20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to explicitly consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization before assigning less than controlling weight.

Hailu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-02-24(c)(2)

And because Dr. McElligott was one of Dereje’s treating physicians, his opinion was entitled to controlling weight so long as it was “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 giving less-than-controlling weight to Dr. McElligott’s opinion, the ALJ was required to “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.” Greek v. Colvin, 802 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 2015) (quotations and alterations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives treating-source medical opinions greater weight because of the treating source's longitudinal perspective, but allows the ALJ to discount such an opinion when substantial medical evidence is contrary and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Tipton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2021-02-25(c)(2)

Alongside the five-step process, the ALJ must follow the “treating physician” rule, where the ALJ gives greater weight to medical opinions of physicians who have treated a claimant than to opinions of non-treating physicians, because treating physicians are “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of the claimant’s medical impairments.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Despite the rule’s importance, the ALJ is not bound by a treating physician’s opinion if there is substantial medical evidence to the contrary. Id. However, in every case, the ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight that the ALJ assigns to a treating source’s opinion. Hargett v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 964 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting id.).

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 record.

Morrall v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-02-26(c)(2)

The medical opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight, i.e., it must be adopted by the ALJ, 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Lucia Madrigal v. Saul · filed 2021-03-04(d)(2)

If a treating source’s opinion on the issues of 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 other substantial evidence in the case record, the ALJ must give it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with substantial evidence and to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, specialty, testing, consistency, and support.

Lymperopulos v. Saul · filed 2021-03-05(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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must also “offer good reasons for discounting” the opinion of a treating physician. Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 306 (7th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations omitted); Scott, 647 F.3d at 739; see also Israel v. Colvin, 840 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2016) (“A contradictory opinion of a non-examining physician does not, by itself, suffice as a justification for discounting the opinion of the treating physician.”). 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(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Vrlaku v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-05(d)(2)

The “treating physician” rule requires the ALJ to give “a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairment “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 106 (2d Cir. 2003) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) and Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Neese v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-04(c)(2)

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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, weigh it using the listed factors, and explain specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting it.

Grant v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-08(c)

“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” ... An ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion: ... See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) (effective March 27, 2017). ... In this case, the ALJ did not provide specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting Dr. Gallavan’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves the ultimate determination of a claimant’s disability to the Commissioner.

Barr v. Saul · filed 2020-06-08(d)

Ultimately, the determination of a claimant’s disability is left to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) permits an ALJ to reject a medical source’s conclusion that a claimant is disabled or unable to work, but that conclusion does not diminish the source’s assessment of the claimant’s functional limitations.

Denson v. O'Malley · filed 2023-09-12(d)(1)

The ALJ is responsible for determining whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability, not a physician. Social Security Ruling 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183 at *5 (July 2, 1996). A medical source that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” does not require the ALJ to determine the claimant meets the definition of disability. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(1). The ALJ also found it had no probative value in assessing Plaintiff’s functional abilities. Tr. 456. An ALJ may reject an opinion that does “not show how [the claimant’s] symptoms translate into specific functional deficits which preclude work activity.” Morgan, 169 F.3d at 601. While the ALJ was justified in rejecting Dr. Halma’s conclusion that Plaintiff was “unable to work,” it does not diminish Dr. Halma’s assessment of functional limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion to weigh it using listed factors, and § 404.1527(c)(2) requires good reasons for the weight assigned, though no factor-by-factor discussion is necessary.

Lozada-Miranda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-11(c), (c)(2)

Where an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he must determine how much weight to accord the opinion based on the following factors: “1) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; 2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) how well supported the conclusion is by relevant evidence; 4) how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; [and] 5) how specialized the knowledge is of the treating physician.” Abubakar, 2012 WL 957623, at *9; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ need not expressly discuss each factor, but must give “good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-09(d)(2), (d)(2)(i)-(ii), (3)-(5)

Under the regulations applicable to plaintiffs case, a treating source opinion is given controlling weight if well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and it requires an ALJ to explain weight given to opinions of treating opinions with “good reasons” set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... In explaining the opinion’s lack of supportability by the record as a whole, including treatment notes, other opinions of record, and activities of daily living, the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Connor’s opinion and provided the requisite good reasons for discounting it.

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 and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if controlling weight is denied, the ALJ must consider specified factors and give good reasons for the assigned weight.

Daigle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)

The treating physician rule requires that “the 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.’” Burgess, 537 F.3d at 128 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... When the treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, “the ALJ must explicitly consider” a number of factors to determine the proper weight to assign to the opinion, including “(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 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam)); see generally 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ then must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96 (quoting Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam)). ... The ALJ did not explicitly consider factor one: the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Perez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)

An ALJ must, therefore, give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source if: (1) the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

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 factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Colon v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-28(c)(1)–(6)

In not affording Dr. Everett’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ should have considered the requisite factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). His failure to do so was error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)

Under the ‘treating physician rule,’ a treating physician's opinion will be given 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.’” Finch v.Berryhill, No. 17-CV-892, 2019 WL 1434621, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2019) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(S). However, where a treating physician issues an opinion “not consistent with other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts,” no such deference is due.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give 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 other substantial evidence in the record.

Moore v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-28(d)(2)

If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.

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 record.

FRITZ v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)

Thus, a treating physician’s opinion is only entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 43 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, and requires the ALJ to comprehensively explain the reasons for assigning different weight.

Stefanescu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)

“The ‘treating physician’ rule requires that the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician be accorded ‘controlling weight’ if it is well supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” ... “If the ALJ decides that the treating physician’s opinion does not merit controlling weight, she must “comprehensively set forth [her] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating source’s opinion to give good reasons that are supported by the record and sufficiently specific to explain the weight assigned.

