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(a)(1) does not treat notations documenting a claimant’s subjective complaints in the history-of-present-illness section of treatment notes as medical opinions.

Smiley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-29(a)(1)

Despite the ALJ’s assumption, however, the Court finds that the notations Plaintiff characterizes as Dr. Tikku’s “opinions” are not in fact medical opinions as defined by the applicable Regulations. Rather, read in context—including their placement in the “HPI” or “History of Present Illness” sections of the notes and under a “Chief Complaint(s)” heading (for the earlier notation)—these notations are simply documentation of Plaintiff’s subjective complaints of how her impairments affect her.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s medical opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence, but excludes a physician’s conclusion that a claimant is disabled from medical opinions entitled to deference.

McKinney v. SSA · filed 2020-08-12(c)(2), (d)(1)–(3)

ALJs must afford a claimant’s treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight so long as it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013). However, a treating physician’s opinion that the plaintiff is disabled does not constitute a medical opinion for the purposes of administrative review, as the decision regarding a claimant’s disability status is left to the sole discretion of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1)–(3); Gentry v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 741 F.3d 708, 727 (6th Cir. 2014); McCubbin v. Astrue, No. 2:10-CV-149-DLB, 2011 WL 1671635, at *3 (E.D. Ky. May 3, 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, including the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination.

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

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... See C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (providing that ALJs may properly consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination in evaluating the weightiness of a treating physician’s opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally requires an ALJ to analyze the listed factors after declining to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, but no detailed analysis is required when reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician contradicts that opinion.

Conner v. Berryhill · filed 2020-08-15(c)

After declining to afford a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, an ALJ is usually required to provide a detailed analysis of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). ... However, an ALJ need not do so when “there is reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the opinions of the treating source.” ... The ALJ, therefore, was not required to perform a detailed analysis of the 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) provides that a treating physician’s opinion may receive controlling weight when consistent with other evidence in the record.

Plainse v. Saul · filed 2020-08-12(c)

A treating physician’s opinion may be entitled to “controlling weight” if it is consistent with other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider every medical opinion and, when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, apply the controlling-weight rule and specified weighing factors.

(SS) Ortega v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-24(b), (c)(2)–(6)

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); ... “If . . . a treating [physician’s] opinion . . . is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... The Court finds that the ALJ failed to offer “specific and legitimate” reasons for rejecting Dr. Leoni’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and to provide good reasons for the weight assigned, addressing the relevant regulatory factors when discounting it.

Salisbury v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-04(c)(2)

The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App’x. 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Closely associated is “the good reasons rule,” which requires an ALJ always to give “good reasons . . . for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source opinion.” Dixon, 2016 WL 860695, at *4 (quoting Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009) (alterations in original)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Friend v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F. App’x. 543, 550–51 (6th Cir. 2010). ... Instead, the ALJ should “identify the specific evidence in the record that supports a finding that a treating physician’s opinion was inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record and apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)—length of the treatment relationship, frequency of the examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the medical source, consistency of the medical opinion, specialization of the treating physician, and other important factors.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives greater weight to the opinion of a treating physician than to that of a non-treating physician.

Watson v. Saul · filed 2020-09-08(d)(2)

Generally, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to greater weight than the opinion of a non-treating physician. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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, is internally inconsistent, or conflicts with other evidence in the record, while assigning the ALJ responsibility for evaluating medical opinions.

Tombs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-21(c)(2)

It is the ALJ’s exclusive responsibility as the fact-finder to evaluate medical opinions, including opinions from a treating physician, state agency consultants, and medical examiners, and decide whether they are supported by and consistent with the rest of the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c),(e); Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 399 (1971). The ALJ is not required to accept a treating physician’s opinion (or any opinion in the record) where the opinion is not supported by clinical evidence, is internally inconsistent, or is not consistent with other evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating-source opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Jenkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-23(c)(1)-(6)

Moreover, the ALJ did not conduct any of the analysis required by the treating physician rule, i.e., discussing the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)– (6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the Commissioner to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when deciding how much weight to give it, even if the opinion addresses disability reserved to the Commissioner.

Cox v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-19(c)(2)-(6)

Nevertheless, ALJ Georgian was required to apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) to determine the extent to which the opinion was supported by the record, which includes an analysis of those portions of the opinions that discuss Plaintiff’s level of functioning and the impact of her impairments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability.

Pruden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-10-28(c)

When an ALJ decides against giving a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ is 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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion and give good reasons for the weight assigned if declining controlling weight.

