bear on the disability claim.

Morris v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-04(c)(2)

The issue in Davidson concerned the medical opinion of a treating physician, but the court reasoned, in review of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), that an “ALJ is required to consider all medical opinions in the record” and that the “regulations do not provide any exception to that requirement for opinions that pre-date a claimant’s onset date.” ... however, under Davidson, the ALJ must consider medical opinions pre-dating the alleged onset of disability and post-dating the last insured date to determine their relevance to the plaintiff’s disability claim. Failure to consider the medical opinions contained in these records was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ discounting a medical opinion to make the supportability and consistency analysis discernible rather than merely summarize the evidence and state a conclusion.

Roberta M. Lilly v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-24(c)(3)-(4)

In evaluating medical opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017, an opinion from a treating source receives controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... If a source is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider (1) whether the source personally examined the plaintiff; (2) the treatment relationship the source has with the plaintiff; (3) to what extent the source presented “relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings[;]” (4) to what extent this opinion is consistent with the rest of the medical record; (5) whether the impairment at issue relates the source’s area of specialization; and (6) any other fact that tends to support or contradict the medical opinion, whether brought by a party to the ALJ’s attention or considered sua sponte. ... Defendant claims the ALJ analyzed the consistency and supportability of Dr. Sharma’s opinion, yet the court cannot discern why exactly the ALJ believed that either factor disfavors her conclusion. ... The ALJ did not sufficiently explain his decision to discredit the portion of Dr. Sharma’s opinion limiting plaintiff to two hours of standing and six hours of sitting per day.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a physician as a treating source only when there is an ongoing treatment relationship, so a single examination is insufficient.

Moye v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(a)(2)

One visit does not qualify Dr. Shaikh as a treating source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (a treating source must have an ongoing treatment relationship with claimant); Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1160 (physician examining claimant once was not treating source) (citing McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir.1987)); Wimberley v. Berryhill, No. 17-00558-B, 2019 WL 1418056, at *7 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 29, 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a treating source as an acceptable medical source with an ongoing treatment relationship with the claimant.

Bartholomay v. Saul · filed 2020-05-12(a)(2)

According to SSA regulations, a treating source is an “acceptable medical source who provides [the claimant] with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [the claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) treats a provider as a treating source only when the provider is an acceptable medical source with an ongoing treatment relationship.

Fisher v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-22(a)(2)

In order to be deemed a “treating source” for purposes of the treating physician rule, the provider must be both a an “acceptable medical source” and there must be an “ongoing treatment relationship.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2); ... Here, in contrast, the record does not support a finding that an ongoing treatment relationship existed between Dr. Swarn and Fisher. ... Considering that Fisher has not identified any evidence of a treatment relationship between Dr. Swarn and Fisher, the Court finds that that ALJ did not err in failing to mention or note that two of Nurse Santee’s opinions were co-signed by Dr. Swarn.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a treating source as an acceptable medical source with an ongoing treatment relationship, generally shown by treatment frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the claimant's condition.

Gates v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(a)(2)

Treating source means your own acceptable medical source who provides you, or has provided you, with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with you. Generally, we will consider that you have an ongoing treatment relationship with an acceptable medical source when the medical evidence establishes that you see, or have seen, the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your medical condition(s). We may consider an acceptable medical source who has treated or evaluated you only a few times or only after long intervals (e.g., twice a year) to be your treating source if the nature and frequency of the treatment or evaluation is typical for your condition(s). ... Consequently, the Court concludes that Dr. Reddy was not a treating source and that the ALJ did not commit error in declining to apply the treating physician rule in deciding how much weight to afford her opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a provider as a nontreating source when the claimant saw the provider only to obtain a disability-claim report rather than for medical treatment or evaluation.

Garcia v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-13(a)(2)

In a circumstance where a claimant’s relationship with the provider is “not based on [a plaintiff’s] medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on [the] need to obtain a report in support of” a claim for disability, the medical source is to be considered a “nontreating source”. See §404.1527. Based on the reason for Plaintiff’s single visit with Dr. Mihu, the relationship between Dr. Mihu and Plaintiff would not qualify Dr. Mihu as a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to reject a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks clinical support or conflicts with other record evidence.

Otero-Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(d)(2)

The ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion when it is not supported by clinical evidence or is inconsistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Arias v. Comm’r Soc. Sec’y, 70 F. App’x 595, 598 (1st Cir. 2003).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats a claimant’s residual functional capacity as a legal determination rather than a medical determination.