Martin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-08(d)(2)

The treating source rule prescribes a specific process the ALJ must go through to discount the opinion of a treating physician. ... If the ALJ declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, he must then balance the following factors to determine what weight to give it: “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 specialization of the treating source.” ... The ALJ has a “clear duty” to “give good reasons” for determining how much weight to give to a treating physician’s opinion, which “must be ‘supported by the evidence in the case record, and . . . sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers . . . the reasons for that weight.” ... Considering the requirements for finding harmless error in violating the treating source rule, as well as the evidence in the record, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the ALJ’s errors in failing to evaluate Drs. Key and Tarter’s opinions are not harmless. ... Further, the ALJ’s analysis did not meet the goals of § 1527(d)(2). ... This case is not the “rare case” where the ALJ met the “goal” of § 404.1527 if not the letter.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) excludes a medical source from treating-source status when the relationship exists solely to obtain a report supporting a disability claim.

Harris v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-28(a)(2)

We will not consider an acceptable medical source to be your treating source if your relationship with the source is not based on your medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on your need to obtain a report in support of your claim for disability. ... Given that Harris appears to have only seen Hinnant for purposes of supporting his claim, the ALJ did not err in failing to evaluate Hinnant’s opinion under the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)'s good-reasons rule applies to treating sources, not one-time examining sources.

Chaney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-22(c)(2)

Further, even if the old regulations applied, Scott was a one-time examining source, not a treating source, and the “good reasons” rule would therefore be inapplicable.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ weighing a treating-source opinion to consider its consistency with other medical evidence and the relevant longitudinal evidence.

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

The ALJ properly considered the consistency of Dr. Brandemihl’s opinion with the other medical evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), as well as the relevant longitudinal evidence in weighing Dr. Brandemihl’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, while giving a treating opinion deference even when it lacks controlling weight.

Armstead v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

“If a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling weight’ because it is not ‘well-supported’ or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the [SSA] considers specified factors in determining the weight it will be given.” ... “Those factors include the ‘[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination’ by the treating physician; and the ‘nature and extent of the treatment relationship’ between the patient and the treating physician.” ... Additional factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided; the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; the specialty of the physician providing the opinion; and ‘[o]ther factors’ such as the degree of understanding a physician has of the [Social Security] Administration’s ‘disability programs and their evidentiary requirements’ and the degree of his or her familiarity with other information in the case record. Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(6)). Nonetheless, even if the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ's reasons for assigning weight to a medical opinion to be tied to the regulation's factors and supported by substantial evidence.

Quintana v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(c)

An ALJ’s rationale for his assignment of weight to a medical opinion must be tied to the Section 404.1527 factors and supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinion evidence, but an equivocal statement that does not address the nature or severity of an actual limitation is not a medical opinion the ALJ must expressly accept or reject.

Owens v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(b)

The ALJ is required to evaluate all of the medical opinion evidence in the record, whether the opinion is offered by a treating physician or another source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). ... The Court does not find that the ALJ was required to expressly accept or reject Dr. Simmons’ statement concerning plaintiff’s possible difficulty in adjusting to changes in her routine or environment. Dr. Simmons’ summary shows that made she specific findings concerning actual limitations that she perceived as a result of her examination of plaintiff, and her equivocal statement concerning plaintiff’s ability to adjust to changes does not rise to the level of a statement concerning the nature or severity of an actual limitation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) permits an ALJ to consider a medical expert’s area of specialization when weighing the expert’s opinion.

Crane v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-28(c)(5)

An ALJ may consider an expert’s area of specialization when deciding how much weight is owed to the medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5), 416.927(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions; failure to do so requires remand, and a treating physician’s opinion must be explained if the ALJ declines controlling weight because it lacks clinical support or conflicts with substantial evidence.

Payton v. Saul · filed 2020-10-26(a)(1)-(b), (c)(2)

Generally, the ALJ gives “controlling weight” to the medical opinion of a treating physician. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... However, the law requires the ALJ to evaluate these medical opinions, and his failure to evaluate them alone merits remand. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1)-(b); see Reinhardt v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00488-MOC, 2015 WL 1756480, at *4 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 17, 2015). ... If the ALJ disagrees with the opinions of these treating physicians, then he must provide an explanation for why their opinions are not supported by clinical evidence or why they are inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See Hines, 453 F.3d at 563; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Doser v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-05

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require expressly listing every factor in the findings.

Lora Green v. Saul · filed 2020-12-09(c)

Green’s remaining argument, that the ALJ erred when explaining the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, is unpersuasive. Green has not shown that the ALJ failed to consider the factors listed in § 404.1527(c)—even if she did not expressly list them all in her findings. See Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 676 (finding error when an ALJ did not consider additional relevant factors). And the ALJ noted the relevant factors for evaluating the opinions of Green’s examining physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give each medical opinion.

Pineiro v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-08(c)

The ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give each medical opinion, including: 1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; 2) the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s relationship with the claimant; 3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; 4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and 5) the physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Regardless of the medical opinion’s source, the ALJ must state the weight assigned to each medical opinion, and articulate the reasons supporting the weight assigned.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization when evaluating a medical opinion.

Furno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-11(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider various factors in evaluating medical opinions, including the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of visits, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, how much relevant evidence supports the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record, and whether the physician is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). The ALJ did not follow this regulatory scheme. The Court finds the ALJ lacked “good cause” to assign less weight to Dr. Vijapura’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight to weigh factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

(SS) Chessani v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-10(c)(2)-(6)

When an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “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.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using enumerated factors and permits a non-treating opinion to be rejected with an explanation that makes the reasoning traceable without an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Berger v. Saul · filed 2021-03-12(c)

“ALJs must evaluate every medical opinion [they] receive by considering several enumerated factors” listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... When an ALJ's decision rejects the opinion of a medical expert who is not a treating physician, the decision “must say enough to allow the appellate court to trace the path of [the ALJ's] reasoning” but need not be “an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.” ... In doing so, the ALJ sufficiently addressed the factors delineated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and, thus, did not commit reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Thatcher v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-03-15(c)

Where an opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is responsible for assessing the weight of a medical opinion based on several factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those factors include: 1) whether the physician has examined the applicant; 2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant; 3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record; 5) whether the physician is a specialist; and 6) other factors brought to defendant’s attention, such as the amount of understanding of defendant’s disability programs and their evidentiary requirements, and the physician’s familiarity with other information in the record. See id. § 404.1527(c); Johnson, 434 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) identifies factors for evaluating medical-opinion evidence, and an ALJ's failure to explicitly assess each factor may be harmless.

