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) directs the adjudicator to determine the weight of medical opinions by considering the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and source specialization.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-13(c)

If an AL] does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, the AL] must consider a non-exclusive list of factors to determine the weight to be given all the medical opinions of 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. Testamark, 736 F. App’x. at 398; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinion evidence and state with particularity the weight assigned to different medical opinions and the reasons for that assignment.

Derrick v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-03(b)–(c)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)–(c),2 and “state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 establishes a hierarchy among medical opinions and directs that the weight assigned to them be evaluated using treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, while requiring evaluation of every medical opinion.

Everhart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-13(c)

The Regulations establish a hierarchy among medical opinions that provides a framework for determining the weight afforded each medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability”; (4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and (5) “[s]pecialization.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f); ... An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider the examining and treatment relationships, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, the medical expert's specialty, and other relevant factors when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Sailor v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-13(c)(1)-(6)

In determining the weight of medical opinions, the ALJ must consider: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship; (3) evidence supporting the conclusions; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the medical expert’s area of specialty; and (6) other factors, including the amount of understanding of disability programs and the familiarity of the medical source with information in the claimant’s case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an administrative law judge to evaluate a non-acceptable medical source's opinion by considering the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Smith v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-15(c)

Instead, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) provides the correct framework for evaluating the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source, such as a nurse practitioner. When weighing medical opinions, the ALJ must consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the medical source’s opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization when weighing medical opinions.

Walter v.Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-16(c)

If an ALJ does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating soutce, the ALJ must consider a non-exclusive list of factors to determine the weight to be given all the medical opinions of 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. Testamark, 736 F. App’x at 398; 20 C-F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The court finds that the magistrate judge did not err in concluding that the ALJ sufficiently stated her reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Burakgazi’s opinion. Theresa’s objection to this conclusion is OVERRULED.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) limits treating-source status to an acceptable medical source, and § 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated under specified procedures.

Burney v. Saul · filed 2021-09-16(a)(2), (c)

As Plaintiff acknowledges, FNPBC Dominguez is not an “acceptable medical source.” ECF 11-1 at 14; see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2) (explaining that a treating source must be an acceptable medical source); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1502(a)(7), 416.902(a)(7) (explaining that a nurse practitioner is not an acceptable medical source unless the claim was filed on or after March 27, 2017); Tr. 15 (showing that Plaintiff filed her claims on August 9, 2016). The ALJ was thus required to follow the procedures for evaluating any medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). In this case, the ALJ complied with the regulations and found FNPBC Dominguez did not adequately explain the extreme limitations she identified. Tr. 22.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, including nonexamining state-agency opinions at the ALJ level, using the regulation's factors and to discount an opinion when it lacks relevant support or conflicts with the record.

Gregorio v. Saul · filed 2021-09-16(c), (e)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). ... However, 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(e) provides that at the ALJ and Appeals Council levels of the administrative review process, findings by nonexamining State agency medical and psychological consultants should be evaluated as medical opinion evidence. Therefore, ALJs must consider these opinions as expert opinion evidence by nonexamining physicians and must address these opinions in their decisions. ... The ALJ is charged with a duty to evaluate all the medical opinions in the record under the factors set forth in the regulations and to resolve any conflicts. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. An ALJ may give an opinion less weight or no weight if it does not present relevant evidence or a sufficient explanation to support it, or if it is inconsistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, when deciding the weight to give each opinion.

Ward v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-16(c)

In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are: whether the source examined the claimant; ... whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors. See SSR 96-2p; Hines v. Barnhart, 453 Fd 559,563 (4th Cir. 2006). ... “20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) requires ALJs to consider all of the enumerated factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Arakas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 107 n.16 (emphasis in original). ... The ALJ complied with the applicable regulations in making clear to a subsequent reviewer the reasons for the findings made.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using the listed factors, including supportability, consistency, and the source’s treatment and examination relationship, with non-treating and non-examining opinions generally receiving little weight.

Gregory v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-17(c)

ALJs must weigh all medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners, based on: (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The Court finds that the ALJ properly considered all of the regulatory factors in assigning little weight to Dr. Scher’s medical opinion. Opinions from a non-treating and non-examining source, like Dr. Scher, are entitled to little weight as a general matter. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(2). The more relevant evidence and supporting explanations a non-treating source provides for an opinion, the more persuasive the opinion will be. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Further, opinions are entitled to more weight if they are consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly afforded Dr. Scher’s opinions little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) permits opinions from nonmedical sources to outweigh acceptable medical-source opinions in appropriate circumstances, and § 404.1527(f)(2) requires the ALJ to explain the weight given to such opinions well enough for a claimant or reviewer to follow the reasoning.

Bowers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(f)(1)-(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1), opinions from nonmedical sources may outweigh the medical opinions of an acceptable medical source, such as when these sources have more experience treating the individual or their opinions are more consistent with the evidence as a whole. An ALJ must explain the weight given to opinions from nonmedical sources and “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 ALJ’s opinion complies with this regulation: he indicated that he was assigning Ms. Clark’s opinion little weight because the opinions of acceptable medical sources and the claimant himself undermined her assessment of the case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors and explain the weight assigned with sufficiently specific, evidence-supported reasons.

Shores v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-20(c)

First, with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate Dr. Norris’s opinions, the Magistrate Judge correctly explained that, because Plaintiff filed her claims prior to March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to evaluate the medical opinions based on the rules in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927, as well as Social Security Rulings 96-2p, 96-5p, and 06-3p. The Magistrate Judge explained that under these rules and regulations, the ALJ may give less than controlling weight to the opinions of a treating physician, such as Dr. Norris, but that the ALJ must weigh all medical opinions of record based on the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) and must include in the decision sufficiently specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source’s medical opinions, supported by the evidence of record. See S.S.R. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (1996). ... After review, the Court is not persuaded by the Commissioner’s objection, and the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ’s decision does not demonstrate that he applied and considered the necessary factors. ... And overall, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the ALJ failed to cite “good reasons” to support giving little weight to Dr. Norris’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, assign weight to each opinion, and explain conflicts between a medical opinion and the residual functional capacity.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-21(b), (c)(2)

The ALJ must carefully weigh the opinions of the medical sources on file through considering several factors, including length of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ must consider all medical opinion given in the case, assess the weight given to each opinion, and explain any conflict between a medical opinion and the ALJ’s RFC. Jd. at § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and assign it weight, including an acceptable medical source's opinion about the severity of impairments and related functional limitations.