Wallace · filed 2026-02-12(d)

As noted above, the determination of a claimant’s RFC is a legal decision rather than a medical one. Thomas, 745 F.3d at 808 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves the determination of a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the ALJ rather than to a treating or examining physician.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-30(d)

As explained earlier, “[an] ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician’s opinion or choose between the opinions of any of the claimant’s physicians.” Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 845. Rather, “the determination of a claimant’s RFC is a matter for the ALJ alone—not a treating or examining doctor—to decide.” Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats a claimant's residual functional capacity as an administrative determination for the ALJ, so the RFC need not mirror a medical expert's opinion.

Bentley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-16(d)

“The determination of a claimant’s RFC is a matter for the ALJ alone . . . to decide.” Thomas v. Colvin, 745 F.3d 802, 808 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)); ... Thus, the RFC did not have to mirror the findings of any medical expert.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions in the case record.

Summers v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-04-03

As Plaintiff’s Brief suggests, an ALJ is required to evaluate all medical opinions in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Palencia - Orellana v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-05(c)

The Court begins with the premise that the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). Medical opinions are “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including . . . 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)(1); 416.927(a)(1). In weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ considers several factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors that 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 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions and evaluate them using the regulation's listed factors.

Lawrence v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-04-01(c)

Such opinions may not be ignored and, in a case such as this, where there is no treating source opinion, all medical opinions will be evaluated by the Commissioner in accordance with factors ... contained in the regulations. Id. § 404.1527(c); SSR 96-5p, West’s Soc. Sec. Reporting Serv., Rulings 123-24 (Supp. 2019). Those factors are: (1) length of treatment relationship and 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 defines medical opinions as judgments from acceptable medical sources about impairments and related limitations, while reserving disability determinations to the Social Security Administration.

Zions v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-07(a), (d)(1)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a), “medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairments(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions” (emphasis added). However, § 414.1527(d)(1) makes clear that it is the Social Security Administration, not the treating physician, who may opine on whether a claimant “meet[s] the statutory definition of disability.” Indeed, a “statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the Social Security Administration] will determine that [a claimant] is disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues related to the specialist’s area of specialty than to the opinion of a nonspecialist.

Rutledge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-24(c)(5)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist”). However, this reasoning cannot be applied to Dr. Arenas’ opinion regarding Plaintiff’s psychological conditions. See Anderson v. Colvin, 223 F. Supp. 3d 1108, 1121 (D. Or. 2016). In any event, Dr. Arenas stated Plaintiff’s chronic pain conditions worsen her emotional distress, “and add physical limitations to her already compromised functional status.” AR 1303 (emphasis added). The Court, therefore, finds this is not a specific, legitimate reason supported by substantial evidence for giving little weight to Dr. Arenas’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires meaningful evaluation of consultative examiners' opinions using the listed factors, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Helmick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04(c)

Consultative examiners’ opinions must be meaningfully evaluated according to the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(c), but an ALJ need not give “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors that include consistency with the overall medical record, but consultative examiners’ opinions receive no controlling weight and need not be addressed with the good-reasons explanation required for treating-source opinions.

Maynard v. SSA · filed 2024-09-26(c)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R.§ 404.1527(c), an ALJ must consider several factors when determining how much weight to give to a medical opinion, including how consistent the opinion is with the overall medical record. ... Further, as both parties acknowledge, Dr. Ford and Dr. Rhoads’ opinions are not given controlling weight because they are not Maynard’s treating providers. [See R. 21 at pg. 12; R. 26 at pg. 12]. Indeed, this Court has held in the past that “[i]t is well established that the opinions of consultative examiners are not entitled to controlling weight.” Caldwell v. Astrue, No. CIV. A. 08-350-HRW, 2009 WL 3756992, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 9, 2009) (citations omitted); see also Crider v. Colvin, No. CIV.A. 13-13-HRW, 2014 WL 2155261, at *4 (E.D. Ky. May 22, 2014) (consultative examiner’s opinion is not accorded any special weight or deference). While the ALJ must provide good reasons when explaining the weight that has been given to treating providers’ opinions, such a requirement is not needed when discussing an examining but non-treating opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504, 514 (6th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate a consultative examining psychologist’s opinion using the relevant relationship, supportability, consistency, expertise, and other factors, and to give good reasons for rejecting an acceptable medical source’s opinion.