Castillo v. Saul · filed 2021-03-16(c)

To the extent it was error for the ALJ to fail to explicitly list and assess each regulatory factor in considering this medical opinion evidence, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (2017), any such error was harmless.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as statements from physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources expressing judgments about an impairment and what the claimant can still do despite it, including physical or mental restrictions.

James v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-16(a)(2)

The Social Security regulations define medical opinions as statements from physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, what a claimant can still do despite impairments, and physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider all of the listed factors, including supportability and consistency, when determining the weight to assign.

Cox v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-16(c)

The ALJ did not properly evaluate all of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors in relation to the evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) identifies medical opinions as acceptable-source statements about the nature and severity of impairments, what a claimant can still do, and related physical or mental restrictions.

Wilson v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-16(a)(2)

Medical opinions are statements from an acceptable medical source that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, what a claimant can still do despite her mental impairments, and her physical or mental restrictions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). ... Here, Wilson’s argument is factually deficient. The ALJ considered Dr. Christie’s report in the RFC assessment, giving it partial weight to support the conclusion that Wilson suffered from “memory loss, slowed thinking, and inattention.” ... Thus, the ALJ properly considered Dr. Christie’s medical opinion without giving it the weight Wilson contends it should have received, so the ALJ’s finding does not constitute reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) directs the ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical source's opinion.

Smith v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-17(c)(1)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to an other-source opinion or otherwise make the adjudicator’s reasoning traceable when the opinion may affect the outcome.

Tackett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-18(f)(2)

That said, an ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). ... The Court holds that the ALJ’s discussion of Ms. Tackett’s mental health issues allows her to follow the ALJ’s reasoning, even though the ALJ did not assign Ms. Hughes’ opinion specific weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, while giving no special significance to opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Pope v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-03-19(c)-(d)

To determine the weight given to any medical opinion, an ALJ must consider several factors, including the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the evidence presented to support the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with other evidence, and the specialization of the medical professional. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c); see Davis v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 449 F. App’x 828, 832 (11th Cir. 2011) (the ALJ will give more weight to the medical opinions of a source who has examined the plaintiff and opinions that are supported by medical signs and findings and are consistent with the overall “record as a whole”). ... Moreover, the ALJ need not credit a physician’s opinion about his patient’s ability to work, as such opinions usurp the Commissioner’s administrative function. According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), the determination of whether an individual is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner, and no special significance will be given to an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner. Section (d)(2) provides that although the Commissioner will consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as the RFC and the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding those issues is reserved to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the source's examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, including familiarity with the record.

Danner v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-23(c)(1)–(6)

An ALJ must weigh the following factors when considering medical opinions: (1) whether the source has an examining relationship with claimant; (2) whether the source has a treatment relationship with claimant; (3) supportability (as shown by relevant evidence and explanation); (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors, including the source’s familiarity with other information in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). The ALJ discounted Dr. Alvord’s opinion because it was based on a one-time examination, did not cite to Plaintiff’s medical records, was based on Plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms, and was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s activities of daily living, the mental status exams of treating providers, and Dr. Pamela Roman’s findings. Tr. 24. This reasoning shows the ALJ considered the required actors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion together with the rest of the relevant evidence and to evaluate the opinions regardless of their source when determining a claimant's residual functional capacity.

Prince v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-03-23(b), (c)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions in conjunction with any other relevant evidence received to determine a claimant's R.F.C. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b) ("In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive."); 404.1527(c) ("Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive."). The ALJ did that here, and the Court discerns no legal error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to assign a weight to a therapist’s opinion when the therapist is not an acceptable medical source, and a detailed inquiry into every treating-source factor is unnecessary when reliable medical evidence controverts the opinion.

Coesens v. Saul · filed 2021-03-23(c), (f)

As a therapist, Ms. Pulley is not an acceptable medical source, and the regulations do not require a weight to be assigned to her opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Instead, her opinions are considered as an “other source” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) and SSR06-03p. ... A detailed inquiry of each § 404.1527 factor is unnecessary “where there is reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician that controverts the claimant’s physician.” Rollins v. Astrue, 464 Fed. Appx. 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2012). ... Even so, the ALJ’s decision reveals that he considered the factors and “saw all the evidence he was required to consider under § 404.1527[c].” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion, and a well-supported, record-consistent treating-physician opinion is entitled to controlling weight.

Hines v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-24(b), (c)(2)

Under the rules that applied when Mr. Hines filed his petition, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it’s well supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record. ... The ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion he receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors such as supportability, consistency with the record, examining and treatment relationships, and specialization.

Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-25(c)

In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate medical opinions from treating and non-treating acceptable medical sources together with the relevant evidence, address each opinion, and explain why opinions conflicting with the RFC assessment are not adopted.

Rogers v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2021-03-25(a)-(c)

An ALJ must consider and evaluate “medical opinions” provided by both treating and non-treating “acceptable medical sources,” “together with the rest of the relevant evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)-(c) (effective for claims filed before March 27, 2017); see also SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *7. In addition, the ALJ must address each medical opinion and explain why those that conflict with the RFC assessment were not adopted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion in the record when determining whether a claimant is disabled.