Cardona v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-22(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). To reject a medical opinion, the ALJ must provide “specific, legitimate reasons” for doing so. ... A medical opinion is defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgment about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, and what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... Thus, even if Dr. Hammond’s opinion did not diagnose Plaintiff with any conditions, he gave opinions about the severity of her impairments and symptoms, including opinions about her brain functioning that are relevant to work-related functions relating to memory and concentration. The court therefore finds that Dr. Hammond’s opinion was a medical opinion, and the ALJ erred in failing to assign a weight to Dr. Hammond’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jolly v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2021-09-23(c)(2)-(6)

When evaluating a medical opinion, an ALJ analyzes the opinion by the factors provided by the regulations in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c). The factors that an ALJ considers in weighing medical opinions include: treatment relationship with the physician; supportability of the opinion by evidence presented by the physician; consistency with the record as a whole; specialization of the physician; and other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion and to reject medical evidence only for a proper, adequately explained reason.

(SS) Emery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-23(b), (c)

The ALJ must consider and evaluate every medical opinion of record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) and (c) (applying to claims filed before March 27, 2017); Mora v. Berryhill, No. 1:16–cv–01279–SKO, 2018 WL 636923, at *10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018). In doing so, the ALJ “cannot reject [medical] evidence for no reason or the wrong reason.” Mora, 2018 WL 636923, at *10.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give generally greater weight to treating-source opinions than examining-source opinions and to examining-source opinions than reviewing-source opinions, and to explain with the applicable evidentiary reasons any rejection.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-24

Because this case arose prior to March 27, 2017, the older rules guiding an ALJ’s evaluation of medical source opinions apply to the Court’s review of the ALJ’s decision. 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). Garrison, 759 F.3d at 1012. In general, the opinions of treating physicians are given more weight than the opinions of examining physicians, and the opinions of examining physicians are afforded more weight than the opinions of reviewing physicians. Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2014). Before rejecting the uncontradicted opinions of a treating or examining doctor, the ALJ must identify “clear and convincing reasons that are supported by substantial evidence.” Ryan v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 2008). Where the opinion is contradicted, the ALJ must provide “specific and legitimate reasons” based on substantial evidence. In short, the ALJ may not silently reject the opinions of a medical source or make findings contrary to a doctor’s opinions without explanation. Lingenfelter v. Astrue, 504 F.3d 1028, 1046 n. 10 (9th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the agency to evaluate every medical opinion, regardless of its source.

Pedersen v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-24(c)

“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every opinion we receive.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 assigns weight to medical opinions, gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, and requires consideration of specified factors when controlling weight is not given.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-09-28(c), (c)(2)–(c)(6)

Under the old regulations, the ALJ assigns the weight he or she gives to a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). And if “a treating source’s medical opinions on the issue(s) 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 the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” the Commissioner “will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Under the old regulations, where the Commissioner does not give a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight, it analyzes the opinion in accordance with a number of factors: the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination,” the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship,” the “[s]upportability” of the opinion, the “[c]onsistency” of the opinion with the record as whole, the “[s]pecialization” of the treating source, and any other relevant factors. Id. at §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(c)(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using factors including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors, though the ALJ need not explicitly address each factor.

Combs v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-29(c)

ALJs must weigh all medical opinions, whether by treating or consultative examiners, based on (1) whether the provider examined the claimant; (2) whether the provider is a treating source; (3) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, including nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (4) supportability of opinion with medical signs, laboratory findings, and explanation; (5) consistency with the record as a whole; (6) specialization; and (7) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (2017). “While an ALJ must consider all of the factors set forth in 20 CFR § 404.1527(d),2 he need not explicitly address each of the factors.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

It is fundamental CFR law that an ALJ is obligated to evaluate every medical opinion received in the record. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs the evaluation of medical opinions using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations, and applies those factors to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources while permitting greater weight for opinions from acceptable medical sources.

Landa v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-13(c), (f)

The Commissioner’s regulations provide guidance for evaluating opinions from acceptable medical sources using the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... These same factors apply to opinion evidence from non-acceptable medical sources, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f), but a medical opinion from an “acceptable medical source” is a factor that may justify giving that opinion greater weight than an opinion from a medical source who is a non-acceptable medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Diaz v. Saul · filed 2021-10-18(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider a number 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 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate its weight using the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Swenson v. Saul · filed 2021-10-19(c)(2)

The Court’s review of the record provides ample support for the ALJ’s assessment that Dr. Grossman’s opinions deserved little weight. All of the ALJ’s reasons are consistent with the record and demonstrate the ALJ considered the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ commented on the infrequency of examinations; the lack of supportability of the doctor’s opinions with reference to Dr. Grossman’s treatment records; and the inconsistency of the opinions with reference to both Dr. Grossman’s treatment records and the record as a whole showing Petitioner was simultaneously able to engage in a wide range of activities while working part time. Other factors such as Petitioner’s current living situation outside of a “highly supportive” living environment provide support for the ALJ’s conclusions. The Court finds no error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions in the claimant’s case record together with other relevant evidence.

Tebyani v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-18(b)

As noted above, an ALJ must “consider all medical opinions in a claimant’s case record, together with other relevant evidence.” McClurkin v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 625 F. App’x 960, 962 (11th Cir. 2015) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing medical opinions to consider the listed factors, but does not require discussing each factor systematically or at equal length, so long as the reasons for the weight assigned are clear.