Wilson v. Andrew Saul1, Commissioner, U.S. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-24(a)(1), (c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires meaningful evaluation of a consultative examiner’s opinion under the listed factors, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

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

Consultative examiners’ opinions must be meaningfully evaluated according to the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(c), but an ALJ need not give “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires ALJs to apply the medical opinion weighing factors to consultative examiners’ opinions.

Gainey v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-15(c)

20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (detailing the factors for weighing medical opinion evidence and instructing ALJs to apply the factors—including the length and nature of the source’s treatment relationship with the claimant, the supportability of the opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the other evidence in the record, whether the source is a specialist, and any other factors that may support or contradict the opinion—to all medical opinions, including those from consultative or one-time examiners.). ... Although Plaintiff may be able to point to selective records supporting his position, ultimately, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that these findings are unsupported by substantial evidence or controlled by an error of law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) calls for adjudicators to explain the weight given to opinions from other sources, or otherwise make their reasoning clear when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Liu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-05-26(f)(2)

The ALJ was not required to accord these “other source” opinions any special deference, but instead was merely required to consider those opinions and provide a sufficient explanation to allow a subsequent reviewer to follow his reasoning, which he did in this case. ... The regulations state that “[t]he adjudicator generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider opinions from medical providers who are not acceptable medical sources using the same evaluative factors applied to acceptable medical sources.

(SS) Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-05(f)

The ALJ must consider the opinions of medical providers who are not within the definition of an acceptable medical source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). Opinions of these sources are not entitled to the same deference as an acceptable medical source, and an ALJ may only disregard other medical source testimony by providing “reasons germane to each witness for doing so.” Turner, 613 F.3d at 1223-1224; Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2012). The factors to be considered in evaluating the opinion are the same factors used to evaluate acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). These factors are the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, length and frequency of treatment, the supportability of the opinion, consistency with the medical record, specialization of the source, and other factors that either support or contradict the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to acknowledge and evaluate an other-source opinion using the listed factors before assigning it weight.

Nickerson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-10(c)

Although the ALJ was not required to accept Ms. Magar’s opinion wholesale, he was required at least to acknowledge and evaluate it in light of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors. See Tolliver, 2013 WL 100087, at *3. His failure to do so was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ evaluating an other-medical-source opinion to consider the opinion, explain its weight, and give enough analysis for a later reviewer to follow the reasoning.

Bajema v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-10-19(f)

These revised regulations incorporate the policy in SSR 06-03p of separating acceptable medical sources (licensed physicians and certain other qualified specialists) from “other” medical sources, and generally giving less deference to “other” medical sources. It also incorporates the policies of requiring the ALJ to consider “other” medical source opinions, explain the weight given to such opinions, provide sufficient analysis to allow a subsequent reviewer to follow the ALJ’s reasoning, and to provide sufficient detail and explanation if the ALJ gives greater weight to an opinion from an “other” medical source than a medical opinion from a treating source. Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844, 5845; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the treatment of a nonmedical source opinion that may affect the outcome sufficiently for a claimant or reviewing court to follow the ALJ's reasoning.

Perkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-07(f)(2)

Because the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Ms. Urbanczyk’s questionnaire are largely conclusory and do not address other consistent evidence in the record, the Court cannot follow his reasoning. ... And that is especially problematic because Ms. Urbanczyk’s opinion well “may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, even when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2020-06-12(c)(2)–(6)

Thus, even when not accorded “controlling weight” under the applicable regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(c), a treating physician’s opinion is “entitled to the greatest weight.” ... First off, the ALJ did not consider the appropriate factors when determining the weight to be accorded Dr. Laxer’s opinion. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Hancock v. Saul · filed 2020-06-12(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

In conjunction with the relevant regulations, the Ninth Circuit “developed standards that guide [the] analysis of an ALJ’s weighing of medical evidence.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). ... “Those factors include the ‘[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’ by the treating physician; and the ‘nature and extent of the treatment relationship’ between the patient and the treating physician.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii)). ... Additional factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided; the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; the specialty of the physician providing the opinion; and ‘[o]ther factors’ such as the degree of understanding a physician has of the [Social Security] Administration’s ‘disability programs and their evidentiary requirements’ and the degree of his or her familiarity with other information in the case record. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wheeler v. Saul · filed 2020-06-15(c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2)(iii) permits an ALJ to call a medical expert when considering whether a claimant meets or equals a listed impairment, but does not require the ALJ to do so.

