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(d) requires consideration and discussion of its weighing factors when assessing a treating physician’s opinions about residual functional capacity and disability.

Tauber v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-31(d)

Notwithstanding the apparent correctness of that determination, the ALJ was also required by Social Security Ruling 96-5p, which is binding on the ALJ, to specifically consider and discuss the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) as to Dr. Clark’s opinions on both Claimant’s RFC and disability status. As such, it was error for the ALJ to dismiss Dr. Clark’s opinions without consideration and discussion of the regulatory factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to decline to treat a physician’s RFC opinion as a treating physician’s opinion when the physician had no personal contact with the claimant for a lengthy period before issuing it.

Bailey v. Barnhart · filed 2006-06-12(d)(2)

In light of this gap during a lengthy period preceding the RFC, we cannot say the ALJ erred in declining to treat Dr. Fitzgerald’s RFC as that of a treating physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When weighing a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must sufficiently consider evidence of the claimant’s fibromyalgia.

Gilbert v. Barnhart · filed 2007-04-11(d)

In light of the A LJ’s failure to sufficiently address M s. Gilbert’s fibromyalgia in assigning weight to Dr. Kassan’s opinions regarding her physical functional capabilities, we reverse the denial of benefits and remand for further proceedings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ’s citation to § 404.1527 and related Social Security rulings can show that she knew and applied the standard for evaluating medical opinions.

Franzen v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-11(d)

The ALJ specifically stated in her opinion that she considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. Section 404.1527 and SSRs 96-2, 96-5p, and 96-6p, and the ALJ’s citation to these authorities indicates she was aware of the relevant legal standard and applied them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned a treating physician’s opinion, but does not require an explicit citation to its factors when the explanation permits meaningful review.

Infantado v. Comm Social Security · filed 2008-02-07(d)(2)

In other words, without explicitly citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the ALJ did in fact rely on regulation factors in discounting Dr. Colton’s opinion. The ALJ’s decision “gives good reasons” for his rejection of Dr. Colton’s opinion regarding plaintiff’s functional capacity prior to December 31, 1997. ... Here, the ALJ’s failure to explicitly cite the regulation factors is no impediment to meaningful review and is therefore no grounds for reversal.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned.

Farnham v. Astrue · filed 2011-12-05(d)(2)

The Act requires ALJs grant significant weight to treating physician opinions supported by medical evidence in the record, and requires the ALJ give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medical findings and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Jones-Reid v. Astrue · filed 2012-05-14(d)

The treating physician rule, promulgated in- 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927, “mandates that the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... While Dr. Morgan’s opinions are not inconsistent with medical evidence of record, .his opinions were not well-supported and are therefore not entitled to controlling weight under SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must give a sound explanation for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion, even when the opinion does not receive controlling weight.

Roddy v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-18(c)(2)

Even though the ALJ was not required to give Dr. Wright’s opinion ... controlling weight, see Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008); Skarbek, 390 F.3d at 503, he was required to provide a sound explanation for his decision to reject it and instead to adopt Dr. Dimitrov’s view.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the factors for weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but the decision need not discuss each factor explicitly if the analysis is clear.

Goldman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03(c)

Although the ALJ need not explicitly consider each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), it must be clear from the ALJ's decision that a proper analysis was undertaken.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to consider the regulatory factors and explain claimed conflicts with the medical evidence.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-05(c)

That conclusion is reinforced by the ALJ’s very conclusory statement concerning inconsistencies between Dr. Tracy’s findings and the medical evidence, since applicable law - both regulatory and case law - requires a much more explicit comparison of any alleged inconsistencies between a treating source opinion and the medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; failure to do so can warrant remand.

Page v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-06(c)(2)

As the ALJ did not provide good reasons for failing to accord Dr. Clay’s opinion controlling weight, a remand is warranted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is medically supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Binga v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c)(2)

Treating physician opinions should be given “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to explain the weight assigned to it.

Calabrese v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-11(c)(2)

If the ALJ decides that the treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, the ALJ must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion.

Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-13(c)(2)

The Court finds that the ALJ’s treatment of the opinion of Dr. Keppler’s September 6, 2016 opinion violated the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 governs the weighing of medical opinions; rejecting a contradicted examining physician’s opinion requires specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-16

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 govern how an ALJ must weigh medical evidence. ... Since there is a contradiction between the opinion of Dr. Adrian (and Dr. Tella) and Drs. Rosamond and Arnold with respect to Plaintiff's ability to stand/walk in a workday, the ALJ was required to set forth specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record in order to reject Dr. Adrian's opinion on this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record; an ALJ who discounts it must explain the weight assigned using the regulatory factors.