Madden v. Saul · filed 2021-10-27(c)

When an ALJ does not grant a treating source opinion controlling weight, they must evaluate each medical opinion by considering the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the relationship, the supportability and consistency of the opinion, the specialization of the source, and any other relevant factors brought to the ALJ’s attention. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). There is no need to “systematically address each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527”; an ALJ complies with the regulations if they provide “the claimant and a reviewing court a clear understanding of the reasons for the weight given a treating physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion using specified factors but does not require explicit discussion of each factor if the ALJ explains the evaluation sufficiently for meaningful review.

CAVANAUGH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-11-02(c)

ALJs must evaluate “every medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).7 “Medical opinions” are “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” Id. at § 404.1527(a)(1). In deciding the weight to assign to a particular medical opinion, an ALJ considers the following factors: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the treatment relationship, including length of treatment and nature and extent of the treatment; (3) the supportability of the evidence; (4) the consistency with other evidence; (5) the specialization of the professional; and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. Id. at § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). However, “an ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor” in the decision. ... “Instead, an ALJ need only ‘explain his [or her] evaluation of the medical evidence for the district court to meaningfully review whether [the ALJ’s] reasoning accords with the regulation’s standards.’” ... Although the ALJ did not explicitly address each of the Regulation’s factors, she sufficiently explained her evaluation of Dr. Molina’s opinions to permit meaningful review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an adjudicator to evaluate permissible medical opinions with the record using factors such as supportability, consistency, the treatment relationship, specialization, and familiarity with Social Security rules, generally giving more weight to objectively supported explanations.

SB v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-05(b)–(c)

Regardless, when permissible, medical opinions are considered “together with the rest of the relevant evidence” in the record based on a set of factors, including the nature and extent of the source’s relationship with the claimant, supportability, consistency with the record as a whole, the source’s medical specialization, and the source’s familiarity with social security disability rules and regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)–(c). With respect to supportability, more weight is generally accorded to source opinions with explanations that are supported by objective medical evidence in the record, including medical signs and laboratory findings. Id. § 404.1527(c)(3). An ALJ may properly reject a medical opinion if it lacks support from record evidence and is instead based only on a claimant’s subjective testimony or from testing within their control. See Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight based on the treatment relationship, examination, supporting explanation, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, while requiring an adequate explanation for rejected or discounted medical evidence.

LEVENTHAL v. SAUL · filed 2021-11-05(c)(1)-(6)

The ALJ may also give more or less weight to a treating physician’s opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of examination; (3) the supporting explanations provided for the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the records as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). Regardless of what weight the ALJ assigns to medical opinions, the ALJ must adequately explain the evidence she rejects or affords lesser weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and specialization when weighing a medical opinion.

Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-10(c)(1)-(5)

Thus, the Commissioner has failed to demonstrate that the ALJ provided a “sound explanation” for rejecting Dr. Nenadovich’s opinion. ... The ALJ should have articulated what consideration he gave to the long, frequent treatment relationship between Plaintiff and Dr. Nenadovich, who performed his spinal surgery. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(2). The ALJ was required to assess the objective findings that Dr. Nenadovich provided in support of her opinion, both on the opinion form and in her treatment notes. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); (Tr. 558, 562, 1713, 1728, 1738, 1796, 1824, 2585.) ... Also, the ALJ neglected to articulate what consideration, if any, he gave to Dr. Nenadovich’s specialization as an orthopedic surgeon. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). Accordingly, due to these errors, remand is required for proper consideration of Dr. Nenadovich’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Social Security Administration to evaluate every medical opinion it receives and consider relevant factors when deciding the weight to give the opinion.

COYNE v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2021-11-10(c)

The regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s application provide that the Social Security Administration “will evaluate every medical opinion we receive” and consider the relevant factors when deciding the weight to give the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Given that the record lacks any evidence to establish that the ALJ and Dr. Anderson reviewed and discussed all of Dr. Wilk’s records, in the decision under review, Defendant did not evaluate all the opinions it received.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider the listed factors and explain that the factors were considered.

Lapole v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-12(c)

Additionally, the ALJ failed to discuss the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 factors, as detailed above. Thus, remand is required. If a new hearing is held, the ALJ is instructed to explicitly explain how they consider the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ deciding what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

HILDRETH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-11-19(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6), 416.927(c)(1)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires consideration of an opinion’s consistency with the record, and lack of corroboration in the medical evidence is a specific and legitimate reason to reject an examining opinion.

(SS) Rivera-Herrera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-22(c)(4)

Thus, lack of corroboration in the medical evidence is a specific and legitimate reason to reject an examining opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); Batson v. Comm’r of SSA, 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a well-supported treating-source opinion consistent with the record receives controlling weight, while other opinions must be weighed using specified factors.

Serby v. Saul · filed 2021-11-24(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... If the opinion is contradicted by other evidence or is internally inconsistent, the ALJ may discount it so long as she provides an adequate explanation for doing so. ... That is to say, the ALJ must offer “good reasons” for discounting a treating physician’s opinion, Scott, 647 F.3d at 739, and then determine what weight to give it considering (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) whether the opinion was from a specialist, and (6) other factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); see Simila, 573 F.3d at 515.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and explain the weight assigned to each opinion using the applicable regulatory factors.

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-14(b)-(c)

Although an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence, she is required, at a minimum, to evaluate every medical opinion in the record and explain how much weight is assigned to each opinion and why.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of regulatory factors when evaluating medical opinions, but does not require discussion of each factor specifically in the decision.

Hansen v. Saul · filed 2021-12-07(c)(1)-(6)

Here, the ALJ considered the regulatory factors for evaluating opinion evidence and explained the weight accorded to each opinion (Tr. 24–26, 203–05). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). The ALJ is not required to discuss each of these regulatory factors specifically in the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider how well it is supported by relevant evidence and how consistent it is with the record.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-12-27(c)(3)-(4)

When weighing medical opinions provided by a medical source such as a consultative examiner, the ALJ must consider multiple factors, including the extent to which the source's opinions are supported by relevant evidence and the consistency of the medical opinion with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Russell v. O'Malley · filed 2021-12-28(b),(c)(1)

As Dr. Leinenbach 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), 416.927(b),(c)(1); Tonapetyan v. Halter, 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) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources reflecting judgments about an impairment and its restrictions, and § 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion; treatment notes containing no such judgments need not be evaluated as medical opinions.