Lopez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-23(e)(2)(iii)

Second, while it is permissible for the ALJ to call a medical expert or advisor when considering whether a claimant meets or equals an impairment listing, it is not required. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(iii) (2016). The regulations are clear that the determination of whether Plaintiff’s impairments meet or equal a listed impairment is an adjudicative determination, not a medical one.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion for controlling weight.

Romero v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-23(d)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(5)

These factors include: “[1] the [l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; [2] the [n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship; [3] the relevant evidence . . . , particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; [4] the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and [5] whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.” Id. at 129 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(5)) (internal quotation mark removed); see also Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 94 (2d Cir. 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion for controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Meyer v. Comissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-26(c)

In determining whether to accord controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, factors to be considered by the ALJ include: (1) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(b) and (c)(1), an ALJ must consider nonexamining-source opinions and whether they are consistent with other independent evidence in the record.

Shilow v. Saul · filed 2020-06-24(b),(c)(1)

As the State agency consultants are nonexamining sources, the ALJ must consider the opinions and whether they are consistent with other independent evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b),(c)(1), 416.927(b),(c)(1); Tonapetyan, 242 F.3d at 1149; Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, gives a well-supported and consistent treating-physician opinion controlling weight, and otherwise requires weighing the opinion using specified factors including supportability and consistency.

Sehovic v. Berryhill · filed 2020-06-29(b), (c)(2)-(6), and (d)(3)

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). ... The ALJ gave “little weight” to Dr. Moeller-Bertram’s opinion, finding it to be “checklist opinion” unsupported by the objective medical evidence. ... As set forth below, the ALJ gave clear and convincing, specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence for giving Dr. Moeller-Bertram’s opinion little weight. ... The ALJ’s finding that, although Plaintiff complained of neck and back pain, the diagnostic findings and physical examination findings were mostly unremarkable in that they reflected “a mild decreased range of motion of her neck and no evidence of swelling or edema of her legs such that she would require elevation of her feet throughout the day or the need to lie down” (AR 28), was amply supported by the record. ... see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions and weigh them using factors including examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant information.

Villalobos v. Saul · filed 2020-06-29(c)(1)-(6)

The ALJ could properly assign little weight to the opinions of the state agency psychological consultants in this case under the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Drs. Barrons and Morris neither examined nor treated Rosa V., and thus their opinions were entitled to less weight than the opinions of sources who did examine and treat Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). The explanation offered by Dr. Barrons to support her opinion that Plaintiff had moderate psychological limitations was not based upon medical signs and laboratory findings but rather relied upon giving Rosa V.’s subjective complaints “some benefit of the doubt.” (Admin. R. 138, ECF No. 16.) This decreases the “supportability” of Dr. Barrons’s and Dr. Morris’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (providing that a medical opinion supported by “relevant evidence” such as “medical signs and laboratory findings” is entitled to more weight than one that does not). The inconsistency of these doctors’ opinions with the record as a whole also provides a basis to give these opinions lesser weight under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In general, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight is given to the opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating conflicting medical opinions to weigh the source’s examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Clark v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-29(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using the regulatory factors and permits giving less or no weight to an opinion that lacks supporting evidence or explanation or is inconsistent with the record.

Stancavage v. Saul · filed 2020-06-29(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs the ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion when its source provides a better explanation.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-08(c)(3)

With respect to the ALJ’s first reason, a finding that a physician has not cited objective evidence to support his or her opinion 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to a nonmedical-source opinion, or otherwise make the reasoning traceable, when the opinion may affect the outcome.

House Jr. v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-12-14(f)(2)

An ALJ “should explain ... the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) generally requires an ALJ evaluating an RFC opinion from a nonmedical source to consider the same applicable factors used for medical opinions, including examination, treatment relationship, support, consistency, specialty, and other supporting or contradictory factors.

Katzenmeier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(f)(1)

When considering the weight to assign an RFC opinion from a nonmedical source, the ALJ generally considers the same factors as with medical opinions, to the extent applicable: (1) whether the source has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (3) the extent to which the relevant evidence, “particularly medical signs and laboratory findings,” supports the opinion; (4) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is related to the source’s area of specialty; and (6) other factors “which tend to support or contradict the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to consider a nonmedical source’s opinion about issues also addressed in medical opinions and does not permit discounting the opinion merely because its author is not an acceptable medical source.