Sanford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-17(c)(2)

The ALJ’s decision not to give Dr. Dobransky’s opinion controlling weight on the basis that it was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with other evidence in the record is not supported by substantial evidence and remand is required for the ALJ to provide a sufficient explanation based on substantial evidence of record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by accepted clinical and laboratory techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-04-28(c)(2)

The ALJ need only give 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 record].”’ Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). That was not the case here.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion; the absence of objective tests and aggressive treatment did not justify rejecting opinions about fibromyalgia.

Wieland v. Saul · filed 2020-04-29(c)(2)

Moreover, the ALJ must always give “good reasons” to support the weight he ultimately assigns to the treating physician’s opinion. § 404.1527(c)(2); Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010). ... Accordingly, the ALJ failed to provide “good reasons” for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Gowing and Dr. Rocke.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship and support for the opinion.

Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-06-22(c)

The court is constrained to find the ALJ did not address Dr. Giove’s opinions in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 and SSRs 96-2p and 96-5p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for discounting a treating physician’s opinion and to give it controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Perrone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-06-29(c)(2)

Given that the ALJ relied primarily on the opinion of a non-examining consultant, the Court does not find there to be sufficiently good reasons for the ALJ to afford Dr. Trounina’s treating opinion anything less than the required controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires good reasons for the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion and permits less than controlling weight when the opinion lacks support or conflicts with other evidence.

Minichino v. Callahan · filed 1997-12-12(d)(2)

The court is satisfied that the ALJ reviewed the evidence according to the regulations, and iterated good reasons for giving Dr. Sumner’s opinion the weight it received.

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 by acceptable medical techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Flynn v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-01(d)(2)

The rule directs the administrative law judge to give controlling weight to the medical opinion of a treating physician if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” ... In short, the ALJ’s decision not to credit Dr. Meccia’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pickett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-17(c)

An ALJ may consider the nature and duration of the treatment relationship in evaluating the weight to be assigned to an opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). While Dr. Reinmuth had only treated Plaintiff a single time upon completion of the 2013 opinion, Plaintiff had reengaged in services and Dr. Reinmuth had been treating her for a year and a half at the time he completed the 2017 opinion. Tr. 871-97. The ALJ did not mention this fact, possibly due to the confusion regarding the date the opinion was completed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a treating source’s medical opinion when the source has treated the claimant longer and more frequently.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-31(c)(2)(i)

Absent some indication that the ALJ misunderstood these underlying historical facts, there is nothing wrong with her decision to take into account the length or nature of this treating relationship. Indeed, the Regulations explicitly required the ALJ to do so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) requires an ALJ to consider the nature and extent of the treatment relationship when weighing a medical opinion.

Delponte v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-11-15(c)(2)(ii)

The ALJ’s anal- ysis is a correct application of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii), which re- quires an ALJ to consider the nature and extent of the treatment rela- tionship.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats the determination of residual functional capacity as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner.

Tarr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-26(d)(2)

The determination of RFC is an administrative finding that 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.

Jones v. Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(d)(2)

The ALJ is charged with the final responsibility for determining a claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (the final responsibility for deciding the RFC “is reserved to the Commissioner”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves final responsibility for deciding a claimant’s RFC to the Commissioner, although medical-source opinions are considered.

Coleman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-28(d)

While medical source opinions are considered, the final responsibility for deciding the RFC is reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Coldiron v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 391 F. App’x. 435, 439 (6th Cir. 2010) (“The Social Security Act instructs that the ALJ—not a physician—ultimately determines a claimant’s RFC.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation reserves responsibility for determining whether a claimant is disabled and unable to work to the Commissioner.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-18(d)(1), (d)(3)

The ALJ’s statement of the law is correct: agency regulations state that the Commissioner alone is responsible for determining whether a claimant is disabled and unable to work. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1); see also id. § 404.1527(d)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, generally gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, requires good reasons for the weight assigned, and requires consideration of state-agency consultants' findings as opinion evidence but not on the ultimate disability issue.