Garavaglia v. Saul · filed 2021-12-28(a)(1), (c)

“An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record.” Smith v. Kilolo Kijakazi, 14 F.4th 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)). “Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). None of the records Plaintiff cites contain medical opinions regarding her functional capacity. ... The ALJ, therefore, was not required to explain or evaluate them.

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.

Snow v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-04(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant regulatory factors when no treating-source medical opinion receives controlling weight, although the ALJ need not recite every factor if the reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Tooley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-11(c)

Thus, according to the SSA regulations, if no treating source’s medical opinion is given controlling weight, which is the case here, then the ALJ must consider the relevant regulatory factors. See Drake v. Saul, 839 F. App’x 584, 586 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order). At the same time, “[w]e require no such slavish recitation of each and every factor where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.” Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency, when assigning other weight.

Benge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-31(c)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight in cases where that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The reasons for denying a physician's opinion controlling weight must be set forth in the ALJ's opinion. Id. When a medical opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ determine what weight to give it, considering (1) the examination and treatment relationship, including its length, nature, and extent; (2) the supportability of the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole (4) the specialization of the medical source; and (5) other factors, such as the source’s knowledge of disability programs and his or her familiarity with the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and to weigh an opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record, but it does not require the ALJ to list each source’s name.

Mulheron v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-02(c)(3), (c)(4)

In sum, the ALJ reasonably explained why Dr. Johnson’s opinion on this issue was unsupported by and inconsistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4). ... Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate “every medical opinion” received, but nothing in the regulation says the ALJ must list each source’s name.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the opinion's supporting evidence and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Best v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-26(c)(3)

In deciding how much weight to give to a medical opinion, the ALJ should consider the nature and extent of the doctor-patient relationship, the extent to which the doctor presents relevant evidence to support the opinion, and whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). ... The ALJ provided no reason, let alone a specific and legitimate one, for not accepting that exertional limitation and incorporating it into the RFC assessment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to weigh medical opinions based on supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the length and frequency of the treatment relationship.

Sepulveda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-03(c)

Besides the nature of a physician’s relationship with a claimant, the weight of the evidence relied upon by the physician in developing his or her opinion is also relevant to the weight to be afforded that opinion. Thus, the more a medical source presents evidence to support the opinion, such as medical signs and laboratory findings, the more deference is given to that medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Similarly, the more consistent the medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the greater the weight to which it is entitled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). In the end, an ALJ “is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.” ... The ALJ identified several reasons for giving little weight to Dr. Dicorte’s opinion (Tr. 22–23). First, the ALJ considered that while Dr. Dicorte examined the Plaintiff, he saw her only once near the end of the period at issue. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (listing length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination as a factor to be considered in giving weight to medical opinions). Second, the ALJ found that Dr. Dicorte’s opinion was inconsistent with other medical evidence (Tr. 22). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (listing consistency as a factor to be considered in giving weight to medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion after declining to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Weber v. Saul · filed 2022-02-04(c)

Among the factors an “ALJ must consider in weighing a medical opinion after deciding not to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight are the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician's specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion throughout the record.” Ray v. Saul, 861 F. App’x 102, 105 (7th Cir. 2021); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Moreover, the ALJ considered each of the applicable factors—the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician’s specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion throughout the record—in assessing Dr. DiDomenico’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ assigning weight to a medical opinion to consider the specified regulatory factors.

Perrone v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-09(d)

“[W]hen deciding what weight to assign to an opinion, an ALJ must consider the factors set forth at 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d).” ... The ALJ was required to properly consider this evidence in assessing the weight to be given to Dr. Valencia’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an adjudicator to explain the weight given to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources, or otherwise make the reasoning followable when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-02-14(f)(2)

And in crediting other opinion evidence, “[t]he adjudicator generally should explain the weight given to opinions from [non- acceptable medical] 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 ALJ did not provide such an explanation of the weight given to NP Willis’s opinions. ... This isolated explanation does not alone, or in conjunction with the rest of his RFC analysis, “afford[] an adequate basis for meaningful judicial review” of the ALJ’s process. ... The ALJ’s explanation as presented is insufficient to support a finding of substantial evidence in support of his RFC determination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to apply its listed factors when weighing medical opinion evidence, and failing to do so is an error of law.

Lane v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-25(c)

The failure to apply the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in weighing medical opinion evidence is an error of law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion and consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give it.

Behn v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-17(c)

The prior regulations specifically provided that the ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion and must consider all of these factors when deciding what weight to give to any medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Courtney v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-01(c)

Agency regulations provide that the ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion in the record and weigh each according to factors like the nature of the relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)- (6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion received.

Petty v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-02-25(c)

This includes the duty to “evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the specified factors when evaluating a medical opinion, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Gearheart v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(c)

In rendering this assessment, an ALJ must take into account: (1) whether the healthcare provider who offered the medical opinion has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the provider’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the provider’s opinion; (4) the degree to which the provider’s opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; and (5) the provider’s area of specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Although an ALJ must balance each of these factors, he is not obligated to address them explicitly in his decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider supportability, consistency, examining or treatment relationship, and specialization when weighing medical opinions; a treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

FOSTER v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-02(c)

An ALJ has an obligation to evaluate every medical opinion and explain the weight given to the opinion. ... Medical opinions are weighed by considering the following factors: (1) whether there is an examining relationship; (2) whether there is a treatment relationship, and if so the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of the examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence and by explanations from the source; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion was offered by a specialist about a medical issue related to his or her area of specialty; and (6) any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1)–(6). ... An ALJ gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.927(c)(2); 404.1527(c)(2); ... Here, the ALJ gave little weight to Dr. Grewal's opinion, instead adopting the functional limitations of the independent medical experts. The ALJ was entitled to give limited weight to Dr. Grewal's opinion on the bases of limited supportability and vagueness.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an ALJ to give more weight to a medical opinion that is better supported by relevant evidence and more consistent with the record, and it does not require a doctor to examine a claimant a minimum number of times before the opinion may be adopted.