Sterling v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-03(f)(1)

This analysis constituted error for several reasons. First, the ALJ erred by giving “little weight” to the function report on the basis that Plaintiff’s mother is “not an acceptable medical source.” Id. Plaintiff’s mother need not be such a source to provide relevant testimony. As stated above, a nonmedical source may properly opine on “some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1). “The fact that a lay witness is a family member cannot be a ground for rejecting [the witness’s] testimony.” Smolen v. Chater, 80 F.3d 1273, 1289 (9th Cir. 1996); see Dodrill v. Shalala, 12 F.3d 915, 918–19 (9th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that “friends and family members in a position to observe a claimant’s symptoms and daily activities are competent to testify as to [the claimant’s] condition.”). Accordingly, the ALJ’s assignment of “little weight” to this opinion on the ground that it was not prepared by “an acceptable medical source” constituted error. Tr. 35.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a statement as a medical opinion when it reflects a judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment and the claimant's related functional limitations.

Cruz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-01(a)(1)

Dr. Rossum’s statement does not establish the existence of such a restriction. Dr. Rossum merely “recommended” that Plaintiff elevate her legs when sitting. He did not state it was necessary for work nor did he assess Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity. (R. at 1106.) As such, the ALJ was not obligated to address this statement as a “medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, generally gives more weight to examining than non-examining opinions, treats statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work as non-medical opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner, and leaves residual functional capacity determinations to the ALJ.

(SS) Tara Fae Alexander v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-11(b), (c), (c)(1), (d)(2), and (e)

The ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion of record. ... Generally, “greater weight is accorded to the opinion of an examining physician than a non-examining physician.” ... A physician’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not entitled to controlling weight because statements “by a medical source that [a claimant] is ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ ” “are not medical opinions” under the Social Security regulations. ... An RFC determination is within the exclusive province of the ALJ.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion, good reasons when assigning it less weight, and consideration of the specified factors when weighing medical-source opinions.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-07-14(d)(2), (f)(1), and (c)(1)-(c)(6)

The ALJ is required to give “controlling weight” to treating medical providers if their opinions are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... However, if an ALJ refuses to give controlling weight to the opinions of the treating medical providers, the ALJ is required to provide “good reasons.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Accordingly, the ALJ cannot “’simply discard [the opinions].’” Meuser, 838 F.3d at 912 (quoting Scrogham v. Colvin, 765 F.3d 685, 697 (7th Cir. 2014)). “Rather, the ALJ [is] required to explicitly consider the details of the treatment relationship and explain the weight he [is] giving the opinion.” Id. Indeed, the reasons the ALJ provides must “build an accurate and logical bridge form the evidence to [his] conclusion[s].” Clifford, 227 F.3d at 872.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to decline controlling weight to a treating source's opinion when it conflicts with substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to explain the evaluation of medical evidence without separately discussing every listed factor.

Gittman-Crowther v. Saul · filed 2020-07-14(c)(2), (c)(4)

“[A]n ALJ need not explicitly discuss each [20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] factor in his decision…Instead, an ALJ need only explain his evaluation of the medical evidence for the district court to meaningfully review whether his reasoning accords with the regulation’s standards.” ... “The ALJ satisfied this requirement by indicating that the medical evidence supported Dr. Michel’s opinion, and contradicted Dr. Kanchana’s opinion, when he decided to give no weight to Dr. Kanchana’s opinion and great weight to Dr. Michel’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) directs the Commissioner to weigh medical opinions by considering the examining or treating relationship, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Nelson v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2020-07-15(d)

Social Security regulations provide that, in considering what weight to give any medical opinion (regardless of whether it is from a treating or consultative physician), the Commissioner should evaluate: the extent of the examining or treating relationship between the doctor and patient; whether the doctor’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; the doctor’s specialization; and other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... The ALJ in this case states specifically the weight assigned to Dr. Rickless’s report and explicitly assigns it less weight only where it disagrees with the other available medical evidence. ... Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in assigning less weight to a portion of the consulting physician’s report.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to weigh it using the listed regulatory factors, including supportability and consistency.

Wright v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-15(c)(1)-(6)

If the ALJ decides not to give the opinion controlling weight, he is to weigh it applying the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). Supportability and consistency are two important factors to be considered in weighing medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires consideration of specified factors when a treating-source opinion is not given controlling weight, permits discounting it based solely on inconsistency with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Evans v. Saul · filed 2020-07-15(c)(2)

When a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the Commissioner must look to various factors in determining what weight to accord that and any other medical opinion of record, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, whether the source provides support for their findings, whether other evidence in the record is consistent with the source’s findings, and the source’s area of specialty. ... Inconsistency with other substantial evidence alone is a sufficient basis upon which an ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion. ... The Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) generally gives more weight to a treating-source opinion than to an examining-source opinion and more weight to an examining-source opinion than to a reviewing-source opinion.