Cumpton v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-25(b)

When determining whether a claimant is disabled, the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a) treats a treating physician’s opinion as distinct from an opinion by a non-acceptable medical source such as a physician assistant, and does not make the physician assistant an extension of the supervising physician.

Winston v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-25(a)

The Court rejects this argument as contrary to the pertinent regulations, which consider treating physician opinions to be separate from opinions given by non-acceptable medical sources such as PAs. ... The regulations do not contemplate whether a PA is an “extension” of a supervising physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions, generally favors examining-source opinions over nonexamining opinions, and applies relationship, supportability, and consistency factors when evaluating medical and nonmedical-source statements.

Slayter v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-25(a)(1), (c), and (f)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgements about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). ... The opinions of examining doctors are generally favored over those of non-examining doctors. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).; Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014). The opinion of an examining doctor is “entitled to deference” and may be rejected only with specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record. Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2007); Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1160–61. ... The same factors used to evaluate the opinions of medical providers are used to evaluate statements from nonmedical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). Those factors include the length, nature, and extent of the source’s relationship with the claimant, the frequency of interaction, and the supportability and consistency of the source’s statements. Id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when evaluating a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to discuss each factor explicitly.

Schimpf v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-26(c)

An ALJ need not explicitly address every regulatory factor in evaluating a medical opinion. Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415–16 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Collins v. Berryhill, 743 F. App’x 21, 25 (7th Cir. 2018). In this case, the ALJ “sufficiently account[ed] for the factors” in his decision. Schreiber v. Colvin, 519 F. App’x 951, 959 (7th Cir. 2013). That is all that is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, including an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source, weigh it using the listed factors, and not reject it solely because of the source’s status.

Gustafson v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(c)

The ALJ is required to consider evidence from non-acceptable medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2012). Although an individual’s status as a medically acceptable source may impact the amount of deference the ALJ gives to an opinion, the ALJ may not reject an opinion as to a claimant’s limitations because the opinion comes from a non-acceptable medical source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (2012). While an ALJ may consider the fact that a provider is not an acceptable medical source when weighing an opinion, an ALJ cannot reject an opinion solely because it came from a non-acceptable source. ... The ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received according to a list of factors set forth by the Social Security Administration. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c)(1) require an ALJ to consider a non-examining medical opinion and whether it is consistent with independent evidence in the record.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(b), (c)(1)

As Dr. Smiley is a non-examining source, the ALJ must consider the opinion and whether it is consistent with other independent evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b),(c)(1); Tonapetyan v. Holter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001); Lester, 81 F.3d at 830-31.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a medical opinion as a medical source’s judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, residual abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

Porteous v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(a)(1)

The medical record submitted by Porteous does not contain any medical opinions from treating physicians “reflect[ing] judgments about the nature and severity of [her] impairment(s), including [her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [she] can still do despite impairment(s), and [her] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). The ALJ therefore did not err in failing to incorporate any such opinions into her RFC determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions and requires the ALJ to weigh them using factors including examination and treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, while stating specific reasons for the assigned weight.

Bettis v. Saul · filed 2021-03-29(a)(2), (c), (e)

“ ‘Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.’ ” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2)). ... “In assessing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion, including (1) whether the physician has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating physician's relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the physician’s opinion; (4) how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; and (5) the physician’s specialization. These factors apply to both examining and non-examining physicians.” Eyre v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 586 F. App'x 521, 523 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) & (e), 416.927(c) & (e)). ... “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor.” Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, giving greater weight to opinions with more supporting evidence and consistency.

Tolliver v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-29(c)

In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). For instance, the more a medical source presents evidence to support an opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight that medical opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider each listed factor when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to explicitly address every factor in the decision.

Sickmiller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)

The Court finds there is no error here. While the ALJ is required to consider each of the factors found in § 404.1527(c), it is not mandatory that he explicitly address them in his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned, and consider the listed factors unless a treating-source opinion receives controlling weight.

Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-30(c)(1)-(6)

An ALJ has an obligation to evaluate every medical opinion and explain the weight given to the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Unless a treating source’s medical opinion is given controlling weight,3 an ALJ weighs each medical opinion based on the following factors: (1) whether there is an examining relationship; (2) whether there is a treatment relationship, and if so the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of the examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence and give sufficient reasons when weighing competing medical opinions.

(SS) Medina v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly enumerate each of its six factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, so long as the ALJ provides good reasons supported by the record.

Farinas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-31(c)

First, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ “ignored or failed to address” Section 404.1527 factors. ... The Court disagrees. To start, “the ALJ has no obligation to explicitly enumerate each of the six factors described in the Social Security regulations,” because the regulations only require “good reasons” to be provided when giving weight to the treating physician’s opinion. ... The answer is that the other factors prevailed, especially given the inconsistencies the ALJ identified between the Treating Source Statement and the record evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ deciding the weight of medical opinions to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source's specialization, among other factors.

Schandel v. Commissioner for Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-30(c)

When considering what weight to give any medical opinion, the AL] is obligated to consider a non-exclusive list of factors to determine the weight to be given all the medical opinions in the record, including: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the source’s opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record; and (5) specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Testamark, 736 F. App’x at 398.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using specified relationship, support, and consistency factors, while treating disability determinations as reserved to the Commissioner.

Sanders v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-04-01(c), (d)

In deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers, among other things, (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical evidence and explanations; and (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... First -- as noted by the ALJ -- Dr. Ladipo’s opinion that Sanders was unable to work is entitled to no weight because that conclusion is an administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) permits an ALJ to consider an opinion’s support from objective medical signs and findings, consistency with the record as a whole, and the explanation provided by the source.

Wilson v. Saul · filed 2021-04-06(c)(3)-(4)

An ALJ may reasonably consider an opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole and support from the objective medical signs and findings, along with the amount of explanation provided by the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4). Dr. Quaempts did not refer to any objective evidence to support his opinions and his treatment notes contain largely normal exam findings other than some tenderness. Tr. 333-34, 344, 352, 451, 1274, 1305-07. The ALJ’s interpretation is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ evaluating medical opinions need not explicitly discuss every factor if the court can determine that the ALJ applied the substance of the regulation and explained the weight assigned.