McIntosh v. Saul · filed 2022-03-02(c)(3), (c)(4)

Second, while the number of evaluations a medical source performs can be relevant to the weight of their opinion, the social security regulations do not require a doctor to evaluate a claimant a certain number of times before their opinion can be adopted. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Dr. Niileksela and Ms. Sumpter’s opinion regarding McIntosh’s processing speed was better supported. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“[T]he 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.”); Nishke v. Astrue, 878 F. Supp. 2d 958, 982, 984 (E.D. Mo. 2012) (holding it was proper for ALJ to credit opinion based upon psychological testing that was explained in a comprehensive report rather than two opinions that constituted conclusory checklist forms). ... Additionally, McIntosh’s inability to successfully attend college classes without accommodations for her processing speed shows that her processing speed impairs her ability to work. See supra Section III.A.2.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“[T]he more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received regardless of its source.

Edgerton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-02(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), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats only opinions from acceptable medical sources as treating-source opinions and requires opinions from other sources to be evaluated under the listed factors as applicable, with an explanation sufficient for review.

Grotts v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-07(a)(1)-(2), (c), (f)(1)-(2)

Rather, treating sources under the regulation must be “acceptable medical sources,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), as defined in § 404.1502(a). ... Instead, their opinions are governed by the lesser requirements of § 404.1527(f). For opinions not from acceptable medical sources, the application of the § 404.1527(c) factors “depends on the particular facts” and “not every factor ... will apply in every case.” Id. § 404.1527(f)(1). An ALJ must minimally articulate its reasons for discounting non‐treating sources’ opinions but need not consider explicitly every factor listed under § 404.1527(c). ... Rather, an ALJ only needs to “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating an RFC to consider every medical opinion and weigh it using factors including consistency, supportability, the treatment relationship, and specialization.

Robinson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-09(c)

When there is conflicting evidence in the claimant’s record, the consistency of the opinion with the other evidence in the record is an appropriate factor for an ALJ to consider when weighing an opinion from an other source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). Other factors include the length and nature of the relationship between the opinion source and the claimant, whether evidence supports the opinion, whether the source of the opinion has a relevant specialization, and other factors the claimant brings to the Commissioner’s attention. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6),(f) and 416.927(c)(1)-(6),(f). ... The ALJ indeed addressed the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) in giving “little weight” to this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider medical opinions with the rest of the relevant evidence, apply the listed factors to treating-source opinions, and give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Lawton v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-11(b), (c), (c)(2)

Social Security regulations require that medical opinions in a case be considered together with the rest of the relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b); 416.927(b). ... Generally, the opinions of treating physicians are entitled to greater weight than other evidence and the regulations have enumerated particular factors for ALJs to consider when evaluating those opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). If a treating source’s medical opinion is “well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given controlling weight[.]” SSR 96–2p; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2) (providing treating source’s opinion will be given controlling weight if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic-techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record). However, “the rule does not require that the testimony be given controlling weight.” Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curium); see also Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996) (finding a physician’s opinion should be accorded “significantly less weight” if it is not supported by the clinical evidence or if it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence). The ALJ has the discretion to give less weight to the opinion of a treating physician when there is “persuasive contrary evidence.” Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 176 (4th Cir. 2001). ... However, the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Taylor’s opinion should be afforded little weight is not supported by substantial evidence of the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, explain its weight using relevant factors without systematically addressing every factor.

Reeves v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-11(c)

However, as the government notes in its brief, because Reeves filed his application for benefits before March 27, 2017, the ALJ was required to adhere to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 when considering medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings in the record, not 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c. ... Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, the ALJ is to give “controlling weight” to a treating source opinion as long as it is not inconsistent with the medical evidence and is well supported by accepted medical techniques. When a treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for discounting it and determine the proper weight according to a list of factors, not all of which need to be systematically addressed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions to be evaluated using relevant factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Severson v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-09(c)

Specifically, the ALJ noted that Dr. Shapiro only saw Plaintiff on one occasion, and as discussed above, medical opinions regarding chronic mental health conditions are more persuasive if based on frequent observations. See § 404.1527(c)(2). Dr. Shapiro’s clinical findings, particularly those observing that Plaintiff had intact attention and concentration, do not necessarily support her opinion that Plaintiff had moderate to marked limitations for sustaining concentration and performing tasks at a consistent pace. See § 404.1527(c)(1). And the ALJ’s assertion that Dr. Shapiro’s opinion “was not entirely consistent with the totality of the record,” while somewhat conclusory, is not inaccurate given the inconsistencies noted above. See § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating-source opinion using the listed factors, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor if the consideration of the evidence is clear enough for judicial review.

Shore v. Saul · filed 2022-03-15(c)

Instead, the treating-source opinion should be afforded the appropriate amount of deference in accordance with the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527,° which include the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability and consistency of the opinion, and the specialization of the treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), so long as the ALJ’s consideration of the evidence is presented clearly enough to allow for judicial review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, evaluate it using the applicable factors, and state with particularity the weight given and the reasons for that weight.

Pennington v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2022-03-17(a)(2), (d)

The regulations define medical opinions as “statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2). ... An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. ... An ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefore.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion and requires the ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion received, regardless of its source.

PFEIL v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-03-17(a)(1), (c)

"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." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). According to the regulation applicable at the time that Dorein P. filed his DIB application, the SSA assures that "[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (for claims filed before March 17, 2017). ... The ALJ cited Dr. Kurzhals's report only for Dorein P.'s educational history. ... The ALJ did not weigh Dr. Kurzhals's medical opinion. Accordingly, the ALJ erred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Maestas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18(c)

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). ... Because the findings and opinions of the examining providers are mostly consistent with those of the treating providers, there is no contradiction or discrepancy to resolve, and the ALJ properly considered the opinion when determining Plaintiff’s RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows an ALJ to give more weight to a specialist’s opinion and to discount a medical opinion that lacks supporting medical findings or conflicts with the overall record.