Chambers v. Saul · filed 2020-11-03(c), (d)(2)

The court agrees with the government, finding that the ALJ adequately considered the Section 404.1527(c) factors and evidence of record and provided good reasons why she accorded no weight to Dr. Davis’s and Dr. Kutom’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to consider specified treatment-relationship and evidentiary factors when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion that is not given controlling weight.

Berke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-20(c)(2)

When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the following factors will be examined to determine the weight to give the opinion: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) does not require an ALJ to explicitly address every listed factor when rejecting a treating physician's opinion for good cause, but the ALJ must provide good cause for the rejection.

Jones v. Saul · filed 2020-11-23(d)

Jones also argues that the Commissioner’s decision should be reversed because the ALJ failed to explicitly consider all of the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) when weighing Dr. Fitz-Gerald’s opinion. Jones cites no authority suggesting that an ALJ must do so when finding “good cause” to reject a treating physician’s opinion, and the Eleventh Circuit has stated the opposite, albeit in an unpublished opinion. See Lawton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App'x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (unpublished) (“[T]he ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of th[e] factors[ in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)]. Rather, the ALJ must provide ‘good cause’ for rejecting a treating physician’s medical opinions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives more weight to opinions from treating physicians because they can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant's impairments.

Goggans v. Saul (CONSENT) · filed 2020-11-24(c)(2)

Dr. Storjohann thus was not a treating physician or “treating source” for Goggans and his opinion is not entitled to the same amount of weight that is given to treating physicians. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship and other relevant factors when evaluating a medical opinion, and subsection (c)(2) requires good reasons for discounting a treating physician's opinion.

Allport v. Berryhill · filed 2020-11-30(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ also properly considered the one-month long treatment relationship between Plaintiff and Dr. Camire when Dr. Camire gave his opinion, the absence in the record of similar restrictions or limitations imposed by any of Plaintiff’s other physicians, and Dr. Camire’s conservative, medication-only treatment of Plaintiff. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c). The ALJ provided “good reasons” for discounting Dr. Camire’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2). Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in affording no weight to Dr. Camire’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the specified treatment and evidence factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Pursell v. Saul · filed 2020-12-02(c), (d)(2)

If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the appropriate weight: length and frequency of the treatment relationship; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the ... source’s level of specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, “[t]he regulations require that the ALJ ‘always give good reasons’ for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Niquette v. Saul · filed 2020-12-09(c)(2)

“If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion” to determine how much weight to give the opinion. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator weighing a treating source opinion to consider its supportability by medical signs and laboratory findings and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Foerstel v. Saul · filed 2020-12-14(c)

An ALJ may properly reject a treating physician’s opinion where, as here, the opinion is not adequately supported by treatment notes or objective clinical findings. ... see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (factors to consider in weighing treating source opinion include the supportability of the opinion by medical signs and laboratory findings as well as the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, and support and consistency when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, and to explain the reasons for discounting it.

Aqrabawi v. Saul · filed 2020-12-14(c)

Further, the ALJ did not discuss—as he was required to if Dr. Levi’s opinion was not to be controlling—Dr. Levi’s specialized expertise, the length of Plaintiff’s treatment relationship with him, the frequency of Plaintiff’s examinations, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, or as discussed above, the evidence supporting Dr. Levi’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Reinaas, 953 F.3d at 465-66; Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009) (error to discount treating physician’s opinion without consideration of the regulatory factors).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source medical opinions more weight and requires an ALJ who discounts them to consider the listed factors and provide specific, record-supported good reasons.

Lewis v. SSA · filed 2021-01-12(c)(2)

Agency regulations mandate that an ALJ sufficiently consider the medical opinions from a claimant’s treating physician and generally require an ALJ to give a treating physician’s medical opinion “more weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... However, where contradicting substantial evidence exists, the ALJ may reject all or a portion of the treating source’s findings, Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 391-92 (6th Cir. 2004), provided the ALJ articulates “good reasons” for doing so. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 547; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... In explaining the reasons for giving less than controlling weight to the treating physician's opinion, the ALJ must consider (1) “the length of the . . . relationship” (2) “frequency of examination,” (3) “nature and extent of the treatment,” (4) the “supportability of the opinion,” (5) the “consistency . . . with the record as a whole,” and, (6) “the specialization of the treating source.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Rather than summarily discounting Dr. Hardin’s opinion, the ALJ provided good reasons, by “identifying and explaining how the substantial evidence [was] . . . inconsistent with the treating-source opinion.” Hargett, 964 F.3d at 552.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to consider the length and frequency of a treating relationship when weighing a treating physician's opinion, but a limited treatment relationship alone cannot justify rejecting the opinion.