Valentin-Morales v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-09

While 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 provides a number of factors that an ALJ considers when evaluating medical opinions, an ALJ does not have to explicitly walk through each of these factors, so long as the Court can conclude that she applied the substance of the regulations and appropriately set forth the rationale for the weight given to the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Kloor v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2021-04-19(c)

In the Ninth Circuit, the 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(c) requires an ALJ to consider all listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Goode v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-21(c)

The ALJ did not properly evaluate the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors in relation to the evidence in the record and Dr. Phillips’ opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Pratt v. Saul · filed 2021-04-22(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). ... The Court finds that the ALJ satisfied the requirement that he provide a detailed and thorough summary of the facts he relied on in giving little weight to Dr. Arnold’s opinion, and articulated specific and legitimate reasons for doing so. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830–31; Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sprouse v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-28(c)(1)-(6)

In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treatment relationship with the claimant and, if so, the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the source’s opinion with respect to all of the evidence of record; whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors. See SSR 96-2p; Hines v. Barnhart, 453 Fd 559,563 (4th Cir. 2006).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions using factors such as examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization, without requiring special deference to a consultative examiner.

Anderson, James v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2021-04-29(c), (f)(1), (f)(2)

Generally, more weight is given to a medical opinion of an acceptable medical source who has examined the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, an ALJ is not required to give any special deference to the opinion of a consultative examiner. Id.; Coffee v. Colvin, 2015 WL 2405491, at *5 (S.D. Ind. May 19, 2015). In determining the degree of weight to afford any medical opinion not afforded controlling weight, an ALJ should consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, length of the treatment relationship, and the frequency of examination, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and (f)(1); SSR 06-03p. The ALJ has met these minimal standards in this case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion and give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight unless it is unsupported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques or inconsistent with the record, while explaining the reasons for any reduced weight.

Reusel v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-04-29(c)

At Step Four, an ALJ must weigh every medical opinion that the Social Security Administration receives. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). An ALJ must give a treating source opinion controlling weight, unless the opinion is: (1) not “supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; or (2) inconsistent with finding in the treating source’s own records or other medical evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Biestek v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 880 F.3d 778, 786 (6th Cir. 2017). And, if the ALJ finds either prong justifies giving the treating source opinion less-than-controlling weight, he must articulate “good reasons” for doing so – i.e., explain which prong justifies that decision. See Gayheart v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365, 376 (6th Cir. 2013); Biestek, 880 F.3d at 786.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(iv) requires an ALJ to consider examination frequency, the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a treating-source opinion, even if it is not given controlling weight.

Chamberlain v. Saul · filed 2021-05-04(c)(2)(i)-(iv)

The following factors must be considered by the ALJ when deciding how much weight the opinion should receive, even if the treating source is not given controlling weight: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(iv), 416.927(c)(2)(i)-(iv).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate conflicts in the medical evidence.

Quicksey-Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-04-22(c)(i)

Further, it is the ALJ’s duty to evaluate conflicts in the evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i); Monroe v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 676 F. App’x 5, 7 (2d Cir. 2017) (“Genuine conflicts in the medical evidence are for the Commissioner to resolve.”) (quoting Veino v. Barnhart, 312 F.3d 578, 588 (2d Cir. 2002)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rodriguez v. Saul · filed 2021-05-05(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion’s treatment relationship and consistency with the record, requires consideration of opinions from other sources, and does not allow rejection based solely on a limited treatment relationship or source status.

(SS) Frias v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-06(c)(2), (c)(4), (f)(1)

Further, an ALJ must consider the opinions of “other sources”— such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and 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); ... In determining the weight to give medical opinion evidence, the ALJ may consider the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); ... 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 Dr. Thistle’s opined limitations. ... An ALJ may reject the opinions of a physician when they are inconsistent with the overall record. Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 602-03 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion.”). However, to do so, “[t]he ALJ must do more than offer his conclusions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions, resolve conflicts, and determine their weight using factors such as the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

DERICO v. SAUL · filed 2021-05-07(b) & (c)(1)-(6)

As the finder of fact, the ALJ is charged with the duty to evaluate all the medical opinions of record and resolve conflicts that might appear. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. When considering medical opinions, the following factors apply for determining the weight to give to any medical opinion: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion, such as “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight” that opinion is given; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist and, if it is, it will be accorded greater weight; and (5) other relevant but unspecified factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) & (c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider and meaningfully evaluate the enumerated factors when deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.

Elkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-11(c)

The ALJ did not clearly explain why she deemed Dr. Bradberry’s opinion as to Plaintiff’s work-related physical limitations entitled to less than controlling weight, nor did the ALJ properly evaluate the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors in relation to the evidence in the record and Dr. Bradberry’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider factors including their consistency with the objective medical evidence.

(SS) Martinez Delgado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-12(c)

Consistency with objective medical evidence is a relevant factor to consider when evaluating opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2021-05-12(b)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require consideration of all medical opinions, including non-treating examining opinions, and § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) makes treatment-relationship length and examination frequency factors in assigning weight.

Perez v. Saul · filed 2021-05-14(b), (c), (c)(2)(i)

The applicable regulations instruct that all opinions, including those from non-treating, examining providers, should be considered. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c). And while the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination is one factor to consider, see id. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), this basis for discounting Dr. Drenguis’s opinion is particularly troubling because the ALJ gave “substantial weight” to the opinion of Dr. Staley, who never examined Perez, see Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that “the opinion of an examining physician is entitled to greater weight than that of a non-examining physician”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)–(6) identifies support, explanation, consistency with the record, and physician specialty as factors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not only a treating physician’s opinion.