Zlotoff v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-16(c)(1)-(2)

“Generally, the opinion of a treating physician must be given more weight than the opinion of an examining physician, and the opinion of an examining physician must be afforded more weight than the opinion of a reviewing physician.” Id.; see 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(1)–(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, while § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to assign weight to such opinions; records that merely report subjective symptoms, examination and test results, and diagnoses are not medical opinions.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2020-09-17(a)(2), (c)

The ALJ is required to assign weight to medical opinions, mot medical evidence. 20 C.FR. § 404.1527(c). Medical opinions are defined as “statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including ithe 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)(2). ... While Claimant cites to a number of treatment records reflecting her complaints of pain, they do not contain medical opinions, i.e., judgments regarding prognosis, limitations, or severity of Claimant’s conditions; rather, they reflect only Claimant’s subjective symptoms, the results of examinations and objective testing, and diagnoses.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats statements reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments or ability to work as medical opinions, while records containing only general physical information or referrals do not qualify.

Pugh v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)

Medical records which contain only general physical information or referrals, without judgments about the nature and severity of impairments or a claimant’s ability to work, do not qualify as medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating physician’s opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and generally gives more weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues related to the specialist’s area of expertise.

Gorman v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-13(c)(2), (c)(5)

Because Dr. Carter is a treating physician, his opinion should be “given more weight than other reports and . . . will be controlling if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable [evidence] and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.’” Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Further, Dr. Carter is an orthopedist, a specialization the ALJ describes as “relevant.” AR 24. See also 40 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(5) (noting that the Commissioner “generally [gives] more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty”). Accordingly, the ALJ should have afforded Dr. Carter’s opinion “controlling weight,” unless he provided a “good reason” for refusing to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, nature and extent of treatment, supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization in deciding the opinion's weight.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2020-10-14(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(5)

If the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding what weight to give the medical opinion: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability and consistency of the medical opinion with the record, and the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(5). Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ’s failure to sufficiently address the relevant regulatory considerations in declining to afford a treating physician opinion controlling weight requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s statement reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and restrictions.

Buechner, Catherine v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-02-09(a)(1)

The regulations define medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). The court agrees with plaintiff that Nurse Sward’s observation does not reflect a judgment “about the nature and severity” of Buechner’s impairments, and so should not have been treated as a medical opinion under the regulations, much less given great weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source's judgment about an impairment's nature and severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical and mental restrictions.

Kemper v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-16(a)(1)

“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 and mental restrictions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors if it does not.

Collins v. Saul · filed 2021-04-12(c)(2)

Section 404.1527(c)(2) sets out two rules an ALJ must follow when evaluating a medical opinion from a treating physician. First, it establishes the “treating physician rule,” under which the medical opinion of a treating physician 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.” Second, if a medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must consider each of the following factors to determine the weight the opinion should be afforded: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability,” i.e., the extent to which the treating physician “presents relevant evidence to support [the] medical opinion”; (4) “[c]onsistency,” i.e., the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the evidence in the record; (5) the extent to which the treating physician is a specialist opining as to “issues related to his or her area of specialty”; and (6) any other factors raised by the parties “which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mutter v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-15(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 give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons.

Killman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-30(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff filed her claim before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to analyze opinion evidence under the “treating physician rule” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... According to this rule, “[g]enerally, [the SSA] give[s] more weight to medical opinions from [claimants’] treating sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... If the opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent, it is given controlling weight. ... If the opinion is not given controlling weight, step two requires the ALJ to apply specific factors “in determining the weight to give the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported and consistent medical opinion controlling weight, and if the opinion receives less weight, to explicitly consider specified factors in determining the appropriate weight.

Schillo v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-06(c)(2)

As our precedents have held, when applying 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, there are “specific procedures that an ALJ must follow in determining the appropriate weight to assign a treating physician’s opinion. First, the ALJ must decide whether the opinion is entitled to controlling weight.” ... “Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it.” ... The governing regulations require an ALJ to explicitly consider certain nonexclusive factors when making this determination: “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” ... If the ALJ proceeds to step two, she must explicitly apply the factors listed in § 404.1527; the failure to do so is procedural error and subject to harmless error analysis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) limits the treating physician rule to medical professionals with an ongoing treatment relationship and excludes one-time consultants sought solely to provide a disability report, while section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh a consultative medical opinion under the regulatory factors.