Speer v. Saul · filed 2022-03-21(c)(3)-(5)

Explaining why he gave Dr. Munoz’s opinion significant weight, the ALJ first noted that Dr. Munoz is a specialist “who is familiar with SSA policy and regulations.” (R. 30; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (recognizing that “Federal or State agency medical…consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.”), and § 404.1527(c)(5) (ALJs may give more weight to a medical opinion from a specialist)). ... The ALJ also noted that Dr. Munoz reviewed the complete record, and found that he supported his opinion by providing a detailed explanation with references to record evidence. (R. 30; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4). ... Reading the ALJ’s decision as a whole, the ALJ found that Dr. Bellucci-Jackson’s opinion was unsupported by physical findings. (R. 30; see also, generally, R. 21-29; Rice, 384 F.3d at 370 (“it is proper to read the ALJ’s decision as a whole”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (ALJs may discount opinions unsupported by medical findings.) ... The ALJ also found Dr. Bellucci-Jackson’s opinion inconsistent with the overall record that documented mostly normal to mild findings. (R. 30; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (ALJs may discount opinions inconsistent with the overall record.) ... The Court finds no error in the way the ALJ weighed the opinion evidence in this case, and declines to reweigh the opinion evidence itself.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors and consistency with the record when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require an express discussion of every factor if the ALJ gives good reasons for the assigned weight.

Davis v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-22(c)

While an ALJ is required to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), she or he is not required to “apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). Rather, an ALJ need only provide “good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the” opinions. Id. (citing prior section 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), which was later re-numbered as § 404.1527(c) in 2012). Moreover, an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)–(6) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the supporting evidence, explanation quality, consistency with the record as a whole, and the source’s specialty.

Hamlett v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-22(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs adjudicators to evaluate medical opinions using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other pertinent considerations, and the same factors apply to opinions from non-acceptable medical sources.

Smith v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-23(c), (f)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, as the present claim is, the Commissioner’s regulations provide guidance for evaluating opinions from acceptable medical sources using the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). These same factors apply to opinion evidence from non-acceptable medical sources, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f), but a medical opinion from an “acceptable medical source” is a factor that may justify giving that opinion greater weight than an opinion from a medical source who is a non-acceptable medical source. SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *4-5. The ALJ is not required to “apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). Rather, the decision need only be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The ALJ’s reasons are reviewed for substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to address a medical source's information about the nature and severity of impairments, including symptoms and limitations, and to consider specified factors when evaluating such opinions.

Fox v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-24(a)(1), (c)(2)

Here, the ALJ erred by failing to address the letter from Dr. DeHaas because it included information about the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s impairments, including symptoms and limitations due to her venous conditions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... The ALJ must consider several factors when evaluating the opinion of such sources, including: (1) length of relationship and frequency of contact; (2) consistency of opinion with other evidence; (3) quality of source’s explanation for opinion; (4) any specialty or expertise related to impairment; and (5) any other factors tending to support or refute the opinion. See SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Maricle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-30(c)

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate the opinion in light of the (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship, including the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the frequency of the examination(s); (3) supportability; (4) consistency; (5) specialization; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to each medical opinion by considering the treatment relationship, support, consistency, and specialization.

Wright v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-03-31(c)

The ALJ must adequately explain the weight afforded to each medical opinion in the claimant’s record, taking into account relevant factors such as the nature and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant; how well the physician explained or supported the opinion; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and whether the opinion pertains to the physician’s area of specialty. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a specialist's opinion about medical issues related to the specialist's area than to a non-specialist's opinion.

Richey v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-03-29(c)(5)

Additionally, this court generally gives “more weight to the opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the opinion of a source who is not a specialist.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing medical opinions, but does not require explicit discussion of each factor if the ALJ applied the regulation's substance and explained the weight assigned.

Gallagher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-07

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cieszynski, Lora v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2022-04-14(c)(3)

Here, apart from noting “degenerative changes” throughout Cieszynski’s lumbar spine, Dr. Linford’s report included only normal findings that did not explain his statement that she would not tolerate prolonged sitting, standing, or heavy lifting repetitively. Therefore, the ALJ reasonably concluded that Dr. Linford’s opinion was unpersuasive and unhelpful, and it provided the ALJ with no obvious reason to recontact Dr. Linford. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”); Ruenger v. Saul, 2020 WL 4192344, at *4 (E.D. Wis. July 21, 2020) (ALJ reasonably gave little weight to consultative examiner’s opinion that was inconsistent with examiner’s own findings).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to determine and articulate the weight assigned and consider the regulatory factors for evaluating the opinion.

Henderson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-04-22(c)

The ALJ’s failure to either articulate the amount of weight given to Dr. Maycon’s opinion or discuss many of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 runs contrary to Social Security regulations and rules and inhibits proper judicial review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, and requires the ALJ to explain the weight given and provide good reasons.

Holden v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-02(c)(1)-(6), (c)(2)

In assessing a medical opinion, an ALJ may consider factors including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability with relevant medical evidence, consistency between the medical opinion and the record as a whole, the physician’s specialization, and any other relevant factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6); Owns v. Astrue, 551 F.3d 792, 800 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that when a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider several factors to determine the amount of weight given to the opinion). Although an ALJ is not required to discuss all the relevant factors when determining what weight to give a physician’s opinion, the ALJ must explain the weight given the medical opinion and give good reasons for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Accordingly, the ALJ properly discounted the relevant portions of Dr. Simon’s and Dr. Marks’ statements.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of medical-opinion factors, but those factors need not all be expressly discussed when the adjudicator gives a well-reasoned explanation, and they provide basic principles for considering opinions from nonacceptable medical sources.