(SS) Wojtowicz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(c)(2)(i)

An ALJ may consider the length and frequency of treatment in evaluating what weight to give the opinion of a treating physician. ... However, a limited treatment relationship cannot alone support the rejection of a treating physician’s opinion. ... Thus, this factor alone cannot support the ALJ’s decision to reject the physical functional limitations identified by Dr. Pistel in his medical statement.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating physician's opinion substantially greater weight than a nonexamining or one-time physician's opinion and requires the ALJ to provide a reasoned explanation for the weight assigned.

Eberle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-19(c)

Dr. Predieri was a treating source and her opinion was therefore required to be evaluated under the “treating physician” rule found in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 as it existed at the time Plaintiff filed her applications for benefits. ... a treating physician's opinion is entitled to weight substantially greater than that of a nonexamining medical advisor or a physician who saw plaintiff only once. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); ... No matter how the issue of the weight to be given to a treating physician's opinion is finally resolved, the ALJ is required to provide a reasoned explanation so that both the claimant and a reviewing Court can determine why the opinion was rejected (if it was) and whether the ALJ considered only appropriate factors in making that decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors and give good reasons for discounting it.

Wells v. Saul · filed 2021-01-20(c)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported” by medical findings and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. ... The regulations prescribe that the ALJ is to evaluate medical opinions according to the following factors: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. ... “An ALJ must offer good reasons for discounting the opinion of a treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion deference only when it is well-supported and consistent with the objective medical evidence.

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

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Dr. Sams’s opinion is entitled to deference only to the extent it is well-supported and consistent with the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). For all the reasons noted by the Magistrate Judge, the ALJ properly found that Dr. Sams’s opinion did not satisfy those requirements, and properly explained his reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires consideration of specified factors if controlling weight is not given.

Floriana v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-01(c)(2)

The Social Security Administration gives substantial deference to the opinions of treating physicians. A treating doctor's opinion must be given controlling weight if it is “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... An ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of a treating physician. ... Even if an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the regulations still require her 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires treating-source medical opinions to be weighed using all six regulatory factors even when they are not entitled to controlling weight.

Petti v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-03(c)(2)(i-vi)

... opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors1 provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 . . . .”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion substantial weight when it is consistent with other substantial evidence, but permits discounting a contradicted opinion for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Brown v. Ssa · filed 2021-02-08(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion receives “substantial weight” if it is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. Ford, 950 F.3d at 1154 (citation omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2012). “But 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). In this case, Dr. Syal’s opinion regarding the extent of Brown’s limitations conflicted with the medical evidence and opinions of other doctors, and the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Syal’s opinion. Specifically, the ALJ found that Dr. Syal’s opinion was inconsistent with his own treatment notes and with Brown’s daily activities. See id.; Rollins v. Massanari, 261 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2001). The ALJ further determined that Dr. Syal heavily relied on Brown’s subjective pain statements rather than clinical evidence. See Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 600 (9th Cir. 1999). Because each of the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the treating physician’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ did not err in weighing the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-09(d)(2)

Similarly, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when the opinion is (1) supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent” with substantial evidence on the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “If the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record, the ALJ may still choose to accept it, but if the ALJ rejects the opinion, he must give a good reason.” Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives greater weight to treating-physician opinions and gives greater weight to opinions that are more consistent with the record.

Tye v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-02(c)(2), (c)(4)

The opinions of treating physicians are generally accorded greater weight than the opinions of non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). ... Further, the more consistent the opinion is with the evidence as a whole, the greater weight the opinion should be accorded. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). ... Here, the ALJ has again failed to identify an actual inconsistency. ... Because the ALJ was unable to identify an acceptable inconsistency, the ALJ failed to provide a specific and legitimate reason to discount the opinion of treating psychologist, Dr. Tippett.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dawn Marie Torres v. Saul · filed 2020-07-24(c)(2)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight, but permits lesser weight when the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with substantial evidence and requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Middleton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-03(c)

However, despite that general presumption, if those opinions are not “well-supported” or are inconsistent with other substantial evidence, then the opinions need not be given controlling weight. ... In such cases, the ALJ should review additional factors to determine how much weight should be afforded to the opinion, such as “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” ... 2009); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ noted that Dr. Kaiser was Plaintiff’s treating physician and had been since at least 2016, but that Plaintiff had not treated with him frequently. He explained that Dr. Kaiser’s opinion was not well-supported by any objective evidence (including diagnostic tests), and was also unsupported by Dr. Kaiser’s own treatment notes or any physical examinations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician's opinion to consider the treatment relationship's details and explain the weight assigned to the opinion.