Cunningham v. Saul · filed 2022-12-05(a)(2), (c)

The treating physician rule only applies to medical professionals who had “an ongoing treatment relationship with” Plaintiff and does not apply to medical professionals whom Plaintiff consulted “solely on [her] need to obtain a report in support of [her] claim for disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (defining scope of treating physician rule for applications for disability insurance benefits); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(a)(2) (applying same limitations to scope of treating physician rule to applications for supplemental security income). Even though the rule does not apply to one-time consultations with a doctor, an ALJ must still consider any medical opinions offered during such consultations and weigh the opinions according to “the regulatory factors set ... forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to meaningfully consider each regulatory factor, though the decision need not contain a detailed factor-by-factor analysis.

McGuire v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-06-21(c)(2)

In such cases, the ALJ must then consider each of the factors laid out by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) in determining the proper weight of the opinion.3 Dowling v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 986 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2021). While the ALJ is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis, it must be clear from the decision that the ALJ meaningfully considered each of the factors before determining how much weight to give the opinion. Id. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the medical evidence and, in fact, went into substantial detail to point out discrepancies between the medical opinions for the relevant time period and those after the relevant period.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must give good reasons and explicitly consider the relevant factors before assigning weight.

Castorina v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-06-28(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, an ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician, so long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2007)). If the treating physician’s opinion is not well-supported or is contradicted by substantial evidence, then “the ALJ must articulate ‘good reasons’ to rebut the presumption of controlling deference conferred on the treating physician’s opinion.” Colgan v. Kijakazi, 22 F.4th 353, 360 (2d Cir. 2022). The ALJ must then determine how much weight, if any, to give the treating physician’s opinion. Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95–96 (2d Cir. 2019). “In doing so, it must explicitly consider the following, nonexclusive Burgess factors: (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Id. (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). “An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the Burgess factors when assigning weight . . . is a procedural error. . . . If, however, a searching review of the record assures us that the substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed, we will affirm.” Id. at 96 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). ... Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the Burgess factors was a procedural error that warrants remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources that express judgments about an impairment's nature and severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, ability despite impairment, and restrictions.

PELHAM v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2020-08-06(a)(2)

“Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant's] impairment(s), including [the claimant's] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant's] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). Although Dr. Kesserwani identifies the condition from which Claimant suffers, and generally identifies Claimant’s symptoms as anxiety, difficulty thinking and processing information, he does not explain how those symptoms result in any impairments. ... “Because the letter does not provide any insight into the functional limitations created by [Claimant]’s condition,” it is not a “medical opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats an unsupported one-line statement that a claimant is unable to work as an opinion on an issue reserved to the Commissioner, rather than a medical opinion requiring consideration.

Cuddihy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-06(a)(1), (c)(2), (d)(1)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [his] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1); 416.927(a)(1). “Opinions on some issues, such as [an opinion that a claimant is ‘disabled’ or ‘“unable to work’], are not medical opinions, . . . but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner . . . .” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1); 416.927(d)(1). A one-line statement, unsupported by any specific findings or diagnostic testing, does not constitute a medical “opinion.” As such, the ALJ did not err in not considering Dr. Bayoumi’s statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats an acceptable medical source’s judgment about an impairment’s nature or severity, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, residual abilities, or restrictions, as a medical opinion.

Chavez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-03(a)(1)

Although ALJs need not discuss every piece of evidence, they are required to discuss the weight assigned to each medical source opinion and the reasons for the assigned weight. ... In doing so, the ALJ must also consider several factors set forth by the regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A medical opinion is defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... Thus, the Court finds that these two statements are medical opinions, and as a result, the ALJ was required to weigh them accordingly.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s judgment about an impairment and related abilities or restrictions, excluding a claimant’s subjective account.

Rose Munoz v. Saul · filed 2020-09-10(a)(1)

Because Dr. Heard’s notations about Plaintiff’s inability to “keep a regular schedule” refer to Plaintiff’s subjective statements, they do not constitute a medical opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources addressing the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, capabilities despite impairments, and physical or mental restrictions.