Berman v. Saul · filed 2021-05-14(d)(3)–(6)

“[F]actors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided[,] the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole[, and] the specialty of the physician providing the opinion. . . .”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of source and resolve genuine conflicts among medical sources.

Billings v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-18(c)

When determining a plaintiff's RFC, an ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion received, “[r]egardless of its source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). That evaluation requires the ALJ to resolve “[g]enuine conflicts” among the sources.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider opinions from other medical sources using relevant factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, while recognizing that not every factor applies in every case.

(SS) Packard v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-19(c), (f), (f)(1)

Pursuant to the regulations, medical opinions from “other medical sources,” such as nurse practitioners must be considered. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f). In considering the opinion from an “other medical source,” the ALJ is to consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization of the source. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). However, “not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case because the evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source depends on the particular facts in each case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered the factors in addressing NP Burdick’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant factors when weighing a medical opinion but does not require separate discussion of every factor.

Collings v. Saul · filed 2021-05-21(c)

Contrary to Collings’s contention, there is no case law requiring the ALJ to specifically discuss each of the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when assigning weight to a medical opinion—the regulation simply states that the ALJ must “consider” these factors. From the discussion within the ALJ’s decision, it appears that the ALJ did consider several of the relevant factors—including the treating relationship, supportability of the opinion by the record evidence, and consistency of the opinion with the record—in assigning Dr. Smith’s opinion little weight. Therefore, the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Smith’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source's judgment about the nature and severity of an impairment and its functional restrictions, while § 404.1527(d) excludes conclusory opinions on whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work.

Perez-Serrano v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-21(a)(1), (d)

However, Dr. Santiago’s opinion that Pérez would be unable to do his job offers little insight into Pérez’s functional limitations and is therefore not a medical opinion. “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [his or her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). “[T]he regulations specifically exclude from consideration opinions on certain issues, such as conclusory statements that a claimant is disabled or unable to work.” Dunlap v. Commr. of Soc. Sec., 509 Fed. Appx. 472, 476 (6th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)). Additionally, the determination whether a claimant is unable to work is reserved for the Commissioner. The SIF record contains no medical assessment regarding physical activity limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Roche v. Saul · filed 2021-03-24(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires the SSA to consider medical opinions together with the rest of the relevant evidence, including treating providers’ findings about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairment when assessing residual functional capacity.

Perez-Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-23(b)

In determining whether a claimant is disabled, the SSA “will always consider the medical opinions in [the claimant’s] case records together with the rest of the relevant evidence.” ... Therefore, the ALJ should have discussed how he considered these records in reaching his conclusion as to the plaintiff’s RFC, and he should address this issue on remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider the extent to which medical opinions corroborate one another when weighing them.

CHALMERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-03-24(c)(4)

This constitutes legal error, because the ALJ was bound to consider the extent to which each...doctor’s opinions corroborated the other doctor’s opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to specifically address every listed factor when evaluating doctors’ opinions.

Vasquez v. Saul · filed 2021-06-15

Plaintiff also complains, again, that remand is warranted because the ALJ did not specifically address all the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 in assessing the various doctors’ opinions. (Objs. at 3-4.) But as the Magistrate Judge noted (see R. & R. at 26 (citing AR 30)), she was not required to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by the pre-March-2017 rules, Section 404.1527 required the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and weigh it under the regulation’s source-based factors, with a treating-source opinion potentially receiving controlling weight if well-supported and consistent with the record.

Geary v. Saul · filed 2021-06-15(a)(1), (c), and (c)(2)

Prior to March 2017, ALJs were required to follow regulations which defined medical opinions narrowly and created a hierarchy of medical source opinions with treating sources at the apex of this hierarchy. The regulations which pre-dated March of 2017 also set standards for the evaluation of medical evidence and defined medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the plaintiff’s] impairments, including [the plaintiff’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [he or she] can still do despite impairments, and [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Regardless of its source, the ALJ was required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In deciding what weight to accord to competing medical opinions and evidence, the ALJ was guided by factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “The regulations provide[d] progressively more rigorous tests for weighing opinions as the ties between the source of the opinion and the individual become weaker.” SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180 at *2. Treating sources had the closest ties to the claimant, and therefore their opinions were generally entitled to more weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources...”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502 (defining treating source). Under some circumstances, the medical opinion of a treating source may even be entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 (explaining that controlling weight may be given to a treating source’s medical opinion only where it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the agency to evaluate every medical opinion it receives, and an ALJ may reject an examining or non-examining physician's opinion only for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Diaz v. Andrew M.Saul · filed 2021-06-22(c)

Social Security regulations require the Agency to “evaluate every medical opinion” that it receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ may reject the medical opinions of examining physicians or non-examining physicians (including non-examining medical experts) only by providing specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ’s explanation of the disability determination to be sufficient for the claimant to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.

Honaker v. Saul · filed 2021-06-24(f)(2)

The ALJ’s explanation of disability status only needs to be sufficient “for claimant…to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2). The ALJ adequately discussed why she discounted the medical opinions of Nurse Penland, Xiong, and PA Patterson. She also discussed the medical opinions and examinations of doctors Plaintiff saw continuously over the years in coming to her decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, while § 404.1527(c) requires evaluation of medical opinions using specified factors.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-29(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a medical condition is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and consistent with the other evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).1 The ALJ is required to evaluate medical opinions using the following factors: the examining relationship; the treatment relationship (including length of treatment and frequency of examination and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship); the opinion’s support; the opinion’s consistency with the record; the physician’s specialization; and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). “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 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the source relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Thomas v. Saul · filed 2021-07-01(c)

Those factors include the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination” and the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship.” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii)). Additional factors relevant to the ALJ’s evaluation of any medical opinion, not limited to that of a treating physician, include: (1) the supportability of the opinion; (2) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the specialization of the treating or examining source; and (4) any other factors that are brought to the ALJ’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors and to clearly explain, with substantial-evidence-supported good cause, any decision to discount a treating source's opinion.