BEND v. SAUL · filed 2021-03-11(c)(2)

The Seventh Circuit has explained that an "ALJ should explicitly consider the details of the treatment relationship and provide reasons for the weight given to [treating physicians'] opinions." Yurt v. Colvin, 758 F.3d 850, 860 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). The ALJ noted that there was a treating relationship between Gregory and Dr. Smartt. However, the ALJ did not explicitly consider the long-standing duration of the relationship, nor did the ALJ accurately note Dr. Smartt's specialty as a neurologist. The ALJ's failure to do so is legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion and to explain the assigned weight with sufficiently specific findings and reasoning.

Bodeau v. Saul · filed 2021-03-11(c)

However, even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference, and pursuant to the SSA’s regulations, the ALJ must consider: (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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. In applying these factors, the ALJ must make findings and reasoning sufficiently specific so the weight given to the medical source’s opinion is clear to subsequent reviewers. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent medical opinion controlling weight, or otherwise weigh it using the regulation’s listed factors.

Vieira v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-19(c)(2)

With regard to a treating physician,8 the Regulations instruct ALJs how to properly weigh such a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Because treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s medical opinion is to be afforded controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Id. When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight it should be given by considering the factors identified above (the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with the other evidence, and the specialization of the physician). Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion using the listed treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors and to give good reasons for the weight assigned when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Wamsley v. Saul · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)-(6)

Where the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion based on several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the level of specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). And, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion. See Davidson v. Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Antoun v. O'Malley · filed 2021-04-01(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given the most weight, and may be “controlling” if it is ““well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to apply the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Smartt v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-15(c)

The ALJ must also apply the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)–(ii) and (c)(3)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding issues such as residual functional capacity and vocational factors to the Commissioner, while requiring consideration of medical-source opinions.

SIECIENSKI-ANTINORO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-12(d)(2)

The regulations provide that “[a]lthough [the Commission] consider[s] opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . or the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner.

Ceo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-07(d)(2)

The Social Security regulations vest the ALJ with the responsibility of assessing an individual’s RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding an individual’s RFC is reserved to the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Almaguer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-06-09(c)(1)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to weigh a noncontrolling treating physician's opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, support and consistency, and specialization.

Trujillo v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-16(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ should weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient working relationship, the frequency of examinations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a non-controlling treating physician’s opinion to be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

(SS) Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-25(c)(2)–(6)

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. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to perform a detailed analysis of the regulatory factors unless good cause justifies rejecting the opinion.

Parson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration Do not docket in the case. Case remanded to · filed 2021-07-09(c)

In the absence of good cause, “an ALJ may reject the opinion of a treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth in” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ should have applied the detailed regulatory analysis discussed above, but she did not. This is error. ... In sum, the ALJ has neither offered good cause for rejecting Dhamotharan’s medical opinion nor conducted the analysis required by § 404.1527(c). The ALJ did not apply the correct legal standard and remand is appropriate.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider a treating physician’s medical opinion, assign it weight, and explain the reasons for that weight; the opinion generally receives substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports rejecting it.

Ramos v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-13(c), (d)

An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. Bennett v. Astrue, No. 308-cv-646-J-JRK, 2009 WL 2868924, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 2, 2009) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d)). Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit has held that an ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Otherwise, the Court has no way to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and the Court will not affirm simply because some rationale might have supported the ALJ’s conclusion. See id. ... The Court finds that the ALJ erred by failing to assign a weight to Dr. Nieves-Quinones’ medical opinion. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. ... As a treating physician, the regulations require that Dr. Nieves-Quinones’ opinion be given substantial or considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. See Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240-41.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sibio-Sanchez v. Saul · filed 2021-07-13(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion lacks controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to weigh it using the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Kimberly P. v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-28(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-physician opinions more weight and controlling weight when they are well supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, while opinions not given controlling weight are evaluated under specified factors.

(SS) Pieper v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-29(c)(2)

For applications filed before March 27, 2017, the regulations provide that more weight is generally given to the opinion of treating physicians, which are given controlling weight when well supported by clinical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... Regardless of source, all medical opinions that are not given controlling weight are evaluated using the following factors: examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight or explain good reasons for the weight assigned, while considering the regulatory factors.