Kashanchi v. Saul · filed 2020-09-11(b), (c)(2), (c), (f)(2)(i)

Despite the absence of supporting medical evidence, the ALJ was required to consider Dr. Yazji’s opinion about Plaintiff's work-related physical limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b); see also Newton y. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448, 455 (Sth Cir. 2000).!° A medical opinion from a treating doctor will be accorded “controlling weight” where 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). The ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight given to treating doctors’ opinions. Jd. ... The ALJ properly considered the opinion, even though it predated the alleged onset date. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”); ... The regulations explain that the state agency consultants “are highly qualified” physicians and psychologists “who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f(2)(i), 416,927(f)(2)(i). As such, the ALJ “must consider findings of State agency medical and psychological consultants . . . as opinion evidence,” except on the ultimate issue of disability. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) requires an ALJ to consider social-worker judgments about issues similar to those addressed in medical opinions from acceptable sources, but diagnoses and symptoms alone do not qualify as a medical opinion.

(SS) Kaminski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-14(f)(1)

The ALJ must consider the opinions of social workers, who may offer “judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 655 (9th Cir. 2017) (describing circumstances when opinions from “other sources” may be considered acceptable medical opinions). However, Plaintiff fails to identify any medical “opinion” from Ms. Valencia, as the cited records only address Plaintiffs’ diagnoses and symptoms. Thus, Plaintiff fails to show the ALJ erred in addressing the cited evidence from Ms. Valencia.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows a nonmedical source's opinion to outweigh an acceptable medical source's opinion when it is more consistent with the evidence as a whole, while a treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Sharp v. Saul · filed 2020-09-16(f)(1), (c)(2)

To the contrary, “a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source” when, among other things, “the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... A treating physician’s opinion is given “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to apply specified factors when a treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Spieth v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-25(c)(2)(i-ii), (c)(3-6)

The regulations “provide that, when a treating source’s opinions are not given controlling weight, an ALJ must apply the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i-ii) and (c)(3-6) in determining how much weight to give each opinion.” ... These factors include the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight to consider specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Schultz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-25(d)(2)

The SSA has mandated specific procedures an ALJ must follow when considering the weight to assign a treating physician’s opinion.8 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. “[T]he opinion of a [plaintiff]’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment 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.’” ... There are several factors that an ALJ must explicitly consider when weighing medical evidence. As the Second Circuit has explained: ... 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. 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 [SSA]’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. The regulations also specify that the Commissioner will always give good reasons in her notice of determination or decision for the weight she gives claimant’s treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to explicitly consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization, although a slavish recitation of every factor is unnecessary when the reasoning shows that the treating-physician rule was followed.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2020-09-25(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must “‘explicitly consider, inter alia: (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.’” ... However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally calls for greater weight to be given to treating-source medical opinions and provides for controlling weight when a treating physician’s opinion is well supported and consistent with the record.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-25(a)(2), (c)(2)

When determining a claimant’s residual functional capacity (“RFC”), an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). But an ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are in the best positions to provide “detailed, longitudinal picture[s] of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 F. App’x 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to assess the opinion using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Scatola v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-26(c)(1)–(6)

If the opinion of the treating physician is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply a number of factors in order to determine the opinion’s proper weight. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination as well as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating source’s opinion; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the treating source is a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

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 not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Watson v. Saul · filed 2020-09-24(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that “the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment 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.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) [now (c)(2)]).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion remains entitled to deference and must be weighed under the listed factors.

Saiz v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-11(c)(1)-(6)

The Social Security regulations afford a treating source opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... But even if the ALJ does not afford the treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ owes that opinion deference and must weigh that opinion using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but even without controlling weight the opinion must be deferred to and weighed under the factors in subsections (c)(1)-(6).

Jacoby v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-11(c)(1)-(6)

The Social Security regulations afford a treating source opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... But even if the ALJ does not afford the treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ owes that opinion deference and must weigh that opinion using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider and address medical source opinions and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.

Baca v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-05-15(b)

The ALJ must consider and address medical source opinions and give good reasons for the weight accorded to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)8; SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7. ... In making her determination that Ms. Baca was capable of performing light exertional work, the ALJ considered the medical opinion evidence as she was required to do. Tr. 608-09; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the acceptable medical source opinions in the record and assign weight to each.

Whittenberg v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-09(c)

An ALJ must consider the acceptable medical source opinions of record and assign weight to each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and requires the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, and specialization when weighing an other-source opinion.