Asberry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-09(c)

An ALJ must “give consideration to all the medical opinions in the record [and] discuss the weight he assigns to such opinions.” ... If a treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record,’” then an ALJ must give it controlling weight. ... That said, so long as the ALJ provides a well-reasoned discussion, the failure to “explicitly discuss” all the factors “does not prevent [the] court from according [the ALJ’s] decision meaningful review.” ... The ALJ must simply provide “‘good reasons’ for the weight assigned.” ... The factors in § 404.1527(c) “explicitly apply only to the evaluation of medical opinions from acceptable medical sources.” ... But they do “represent basic principles that apply to the consideration of all opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources.” ... Not every factor, however, may apply and the ALJ is “not required to expressly discuss those factors in his decision.” ... For a nonacceptable medical source, the ALJ’s decision is sufficient if it permits the reviewer to “‘follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.’” ... The Court finds the ALJ’s analysis of Dr. Hershberger’s statement and his finding that it was entitled to little weight sufficed under the applicable regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a physician’s statement describing a claimant’s physical restriction as a medical opinion even when vague, and requires the ALJ to evaluate it under the regulation’s weighting factors.

Elam v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-12(a)(1), (c)

The regulations do not require that a statement include certain specific elements, such as the length of a restriction or limitation, to qualify as a medical opinion. Dr. Gaiser’s statement that Plaintiff is unable to sit or stand “for any significant period of time” constitutes a “physical restriction” under the definition of a “medical opinion” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Dr. Gaiser’s failure to define “significant” or indicate how long the limitation would last may render the assessment somewhat vague, but the restriction nevertheless falls under the definition of a “medical opinion.” Any such vagueness should be evaluated under the factors to be considered in deciding the weight to be given to a medical opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Because this statement from Dr. Gaiser constitutes a “medical opinion,” the ALJ should have evaluated it in the decision pursuant to 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 it receives, regardless of the opinion's source.

Cornett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-13(c)

In considering a claimant’s application for disability benefits, an ALJ must “consider all evidence” in the record. 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(B)(2012). See also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”) The ALJ’s apparent failure to consider Dr. Braun’s assessment and opinions was error and the Acting Commissioner apparently agrees with that conclusion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record as a whole, and the source’s specialization.

Schepperle v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-07(c)

The ALJ is to consider a number of factors in determining how much weight to give to each medical opinion: (1) whether the doctor has examined the claimant; (2) the length, nature, and extent of a treating doctor’s relationship with the claimant; (3) the medical evidence and explanation supporting the doctor’s opinion; (4) how consistent the doctor’s ‘opinion is with the record as a whole’; and (5) the doctor’s specialization. Forsyth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 503 F. App’x 892, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing 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 all medical opinions and explain the weight assigned to them; a treating source's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence must receive controlling weight.

Mabry-Schlicher v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-07(c), (c)(2), and (e)(2)(ii)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions in evaluating a claimant’s applications. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Under the regulations in force at the time that Plaintiff filed her applications, the opinion of a treating provider must be accorded controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). The Commissioner must provide “good reasons” for discounting the opinion of a treating provider, and those reasons must both enjoy support in the evidence of record and be sufficiently specific to make clear the weight given to the opinion and the reasons for that weight. ... Thus, although an ALJ is not required to adopt a medical opinion that would limit a claimant to only superficial interaction with supervisors and coworkers, the ALJ must, as with any assessment of a medical opinion, explain why that opinion is not supported by the evidence in the record. Because the ALJ in this case failed to do so, the matter must be remanded to the Commissioner for further consideration of this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an adjudicator to consider the treatment relationship, treatment frequency and extent, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization when evaluating a medical opinion.

Norman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-21(c)(2)-(6)

Second, the Court notes that ALJ Hernandez also failed to apply the pertinent factors to her evaluation of Dr. Sangani’s opinion as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) and specifically ordered by Judge Illston. See AR 18. Instead, ALJ Hernandez appears to have focused exclusively on consistency, ignoring “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, . . . [and] specialization of the doctor.” Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 665 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an ALJ to explain the weight given to opinions from “other sources,” or otherwise discuss the evidence enough for a claimant or reviewer to follow the reasoning when those opinions may affect the outcome.

Tackett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-28(f)(2)

However, the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence . . . allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the ALJ’s reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(2), 416.927(f)(2); SSR 06-03p. ... Further, the ALJ did not have an obligation to state with particularity the weight given to Dr. Hughes’s opinion because Dr. Hughes, a licensed social worker with a doctorate in education, was not an “acceptable medical source[]” and, thus, could not produce medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a); SSR 06-03p. Additionally, the ALJ properly considered Dr. Hughes’s report because the ALJ expressly stated that he had considered the opinion evidence in the record, and he cited Dr. Hughes’s report in his decision. Moreover, even if the ALJ failed to adequately consider Dr. Hughes’s opinions, any error was harmless because this opinion did not support the imposition of additional limitations that were not present in the ALJ’s RFC finding. See Diorio, 721 F.2d at 728.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a medical source’s statement about a claimant’s physical restrictions as a medical opinion.

Terry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-01(a)(1)

The Commissioner suggests Dr. Hume’s imposition of restrictions did not constitute an opinion, calling it a “statement,” Doc. 26, at 14-15; but see id. at 14 (using the term “opinion”). Dr. Hume’s restrictions constitute an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, regardless of its source.

Fee v. SSA · filed 2022-07-11(c)

Nonetheless, an ALJ must evaluate all medical and treating source opinions provided by the claimant. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a medical opinion controlling weight to consider six specified factors, with the decision showing meaningful consideration of each factor even without a detailed factor-by-factor analysis.

Wood v. Saul · filed 2022-07-11(c)

Even if it was appropriate not to ascribe controlling weight to Dr. Layne’s opinions, the ALJ failed to adequately consider the six factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. To be sure, an ALJ need not “set forth a detailed factor-by-factor analysis.” Id. at 385. Nevertheless, it must “be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that [the ALJ] meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.” Id. Here, the Court is unable to conclude that the ALJ meaningfully considered the six factors before disregarding Dr. Layne’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating medical opinion evidence, but the ALJ need not explicitly address each factor if the decision indicates that the factors were considered.

Clark v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-07-05(c)

The ALJ did not err by failing to explicitly address each of the factors for evaluating medical opinion evidence enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... What is required is some indication that these factors were considered. ... Here, the ALJ provided ample discussion sufficient to convince the Court that he duly considered these factors. ... For these reasons, the Court finds the ALJ met his burden under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally gives greater weight to treating physicians’ opinions and requires an ALJ to give good reasons when declining to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight.