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

Under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when that opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 106. An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but must “comprehensively set forth [his or her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.”). The ALJ must consider several factors in determining how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion including “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 129 (quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to accept a treating physician's opinion on the ultimate issue of disability, and an opinion inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record need not receive controlling weight.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-17(c), (d)

In weighing the evidence, the ALJ properly gave little weight to Dr. Lao’s opinion dated November 15, 2017 that Plaintiff is “totally and permanently disabled” as the issue of disability is a finding reserved solely to the Commissioner.2 Tr. 43, 519. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Arroyo v. Sec. of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 82, 89 (1st Cir. 1991) (explaining that the ALJ “is not required to accept the conclusions of claimant’s treating physicians on the ultimate issue of disability.”). Furthermore, the ALJ reasonably determined that Dr. Lao’s opinion that Plaintiff was “totally and permanently disabled” was inconsistent with the other record evidence. See Lozada-Miranda v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 18-1410, 2020 WL 4671838, at *6 (D.P.R. Aug. 11, 2020) (“the opinion of a treating physician need not be given controlling weight where the ALJ determines that it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician opinion controlling weight, otherwise weigh it under specified factors, and explain the assigned weight with good reasons.

Hardy v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-27(c)(2)-(6)

Social Security Regulations require ALJs to generally extend “greater deference…to the opinions of treating physicians than to those of non-treating physicians, commonly known as the treating physician rule.” ... The Commissioner must afford controlling weight to a treating physician opinion when it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If the opinion is not controlling, then the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors, which include “the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship as well as the treating source’s area of specialty and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization when deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Frechette v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

Nevertheless, even when a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, SSA regulations require the ALJ to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinion should receive. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (2)(ii), (3) – (6). “[T]o override the opinion of the treating physician, we have held that the ALJ must consider, inter alia: (1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and, (4) whether the physician is a specialist.” Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mouzon-Johnson v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-13(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires deference to a physician’s medical opinion about the claimant’s impairments, abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Pressley v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-09(a)(2), (c)

But the Commissioner generally must defer to a physician’s medical opinion, including statements concerning the nature or severity of the claimant’s impairments, what the claimant can do, and the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion to consider the specified factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, consistency, and supportability.

Mustelier v. Saul · filed 2021-12-27(c)

Even if the ALJ was not obligated to assign Dr. Tzanetakos’ opinions controlling weight, the ALJ was required to consider the factors identified in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) in assigning weight to Dr. Tzanetakos’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors and articulate the weight assigned.

PETTEYS v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2022-01-07(c)(2)

That includes “every medical opinion” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). A treating physician’s medical opinion is often considered especially valuable because a medical professional with an ongoing relationship to the claimant is thought to “provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s).” Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Accordingly, for claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, a treating physician’s opinion may be afforded “controlling weight.” Id. Such significant weight is appropriate when the “treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. If an ALJ determines it is not appropriate to afford a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations direct the ALJ to consider several factors—e.g., how long the physician has treated the claimant—and articulate which weight is appropriate. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)—(ii). ... The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Tronetti’s opinions only little weight based on their inconsistency with the record. The ALJ considered them as she was required to do and articulated a not incorrect reason for affording them little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to determine the weight it merits using the applicable regulatory factors.

Schwechel, Denise v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2022-01-14(c)(2)

Moreover, because plaintiff’s application was filed before March 2017, the court considers this challenge under the old “treating physician” rule as codified at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Under this rule, if an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, then she must decide what weight it should be given by considering specified regulatory factors to the extent applicable. See Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 263 (7th Cir. 2018). These factors include: (1) “the treatment relationship’s length, nature, and extent”; (2) “the opinion’s consistency with other evidence”; (3) “the explanatory support for the opinion”; and (4) “any specialty of the treating physician.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medical evidence and consistent with the other evidence of record, while allowing the ALJ to weigh the opinion using relevant factors.

NICHOLS v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-01-21(d)(2)

Generally, the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians are entitled to substantial and, at times, even controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. To be entitled to controlling weight, however, the treating physician’s opinion must be well supported by medical techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001). To determine the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ may consider a number of factors, including consistency, length of treatment, corroborating evidence, and supportability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Similarly, under 20 C.F.R. [404.1527](d)(2), the opinion of a treating physician is to be given controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medical evidence and is consistent with other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor if the ALJ minimally articulates the reasons for the decision.

Bergland v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-16(c)

The regulations provide several factors the ALJ should consider in evaluating a treating physician’s opinion: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the frequency of examination; the physician’s specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion. Apke, 817 F. App’x at 256 (citing 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)). While an ALJ must consider the regulatory factors in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) when weighing a medical opinion, the ALJ “need only ‘minimally articulate’ his reasoning.” Collins, 743 F. App’x at 25 (citing Elder, 529 F.3d at 415). Indeed, the ALJ “need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor.” Id. (citing Elder, 529 F.3d at 415).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, supporting explanation and consistency, and physician specialty when determining the opinion’s weight.

Rodriguez v. Saul · filed 2022-02-23(c)

Section 404.1527(c) of the Social Security regulations provides that if an 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 physician’s opinion: the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship; the opinion’s supporting explanation and consistency with other evidence; and any specialty of the physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight unless good cause supports discounting it, while an opinion on whether a claimant is disabled—a matter reserved to the Commissioner—is not entitled to significant weight.