Carney v. Saul · filed 2021-03-15

Controlling weight is generally given to the opinion of a treating physician in disability determinations as it “may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). If a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in a claimant’s file, then the opinion will be given controlling weight over the opinions of non-treating physicians. Id. ... the ALJ was still required to consider numerous factors in deciding the weight to give MFT Hall, including her treatment relationship with Carney (the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship), the supportability of her conclusions, and her specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) treats the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examinations as factors in weighing a medical opinion.

Graham v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-06-22(c)(2)

The length of treatment relationship and the frequency of examinations is a factor relied upon in how to weigh medical opinions, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2), and Dr. Bowes only saw Plaintiff for the single evaluation, Tr. 457-63. However, Dr. Bowes’ status as an examining physician dictates the standard the ALJ must meet before rejecting the opinion, Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (“Cases in this circuit distinguish among the opinions of three types of physicians: (1) those who treat the claimant (treating physicians); (2) those who examine but do not treat the claimant (examining physicians); and (3) those who neither examine nor treat the claimant (nonexamining physicians).”), and does not rise to the level of specific and legitimate itself.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the examining or treating relationship, consistency and supportability, and the medical source’s specialization when weighing a medical expert’s opinion.

Kelly v. Saul · filed 2021-07-29

To be sure, when deciding how much weight to afford to an ME’s opinion, the ALJ is required to consider the nature of the examining or treating relationship, consistency and supportability of the opinion, and the doctor’s specialization. ... Here the ALJ did not adequately engage with the applicable regulatory factors when weighing the ME’s opinion. See Plessinger v. Berryhill, 900 F.3d 909, 914-15 (7th Cir. 2018) (faulting ALJ for failing to analyze 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 factors in connection with ME opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ to consider the prescribed factors when weighing medical source opinions.

Minner v. ASTRUE, COM'R, SOC. SEC. ADMIN. · filed 2010-09-29(d)

In sum, the court concludes that the ALJ did not give complete consideration to the totality of the treatment records and information provided by plaintiffs treating medical sources and did not fully consider the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 1527(d) for determining the weight to be afforded medical source opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) permits an ALJ to consider a physician's familiarity with the Administration's disability programs and evidentiary requirements when evaluating a medical opinion, but a conclusory assertion of unfamiliarity is inadequate without factual support.

Soans v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(c)(6)

The ALJ’s remaining reason for assigning Dr. Hakimi’s opinions little weight—his lack of familiarity with the Administration’s “precise disability guidelines”—is also rejected. An ALJ may consider a physician’s familiarity with the Administration’s “disability programs and their evidentiary requirements” when evaluating a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6). In this case, however, the ALJ does not provide any factual support for her conclusory statement that Dr. Hakimi’s opinions reflect a lack of familiarity of the disability guidelines. See Tr. 25. Rather, the ALJ found that Dr. Hakimi limited Plaintiff to “a less than sedentary exertional level” and assessed a variety of functional limitations, including limitations in her ability to sit and stand/walk during an eight-hour workday, her capacity to maintain concentration and handle stress, and pulling. Id. Such functional limitations reflect some familiarity and understanding of the Administration’s guidelines. As such, the Court finds that the ALJ’s reason for rejecting Dr. Hakimi’s assessments for lack of familiarity with the disability guidelines is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires medical opinions to be considered together with the rest of the relevant evidence in the case record when deciding whether a claimant is disabled.

Anderson, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-24(b)

Here, the ALJ appropriately considered Dr. Brauer’s opinion in the context of the overall record, including the evidence that was generated and submitted after the consultative examination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) (2016) (“In deciding if you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider medical and other residual-functional-capacity opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence.

Slater v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-24(b)

When determining a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ considers medical and other RFC opinions “together with the rest of the relevant evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed using the listed regulatory factors.

HOWIE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-12-28(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

Filed in February 2017, id. at 17, the July 2017 treating physician opinion issued by Dr. Purewal is entitled “controlling weight” only if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If it does not merit controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it based on the same regulatory factors she must consider for the other medical source opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)(i)–(ii), (c)(3)–(6) (length and frequency of the treatment relationship, “nature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the opinion’s “supportability” and consistency with the record as a whole, the opining physician’s specialization, and factors such as the opining physician’s familiarity with the standards of the Social Security program).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors in deciding how much weight the opinion should receive.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-29(c)(1)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, an ALJ considers the following factors to determine how much weight it should receive: (1) whether the source examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the source presented relevant evidence to support the opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether a specialist rendered the opinion in his or her area of expertise; and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, permits an ALJ to discount it for good reasons, and gives more weight to an examining physician’s opinion than to a non-examining source.