Stewart v. Saul · filed 2020-10-07(a)(1)

Under the regulations “[m]edical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [their] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [they] can still do despite impairment(s), and [their] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(a)(1); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Because Dr. Peterson did not offer opinions regarding Plaintiff’s diagnosis, prognosis, or physical or mental limitations, his report does not contain medical opinions the ALJ must weigh.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) does not require a physician’s statement to include every judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment to qualify as a medical opinion, and § 404.1527(b)-(c) requires the agency to consider and evaluate medical opinions.

Moreno v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-12(a)(2), (b)-(c)

As a threshold matter, the Court disagrees with the Commissioner that a physician must include in his statement each and every “judgment[ ] about the nature and severity of . . . impairments” described in Section 404.1527(a)(2) in order for the physician’s statement to qualify as a medical opinion. ... And other language in Section 404.1527 emphasizes that the Social Security Administration will “always consider the medical opinions” in a claimant’s case and “evaluate every medical opinion” received. See 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(b)-(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion by the judgments it reflects about an impairment and what the claimant can still do, while subsections (b)-(c) require evidence that is not a medical opinion to be evaluated as part of the record and subsection (a)(2) addresses when an ongoing treatment relationship exists.

Coakwell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-29(a)(1), (b)-(c), (a)(2)

Under the regulations, a medical opinion is defined as a statement from an acceptable medical source which “reflects judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite your impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Dr. Morren’s orthostatic guidelines are not a medical opinion – they are not a judgment regarding the nature (or severity) of Plaintiff’s condition and they do not contain any insight as to how Plaintiff could (or could not) perform despite her impairments; they do not offer any definitive physical restrictions. The guidelines are merely a list of “tips” on how to better control an orthostatic condition non-pharmacologically – the list is generic and there is no indication that it is unique to Plaintiff in that it offers no guidance as to when, where, or how she should (or could) implement these suggestions. Because Dr. Morren’s “guidelines” do not meet the regulatory definition of a medical opinion, they are considered part of the “evidence of record” under the regulations; as such, all that is required of the ALJ is to evaluate them as clinical notes together with any medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c). ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (“Generally, we will consider that you have an ongoing treatment relationship. . . when the medical evidence establishes that you see, or have seen, the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your medical condition(s).”); ... The two had no treatment relationship, lending credence to the Commissioner’s argument that the guidelines are not an opinion entitled to treating physician benefits.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Kramer v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-17(a)(1)

Under the regulations, medical opinions are defined as “statements from physicians and psychologists or other 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement from an acceptable medical source that reflects a judgment about an impairment's nature, severity, symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, or physical or mental restrictions.

Barnes v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-06(a)(1)

The Commissioner defines medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” ... Here, nothing in the documents cited by plaintiff reflect Dr. Malloy’s or Ms. Martin’s “judgments.” Their statements are merely a combination of their clinical observations and plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms. Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to assign them a particular weight when evaluating plaintiff’s RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A statement that a claimant is disabled, without explaining what the claimant can still do or identifying physical or mental restrictions, is not a medical opinion under § 404.1527.

Vodrazka v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(a)(1)

In other words, all of Dr. Hughes’ statements with respect to Plaintiff being “disabled” are conclusory assertions that do not meet the criteria for “medical opinions” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a) and (d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) treats statements from acceptable medical sources as medical opinions when they reflect judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment, even if they do not identify work-related limitations.

Dawson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-22(c)

A medical opinion is defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Under this definition, medical opinions are not limited to those that outline work-related limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as a statement from an acceptable medical source reflecting a judgment about an impairment's nature and severity, including its symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, or physical or mental restrictions.

Hofstad v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-03(a)(1)

Social Security regulations define “medical opinions” as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, 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), 416.927(a)(1). ... Because Dr. Meyer’s job-coaching comment was not clearly a medical opinion, the ALJ didn’t need to address it.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Medical opinions require medical judgments; a treating source’s observations alone need not receive controlling weight or an explanation for withholding it.

Bass v. McMahon · filed 2007-08-21(a)(2)

Dr. Naum made no diagnosis and gave no medical opinion regarding plaintiffs ability to ambulate or his gait. Rather, Dr. Naum only observed that plaintiff exhibited an antalgic gait, moved slowly, and used double-braced canes to assist him. ... Additionally, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as assertions involving judgments about a patient’s “symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis.” ... Since Dr. Naum made no medical judgments, the ALJ had no duty to give such observations controlling weight or provide good reasons for not doing so.