Hewlett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-22(c)(2), (d)

A treating physician’s opinion must be given substantial or considerable weight, unless good cause is shown to the contrary. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (giving controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). ... Pursuant to the SSA’s regulations, an opinion on an issue reserved for the Commissioner, such as whether an individual is disabled, is not entitled to any significant weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); see also Pate v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 678 F. App'x 833, 834 (11th Cir. 2017) (ALJ did not err by declining to assign any significant weight to treating physician’s opinion that claimant was disabled because “by law, that determination is reserved to the Commissioner, and no special significance is given to an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for declining to credit it.

Diamond v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-29(c)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the treating relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor if the ALJ applies the rule’s substance and gives good reasons.

Gagliardo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)(2)-(6)

While the ALJ did not specifically consider Dr. Gross’s specialty in physical medicine and rehabilitation, an ALJ need not explicitly address each factor in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). She must apply the “substance of the treating physician rule” and provide good reasons for the weight she accords to a treating physician’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to evaluate it using the listed factors and explain the weight assigned.

Kazlauskas v. O'Malley · filed 2022-04-19(c)

If the ALJ decides not to give the opinion controlling weight, he is to weigh it by applying the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c). ... “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician's specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and support-ability of the physician's opinion.” Here, the ALJ did not go through the factors, but a court will still not overturn an ALJ’s decision as long as the court is assured that the ALJ analyzed the treating physician's medical opinion within the multifactor framework. ... That’s not the case here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, if it is not controlling, to weigh it using the specified treatment-relationship, consistency, supportability, and specialty factors.

Duenes v. Saul · filed 2022-07-25(c)

The ALJ must evaluate “every medical opinion” and assign a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must then determine what weight the assessment merits. ... In that instance, the ALJ evaluates all medical opinions according to the following factors: (1) whether there was an examining or treating relationship; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the frequency of examination; ... (4) the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion; and (5) the physician’s specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Overall, the ALJ gave sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. Gutierrez’s opinion that tracked the applicable factors and properly relied on the record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider five factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests, and consistency and support.

Agnew v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-12(c)

Specifically, the ALJ must “consider a variety of factors, including: (1) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the physician’s specialty; (4) the types of tests performed; and (5) the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). The ALJ did not meet these requirements.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using the specified regulatory factors.

Acevedo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-15(c)(2)

Because treating physicians “are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s),” a treating physician’s medical opinion is to be afforded controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Id. When a treating physician’s medical opinion is not due controlling weight, the ALJ must determine the appropriate weight it should be given by considering the factors identified above (the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with the other evidence, and the specialization of the physician). Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before 2017, a treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight when supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record.

Jarnutowski v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-12(d)(2)

For claims like Jarnutowski’s filed before 2017, the treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by medical evidence and is consistent with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence, but permits discounting it when the ALJ minimally articulates reasons.

Walker v. Saul · filed 2022-09-26(d)(2)

If Walker contends that the ALJ failed to give controlling weight to her treating physician’s lupus diagnosis without good reason pursuant to the governing regulations at the time she filed her claim, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the Court rejects that argument. “A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if supported by the medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record,” but an ALJ may discount such an opinion if he “minimally articulate[s] his reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability.” Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Clifford v. Apfel, 227 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2000)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Knutson, Tracy v. Kijakazi, Kilolo · filed 2022-09-27(d)(2)

Under the regulations in effect at the time Knutson filed her application, an ALJ was to give the opinion of a treating physician controlling weight only if it was “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence . . ..” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)6; see also White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 2005). Dr. Thirumalai’s opinion did not meet those criteria.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the relevant listed factors and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-29(d)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the regulatory weighing factors, but not to recite each factor mechanically.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-31(c)(2)-(5)

While the ALJ should consider the regulatory factors that go into the weighing of medical opinions—(1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization—the ALJ does not have to recite them chapter and verse. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); Ray v. Saul, 861 F. App’x 102, 105 (7th Cir. 2021) (“we will not vacate or reverse an ALJ’s decision based solely on a failure to expressly list every checklist factor”). The ALJ need only minimally articulate her reasons for rejecting a medical opinion. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning it less weight.

Rowe, Dale v. Kijakazi, Kilolo · filed 2023-04-25(c)(2)

Rowe filed his claim before 2017, so, under the regulations applicable to Rowe’s claim, Faull’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c). An ALJ “must offer good reasons” for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial record evidence, and to give good reasons based on the regulatory factors when declining controlling weight.