SUTHERLAND v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION · filed 2021-07-02(b) & (c)(1)-(6)

As the finder of fact, the ALJ is charged with the duty to evaluate all the medical opinions of record and resolve conflicts that might appear. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. When considering medical opinions, the following factors apply for determining the weight to give to any medical opinion: (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion, such as “[t]he more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight” that opinion is given; (3) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist and, if it is, it will be accorded greater weight; and (5) other relevant but unspecified factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) & (c)(1)-(6). ... Given the duration and frequency of Plaintiff’s treatment at Lakeview Center, the ALJ’s reasons for giving no weight to the opinions of the treating physician must be supported by substantial evidence and must be clearly articulated. ... The Court finds the ALJ has failed to clearly articulate such reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider the quality of an explanation when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

An ALJ is not required to take medical opinions at face value but may take into account the quality of the explanation when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider the applicable regulatory factors when assigning it weight.

Grumbine v. Saul · filed 2021-07-06(c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Collins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-19(c)

In addition, the ALJ failed to acknowledge—let alone evaluate—two other opinions from Dr. Gillick, both of which support the limitations contained in his other opinions. An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion it receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Johnston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-19(c)

In assessing a claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must consider all the evidence of the record and, regardless of its source, “evaluate every medical opinion . . . receive[d].” Burnett, 220 F.3d at 121 (internal citations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c); see also SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374182, at *2 (“RFC is assessed by adjudicators at each level of the administrative review process based on all of the relevant evidence in the case record, including information about the individual’s symptoms and any ‘medical source statements’ . . . .”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527's older rules govern an ALJ's evaluation of treating-source medical opinions in claims arising before March 17, 2017, distinguishing treating, examining, and reviewing physicians.

Kennedy v. Saul · filed 2021-07-15

Because this case arose prior to March 17, 2017, the older rules guiding an ALJ’s evaluation of treating sources apply to the Court’s review of the ALJ’s discussion of the opinion evidence. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. These rules distinguish among medical opinions based on whether the physician providing the opinion: (i) treated the claimant (a treating physician), (ii) examined but did not treat the claimant (an examining physician), or (iii) neither examined nor treated the claimant (a non-examining or reviewing physician).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require a medical opinion to contain a function-by-function analysis to be credible, and its weight increases with supporting evidence, explanation, and consideration of the pertinent record.

JONES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-07-22(c)(2) and (c)(3)

In this regard, the Court notes that Jones is correct that a medical opinion does not need to contain a function-by-function analysis to be considered credible evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”). ... But the regulations instruct, “The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. . . . We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources.” Id. § 404.1527(c)(3). Here, the lack of many meaningful analysis of Addison’s functions reduces the probity of Dr. Harvie’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an administrative law judge to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Boyd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(c)

The Social Security regulations provide guidelines for the ALJ to employ when evaluating medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. In determining the weight to afford a medical opinion, the ALJ considers a variety of factors including but not limited to the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, whether an opinion is well-supported, whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and the area of the doctor’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). For instance, the more evidence a medical source presents to support an opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight that medical opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Further, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight that opinion will receive. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as a statement from an acceptable medical source and requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion under the applicable weighing factors, including when considering opinions from non-acceptable medical sources.

Schwartz v. Commissioner of the Social Security · filed 2021-07-27(a)(1), (c), (f)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). For applications filed before March 27, 2017, like Schwartz’s, the regulations require that, “[r]egardless of its source, [the ALJ] will evaluate every medical opinion … receive[d]. Unless [the ALJ] give[s] a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, [the ALJ] consider[s] all of the following factors in deciding the weight [to] give to any medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those “following factors” are: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship including the length, frequency, nature, and extent; (3) the supportability of the opinion with relevant evidence; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the case record; and (5) whether the author of the opinion is a specialist in the relevant area.1 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(5). ... These same factors are considered when weighing the opinions from “not acceptable medical sources,” such as licensed APRNs like Kautz. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) (effective Sept. 3, 2013 through Mar. 26, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six specified factors when evaluating a medical-source opinion, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Gallegos v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-07-29(c)

When evaluating the opinion of any medical source, an 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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions together with the other relevant record evidence when developing a claimant’s residual functional capacity.

Burley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-29

Contrary to Plaintiff’s contentions, the ALJ properly analyzed the opinion evidence and the other evidence of record when developing Plaintiff’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. As the ALJ reasonably explained, her RFC finding was consistent with Dr. Toor’s opinion that Plaintiff had only moderate reaching limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) allows an ALJ to give less weight to a non-treating source’s opinion based on the treatment relationship, and § 404.1527(c)(2) denies controlling weight when the opinion conflicts with substantial evidence.

Vazquez-Reinat v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-29(c), (c)(2)

The ALJ is permitted to give less weight to the medical opinion of a non-treating source depending on the length of treatment relationship, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ is not required to give controlling weight to the opinion of a non-treating source where it is 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) requires the ALJ to consider the medical source’s treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialty when weighing an opinion, and subsection (d) treats opinions on disability and ability to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner.

McSpadden v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-07-30(c), (d)

The ALJ must articulate the weight given to different medical opinions in the record and the reasons therefore. See Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). The weight afforded to a medical opinion regarding the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments depends, among other things, upon the examining and treating relationship the medical source had with the claimant, the evidence the medical source presents to support the opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and the specialty of the medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ properly gave this opinion little weight, as McSpadden’s ability to work is an issue reserved for the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the source’s specialty and the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; specialty alone is not enough to discount the opinion.

Provow v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-08-02(c)(3), (c)(5)

The fact that Dr. Stein was an internist is not enough to discount his opinion completely. A medical source’s specialty is just one factor to consider when evaluating the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (stating that in assigning weight to an opinion, the ALJ must consider consistency “with the record as a whole”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to evaluate an opinion using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's specialization.

Wilkinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-02(c)(1)-(6)

To be sure, an ALJ is not required to provide “good reasons” to support his weight determination when assessing an opinion from a nurse practitioner; however, the regulations still require him to evaluate the opinion using many of the same factors applicable to weighing acceptable medical opinion evidence. The relevant factors considered in determining what weight to afford an opinion include the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, relevant evidence which supports the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization (if any) of the opinion’s source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). ... However, the ALJ erred in his assessment of her opinion. First, the ALJ failed to meaningfully discuss the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) and 416.927(c)(1)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits a nonmedical-source opinion to outweigh an acceptable medical source's opinion and requires the ALJ to explain the weight given when the opinion affects the outcome, including why it is given greater weight than a treating physician's opinion.

Healan v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-08-03(f)(1), (f)(2)

According to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1), an opinion from a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source. Moreover, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2) states that “the [ALJ] generally should explain the weight to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the [ALJ’s] reasoning, when such opinions have an effect on the outcome of the case.” Further, when the ALJ gives greater weight to theses opinions than she does to a treating physician opinion “[she] must explain the reasons” for that decision. Id. ... Here, the ALJ adequately explained the weight and reasoning she gave to Dr. McDaniel’s vocational opinion. The ALJ clearly articulated that she gave Dr. McDaniel’s vocational opinion partial weight and reasoned that Dr. McDaniel, like Dr. Holt, had understated Healan’s ability. (R. at 17-18.) This amount of reasoning is more than enough considering the ALJ did not give Dr. McDaniel’s opinion more weight than Dr. Holt’s.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate all medical opinions using its listed factors, but a meaningful explanation need not analyze each factor exhaustively and must indicate consideration of an opinion’s incomplete record review.

Kautz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-03(c)

“evaluate all medical opinions according to [the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)] factors, regardless of their source[.]” ... While the ALJ’s explanation in this regard must be “meaningful,” the ALJ “need not give ‘an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.’” ... Additionally, where the non-treating physicians have not reviewed the entire record, the ALJ may still afford weight to those opinions, but “the ALJ ‘must give some indication’ that he [or she] ‘at least considered’ that the source did not review the entire record[,]’ ” i.e., “the record must give some indication that the ALJ subjected such an opinion to scrutiny.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) identifies the source's treatment and examination relationship and the opinion's consistency with the record as factors relevant to the weight given to a medical opinion.

Robertson v. SSA · filed 2021-08-04(c)(2)(i), (ii), (c)(4)

Factors relevant to the weight due a medical opinion include whether the source has seen a claimant “a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture” of the claimant’s impairment and whether the source has provided treatment for the impairment in question. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (ii). ... Indeed, a factor relevant to the weight due to a medical opinion is the consistency of that opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Here, the ALJ found that Dr. Sprague’s opinion was “not consistent with the totality of the medical evidence” (Tr. 20).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine the weight due to an examining physician’s opinions and explain the reasons for that determination.

Scruggs v. Saul · filed 2021-08-05(d), (f)

Although Dr. Machizawa is an examining physician rather than a treating physician, the ALJ is still required to determine the weight her opinions are entitled to and explain the reasons for that finding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), (f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Wang v. TE Connectivity Corporation · filed 2021-08-09(d)(3)–(6)

“[F]actors relevant to evaluating any medical opinion, not limited to the opinion of the treating physician, include the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion and the quality of the explanation provided[,] the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole[, and] the specialty of the physician providing the opinion. . . .” Orn, 495 F.3d at 631 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3)–(6)); see also Magallanes v. Bowen, 881 F.2d 747, 753 (9th Cir. 1989) (an ALJ need not agree with everything contained in the medical opinion and can consider some portions less significant than others). ... The ALJ here similarly did not consider the appropriate factors and give specific and legitimate reasons for adopting Dr. Pon’s and Dr. Ostrow’s opinions on the plaintiff’s capacity for standing and walking (instead of Dr. Chow’s opinion). Thus, the assignment of only partial weight to Dr. Chow’s 2014 opinion is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions regardless of source and consider factors including examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and the source’s familiarity with the agency’s program and the case record.

Skinner v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-10(c)

The regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s case require the ALJ to weigh medical opinions regardless of the source. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... In deciding the weight to give to any medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors such as the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion, including the source’s understanding of the agency’s disability program and evidentiary requirements, and the source’s familiarity with the case record. Id. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err by affording great weight to Dr. Winfrey’s testimony nor did the ALJ err by giving Dr. Winfrey’s opinion greater weight than Dr. Neims’ opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lester v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-10(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who gives less weight to a treating physician’s opinion to explain the weight assigned using all of the regulation’s factors.

Faucher v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-02(d)

If the ALJ gives less weight to a treating physician’s opinion, “the ALJ must explain what weight, if any, was assigned to the opinion using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.” Knight, 756 F.3d at 1176-77 (quotation and citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion in the claimant’s record.

BIGLEY v. SAUL · filed 2021-09-03(c)

This includes medical opinion evidence, and ALJs are required to consider every medical opinion in a claimant’s record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination, and the opinion’s supportability and explanation.

Ramirez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-08

That said, as noted by Plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings, with specific instruction that the ALJ consider Dr. Hagie’s opinion according to the factors prescribed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 for determining the weight of medical opinions, “including the length, nature and extent of the treating relationship, the frequency of examination and the supportability and explanation provided for Dr. Hagie’s opinions.” ... Here, the ALJ did not consider the length, nature and extent of the treating relationship, or the frequency of examination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Zimmerman v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-10(c)

Finally, the ALJ must evaluate medical opinions according to the requirements set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c): (1) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion and the record as a whole; (4) whether the physician is a specialist; and (5) other factors that would support or contradict the opinion.