Whitehead v. Saul · filed 2020-12-30(c)(1), (c)(2)

Whitehead’s application was filed before March 27, 2017, so the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 apply. Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018). Therefore “[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 is consistent with other evidence in the record.” Id. But an ALJ may discount the opinion of a treating physician, such as Dr. Dela Llana, if he provides good reasons for doing so. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Stepp v. Colvin, 795 F.3d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 2015). The opinion of a consulting physician who personally examines the claimant, like Dr. Zygmunt, is also given more weight than non‐examining sources. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1). Whitehead argues that the 2018 form filled out by Dr. Dela Llana is entitled to controlling weight under the regulation, but the ALJ was justified in discounting it. The ALJ gave “good reasons” for his decision—in particular, discrepancies between the limitations listed in the 2018 form and the 2016 letter.

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 the other substantial evidence in the record, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors before assigning less than controlling weight.

Mislin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-22(c)(2)

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] 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). ... Before an ALJ may give less-than-controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must “explicitly consider, inter alia: (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.” ... Here, the ALJ explicitly addressed all four Burgess factors before giving Dr. Nickolova’s opinion partial weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported, record-consistent opinion controlling weight.

Lockhaven v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-25(c)(2)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to apply the treating physician rule, under which 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 the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

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 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Demars v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-06(c)(2)

The regulations implementing the Social Security Act create a presumption in favor of adopting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The 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.” Id. If the ALJ finds that the treating physician’s opinion does not satisfy this threshold, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it by “explicitly consider[ing]” four 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.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95-96 (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ must “give good reasons in its notice of determination or decision for the weight it gives the treating source’s medical opinion.” Id. at 96 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating-source opinion less than controlling weight when it is inconsistent with objective medical evidence, so long as the ALJ provides a good reason.

Bragg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-12-30(c)(2)

The ALJ’s finding that Dr. Golembiewski’s opinion was inconsistent with the objective medical evidence was a “good reason” for giving a treating physician 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 well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to consider specified factors when determining the weight of other treating-source opinions.

Rogers v. Saul · filed 2021-01-11(c)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both “well-supported” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the case record.3 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). ... The regulations require the ALJ to 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. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

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.

Minnifield v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-12(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) requires a treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

WISE v. BERRYHILL · filed 2021-01-13(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinions are entitled to “controlling weight” if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must give good reasons and weigh the opinion using the regulation’s factors.

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

Under the treating physician rule, a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment(s) is entitled to controlling weight where: (a) it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (b) it is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” of record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). “It is an accepted principle that the opinion of a treating physician is not binding if it is contradicted by substantial evidence.” Mongeur v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 1033, 1039 (2d Cir. 1983). If not given controlling weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight provided to the opinion. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c). “Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927.” SSR 96-2p. These factors include: (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 relevant specialist. Id.

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 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s case record.

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

If the 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 claimant's] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires a treating physician’s medical opinion to receive controlling weight unless the ALJ explains that it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

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

This rule originates from the plain language of C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), which instructs that a medical opinion from an applicant’s treating physician should be given controlling weight, unless the ALJ sets forth why the opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ must apply the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Trent v. SSA · filed 2021-01-19(c)(2)

An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source “controlling weight” if he finds the opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). If the opinion of a treating source is not accorded controlling weight, an ALJ must apply certain factors in determining what weight to give the opinion. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. The ALJ is also required to articulate “good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight” given to the treating source’s opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and otherwise consider specified factors in deciding the opinion's weight.

Pettis v. Saul · filed 2021-01-27(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(5)

In addition, the ALJ did not adequately assess Dr. Galligan’s opinions. As Plaintiff filed her application for benefits before March 27, 2017, the “treating physician rule” applies, whereby ALJs must give “controlling weight” to a treating physician's opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Burmester v. Berryhill, 920 F.3d 507, 512 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). 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. Reinaas, 953 F.3d at 465-66.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a treating source’s 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; if controlling weight is not assigned, the ALJ must give good reasons based on the listed factors.