McWilliams v. Social Security Administration Commissioner · filed 2023-04-27(c)(2)–(6)

Instead, the law requires the ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion “if it is well-supported by medical evidence and not inconsistent with the substantial evidence in the record.” See Lucus v. Saul, 960 F.3d 1066, 1068 (8th Cir. 2020) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If at least some supporting medical evidence exists to buttress a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ may not simply ignore that opinion or deem it “unpersuasive” without further comment. If the ALJ decides that the [treating physician] opinion does not deserve controlling weight, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the decision and must consider: the length of the treatment relationship, record support for the opinion, the opinion’s consistency, the extent to which the opinion is connected with the physician’s specialization and other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, or otherwise consider the treatment relationship and other regulatory factors and give good reasons for discounting the opinion.

Ramirez v. Saul · filed 2023-05-16(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). An ALJ must submit “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of a treating physician. Martinez v. Astrue, 630 F.3d 693, 698 (7th Cir. 2011). ... The ALJ’s passing reference to evidence supporting Dr. Hart’s opinions—and the ALJ’s corresponding, conclusory RFC limitation—are improper.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion based on the length and nature of the treatment relationship, but the assessment must accurately account for that relationship and for consistent opinion evidence.

Jelderks v. Social Security Comissioner · filed 2023-07-21(c)

The ALJ did not support his assessment of Dr. Lubenow’s opinion with substantial evidence. The ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Lubenow’s opinion based on the length and nature of Dr. Lubenow’s treating relationship with Jeremy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). But contrary to the ALJ’s finding, the records show that Jeremy was “under the care of Dr. Lubenow for pain management” as early as July 2014, (e.g., A.R. 407)—six months before his January 2015 opinion, (id. at 587-91). Moreover, in discounting Dr. Lubenow’s opinion as inconsistent with other opinion evidence, the ALJ overlooked opinion evidence with which it was consistent.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion based on the length and nature of the treating relationship, but that assessment must be supported by substantial evidence.

Jelderks v. Saul · filed 2023-07-21(c)

The ALJ did not support his assessment of Dr. Lubenow’s opinion with substantial evidence. The ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Lubenow’s opinion based on the length and nature of Dr. Lubenow’s treating relationship with Jeremy. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). But contrary to the ALJ’s finding, the records show that Jeremy was “under the care of Dr. Lubenow for pain management” as early as July 2014, (e.g., A.R. 407)—six months before his January 2015 opinion, (id. at 587-91).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors, but a detailed Newton analysis is unnecessary when competing first-hand medical evidence contradicts the opinion.

Story v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-12(c)

Under the applicable regulatory framework, unless the ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, in deciding the weight to be given to such a medical opinion the ALJ will consider the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship; (2) the 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; and (5) the specialization of the treating physician. Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 456 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). Due to the emphasis placed on the opinions of treating physicians under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the Fifth Circuit held in Newton that “absent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant’s treating specialist, an ALJ may reject the opinion of the treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth” in that regulation. Id. at 453 (emphasis in original). This detailed analysis has come to be referred to in this and other courts as a “Newton analysis,” and the plaintiff argues that one was required in this case. The court disagrees, however, because there is competing first-hand medical evidence from other treating sources in the record contradicting Dr. Shirley’s assessment of the plaintiff’s upper extremity limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh relationship, support, consistency, and specialization factors.

Bell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-01-09(c)(2)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Should the ALJ decide not to give the treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient relationship, the frequency of evaluations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... The ALJ did not state whether Dr. Samyukthas’ opinions were contradicted, but regardless, the ALJ gave clear and convincing reasons supported by substantial evidence for giving the opinions little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion need not receive controlling weight when it conflicts with other substantial evidence, but the ALJ must consider the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Clay v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-07(d)(2), (d)(4)

Indeed, the opinion of the treating physician need not be afforded controlling weight where, as here, the treating physician issued opinions that are not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts. See Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir.2002) (treating physician's opinion is not controlling when contradicted “by other substantial evidence in the record”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Here, the key medical opinions submitted by Dr. Davila-Martinez to the ALJ were not particularly informative and were not consistent with the actual treatment that Plaintiff was receiving, with the opinions of other medical experts, or with the Plaintiff’s own reported daily activities. Thus, the ALJ did not err in failing to give Dr. Davila-Martinez’s opinion controlling weight. An ALJ who refuses to accord controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician must consider various “factors” to determine how much weight to give to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Among those factors are: (i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician's opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration's attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. The regulations also specify that the Commissioner “will always give good reasons in [her] notice of determination or decision for the weight [she] give[s] [claimant's] treating source's opinion.” Id.; accord 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2); see also Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 503-504 (2d Cir. 1998) (stating that the Commissioner must provide a claimant with “good reasons” for the lack of weight attributed to a treating physician's opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other regulatory factors.

Vojnovich v. O'Malley · filed 2024-05-20(c)

If the ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, she must evaluate certain checklist factors provided by the regulations. Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009). These factors include but are not limited to the nature and extent of the treatment relationship (including its length, and the frequency of examinations), the opinion’s supportability, the opinion’s consistency with the medical record as a whole, and the treating physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to give good reasons and enough explanation for the weight assigned, although the ALJ need not discuss every listed factor.

Morrow v. Colvin · filed 2024-08-15(c)

Additionally, the ALJ’s discussion of factors under 404.1527(c) is insufficient for the undersigned to determine that her finding in this regard are supported by substantial evidence. While the ALJ is not required to discuss all of the 404.1527(c) factors, McCormick, 2015 WL 1471269, at *7, she still must provide “‘good reasons’ for the weight assigned to [Dr. Mikel’s] opinion,” which the undersigned finds she has not.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by clinical and diagnostic evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and an ALJ must give good reasons for discounting it.

Lawson · filed 2026-01-14(c)(2)

The Court also finds that ALJ Laskaris failed to sufficiently explain why he rejected opinion evidence from Plaintiff’s treating doctors, Dr. Jose Castellanos and Dr. Mitchell Goldflies. The opinion of a treating physician is afforded controlling weight if it is both “well supported” by clinical and diagnostic evidence and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). Because of a treating doctor’s “greater familiarity with the claimant’s condition and circumstances,” Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir. 2003), an ALJ must “offer good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.” Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Stage v. Colvin, 812 F.3d 1121, 1127 (7th Cir. 2016).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require a detailed factor-by-factor discussion of a treating physician's opinion if the ALJ's decision shows meaningful consideration of every factor, and favorable relationship factors need not outweigh the opinion's lack of support and consistency with the record.

BUNTING · filed 2026-02-26(c)

Thus, the ALJ found that Dr. Shultz’s opinions lack support and consistency with the record. As noted above, “an AL] is not required to set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis in order to discount a medical opinion from a treating physician” where, like here, it is “apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.” Dowling, 986 F.3d at 385. In the present case, the ALJ clearly acknowledged Dr. Shultz as Plaintiffs treating physician, with reference to his treatment records over the relevant period, but nevertheless made clear that the other factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), even if completely favorable to Plaintiff, failed to override the opinion’s lack of support and lack of consistency with the record. As such, Plaintiff identifies no basis for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion cannot be rejected for an unspecified inconsistency when the record contains no contrary evidence.

Schnider v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-06(d)(2)

Simply dismissing the doctor’s opinion out of hand in the absence of contrary evidence renders the ALJ’s opinion unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion, even when the opinion addresses disability issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Newbury v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-26(d)(2)

We vacate and remand for further consideration because the ALJ and the Appeals Council failed to give any reasons for not crediting two assessments of New-bury’s condition by her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Grace.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion; a brief explanation can suffice when it addresses the treatment relationship and support for the opinion.

Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-03-27(d)(2)

While this stated reason may be brief, it reaches several of the factors that an ALJ must consider when determining what weight to give a non-controlling opinion by a treating source, including: the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i); the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, § 404.1527(d)(2)(ii); and the supportability of the opinion, § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) permits an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks medical support or conflicts with substantial evidence, provided the ALJ gives reasons for the weight assigned.

Hatcher v. Astrue · filed 2011-07-05(d)(2)

I find that the ALJ’s determination—that the check-sheet completed Dr. Parthasarathy and opinion of Ms. Kallio were not respectively entitled to controlling or significant weight—took account of the necessary factors, and was not erroneous.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions and give good reasons for denying controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion; failing to address an opinion can be harmless when the record supports an RFC that accounts for its limitations.

McFadden v. Astrue · filed 2012-02-28(d)(2)

It is true that an ALJ must evaluate all medical opinions in the record and give “good reasons” for not giving “controlling weight” to the opinions of treating physicians, ... but any error by the ALJ here in not addressing Dr. Musai-tifs opinion was harmless. The opinion did not identify any objective medical findings on which it was based, and the ALJ’s RFC findings incorporated limitations on McFadden’s postural functions, which the record as a whole supports.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) sets out factors for weighing medical opinions, including those of treating physicians.

Malcolm v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c)

The Plaintiff also doesn’t challenge Magistrate Judge Hunt’s conclusion that the ALJ amply considered the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... And, finding no clear error in that portion of the Report, we likewise adopt it here.