Scheibley v. Saul · filed 2021-01-27(c)(2)–(6)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, as Mr. Scheibley’s claim was here, a treating source’s opinion 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] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. When an ALJ does not ascribe controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, they must give “good reasons” for the weight they assign, based on the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, the practitioner’s specialization, and other relevant factors. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; the ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor in the written decision.

Snead v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-28(c)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. See Tilley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 216, 222 (6th Cir. 2010) (indicating that, under Blakley and the good reason rule, an ALJ is not required to explicitly address all of the six factors within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for weighing medical opinion evidence within the written decision).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Newcomb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-01-21(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); 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 to consider the listed factors when deciding what weight to give a treating physician's opinion and to provide good reasons for discounting it.

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

For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ violated the treating physician rule by failing to provide good reasons for discounting Dr. Zambron's opinion as to plaintiff's physical functional capacity and by not consulting the factors in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) in deciding what weight to give the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires weighing it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency.

Blue v. Saul · filed 2021-01-25(c)(2)-(6)

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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions with the other relevant evidence and evaluate them using factors including the source relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

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

An ALJ is required to consider medical opinions along with all other relevant evidence in a claimant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” § 404.1527(a)(1). The ALJ evaluates medical opinions based upon the nature of the medical source’s relationship with the claimant, the extent to which the source provides evidence to support the opinion, the extent the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record, the specialization of the medical source, and other factors including the understanding the source has of the social security system. § 404.1527(c); see also Brunnell v. Commissioner of Social Security, 18-cv-569-LM, 2019 WL 4201068, at *4 (D.N.H. Sept. 5, 2019).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider regulatory factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require an explicit discussion of every factor if the substance of the regulation is applied and the rationale for the weight assigned is stated.

Bongiovanni v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-22(c)

While 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 provides a number of factors that an ALJ considers when evaluating medical opinions, “[a]n ALJ does not have to explicitly walk through these factors,” so long as the Court can conclude that he or she “applied the substance” of the regulations and appropriately set forth the rationale for the weight given to the opinions. Hall v. Colvin, 37 F. Supp. 3d 614, 625 (W.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, specialty, consistency with the record, and supporting evidence when assigning weight.

Seigfreid v. Saul · filed 2021-02-23(c)(2)(i), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(4), (c)(5)

Absent from the AL]’s discussion was any indication that he considered the fact that both Dr. Tan and Ossi had a lengthy and regular treating relationship with Seigfreid, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) and (ii), whether and to what extent their treatment notes supported their opinions, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), and the fact that both were mental health specialists, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). ... While an ALJ need only “minimally articulate” his reasoning for the weight to afford a treating source, Collins v. Berryhill, 743 F. App’x 21, 25 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008)), the ALJ’s analysis fell short of this standard. The reasons he gave were either irrelevant or of marginal probity. Therefore, remand is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by sound medical evidence and consistent with the record, and requires the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship and explain the weight assigned if controlling weight is not given.

Karr v. Saul · filed 2021-02-23(c)(2)

For claims like Karr’s filed before 2017, the opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by sound medical evidence and is consistent with the record. ... As a general rule, an “ALJ should explicitly consider the details of the treatment relationship and provide reasons for the weight given to [treating physicians’] opinions.” ... We have no doubt the error here was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported, record-consistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight; if it is not controlling, the ALJ must consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, consistency, and specialization, in deciding its weight.

Paige v. Saul · filed 2021-02-23(c)(2)

Under the regulations, an ALJ must “give more weight to medical opinions from [a claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). An ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a treating physician regarding the nature and severity of an impairment if “that opinion is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.” ... Even if an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still “determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the opinion by considering ‘all of . . . the factors’ listed in the regulation, which include the length of the treatment relationship, consistency of the opinion with the record, and the physician’s specialization.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R.. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion more weight, requires controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons when assigning it less weight.

Weaver v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-24(c)(2)

Plaintiff correctly notes that her treating doctor should generally be given deference. However, after a close review of the medical evidence, I find that ALJ properly evaluated the opinions of Dr. Collom. ... Generally, a treating physician’s opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Indeed, when the treating physician’s opinion is supported by proper medical testing, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give the opinion controlling weight. Id. “However, [a]n ALJ may discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence, or where a treating physician renders inconsistent opinions that undermine the credibility of such opinions.” Wildman v. Astrue, 596 F.3d 959, 964 (8th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). Ultimately, the ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating physician's opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).