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

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, weigh it using the listed factors, and state with particularity the weight given and the reasons for that determination.

Cabrera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-14(c)

The following factors are relevant in determining the weight to be given to a physician’s opinion: (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination”; (2) the “[n]ature and extent of [any] treatment relationship”; (3) “[s]upportability”; (4) “[c]onsistency” with other medical evidence in the record; and (5) “[s]pecialization.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); ... An ALJ is required to consider every medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (stating that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive”). ... While “the ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion,” Oldham v. Schweiker, 660 F.2d 1078, 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), “the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor,” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 279); Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1212 (11th Cir. 2005); Lewis, 125 F.3d at 1440.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using specified factors, including supportability, consistency, the treatment relationship, and specialization, and to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight.

Adkins v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-07-18(c)

As noted above, an ALJ must give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating provider if that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). This Court concludes that ALJ Sanders provided “good reasons” for declining to accord controlling weight to Dr. Brown’s opinion. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... The ALJ also properly evaluated Dr. Brown’s opinions by reference to the factors required by the applicable regulation. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6); 416.927(c)(1)-(6). Although Plaintiff complains that the ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Brown’s opinions because he is not a mental health specialist, Plaintiff ‘s Statement of Errors, ECF No. 12, PageID# 2453, the regulations expressly require an ALJ to take the provider’s area of specialization into account when considering such opinions. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(5) (“We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.”); 416.927(c)(5) (same).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows an ALJ to give no special significance to a conclusory statement that a claimant is disabled, particularly when it lacks a function-by-function analysis.

DENNIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-07-26(d)(3)

She also provided nothing but a brief statement that Plaintiff is “currently not working due to a disability that precludes her from working,” (R. 3138), which in itself is a conclusory statement and opinion that the ALJ need not grant “any special significance.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3); ... The ALJ did not accord this opinion any significance because it lacked any function-by-function analysis and thus did not qualify as a medical opinion under the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a medical opinion, explain the weight assigned with good reasons, and not give special significance to a medical source's statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work.

Nunemacher v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-07-26(c)(1)-(6), (c)(2), (d)(1)

In assessing a medical opinion, an ALJ may consider factors including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability with relevant medical evidence, consistency between the medical opinion and the record as a whole, the physician’s specialization, and any other relevant factors brought to the attention of the ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6); Owns v. Astrue, 551 F.3d 792, 800 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that when a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider several factors to determine the amount of weight given to the opinion). Although an ALJ is not required to discuss all the relevant factors when determining what weight to give a physician’s opinion, the ALJ must explain the weight given the medical opinion and give good reasons for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “An ALJ may ‘discount or even disregard the opinion of a treating physician where other medical assessments are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence.’” Medhaug v. Astrue, 578 F.3d 805, 815 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Goff v. Barnhart, 421 F.3d 785, 790 (8th Cir. 2005)). The determination of whether a claimant is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner; the Commissioner is therefore not required to give special significance to a statement from a medical source that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1); Ellis v. Barnhart, 392 F.3d 988, 994 (8th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the medical source’s examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization when determining the weight of a medical opinion.

Walker v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-08-09(c)

When considering the factors for determining what weight to give a medical opinion set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), Dr. Curtis’s examining and treating relationship with Plaintiff, as well as his specialty in rheumatology, weigh in favor of giving his opinion greater weight on “issues related to his… area of specialty.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion, regardless of its source.

Gelhaye v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-09

Thus, Dr. McPherson’s IME report is a medical opinion that the ALJ was required to address. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (“Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.”)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally gives treating-source opinions greater weight, but treating-physician status is one factor among several the ALJ must consider when evaluating a medical opinion, and a contradicted opinion may be rejected for specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Rios v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-12(c)(2)

The Commissioner must provide “specific and legitimate reasons,” supported by substantial evidence in the record, for rejecting a treating doctor’s opinion when it is contradicted. ... Here, ALJ Verne provided specific and legitimate reasons, supported by substantial evidence in the record, for assigning little weight to Dr. Ehler’s opinion. (AR 24-25.) ... At all times, a doctor’s status as a treating physician is one of six factors, including the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, along with other factors, the ALJ must consult when evaluating a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 4040.1527 (c). ALJ Verne conducted a comprehensive analysis of the totality of the record here, as discussed above. Taken together, these reasons confirm the ALJ’s decision to assign little weight to Dr. Ehler’s opinion was proper. Accordingly, the Court finds there are no valid grounds to disturb the ALJ’s ruling on this issue.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider examination status along with specialization, supporting evidence, and consistency when weighing medical opinions.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2022-08-16(c)(1)–(6)

However, the fact that a medical source has examined the claimant is only one of a number of factors that the regulations require an ALJ to consider when evaluating medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) (requiring an ALJ to consider, inter alia, whether a medical source is a specialist, whether the source is the claimant’s treater or has examined the claimant, the amount and nature of evidence the source provides for his/her opinions, and the extent to which the opinions are consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) permits an ALJ to evaluate a medical opinion's weight using relevant factors rather than give a non-treating source's opinion controlling weight.

Franke v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-22(d)(2)-(6)

Thus, the ALJ was not required to give his opinion controlling weight and could evaluate its weight in light of the other relevant factors. See Simila v. Astrue, 573 F.3d 503, 514 (7th Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires medical opinions not given controlling weight to be evaluated using the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

(SS) Michelle Garrett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-24(c)

Regardless of source, all medical opinions that are not given controlling weight are evaluated using the following factors: examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ’s rejection of that opinion was supported by specific and legitimate reasoning.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a medical opinion when it is conclusory, unsupported by objective medical evidence, or inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Williams v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-09-06(c)

An ALJ may discount an opinion when the opinion is conclusory, the provider fails to provide objective medical evidence to support his or her opinion, or the opinion is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) says that although the agency considers medical-source opinions on issues such as residual functional capacity, the final responsibility for deciding those issues remains with the Commissioner.

(SS) Rachel L. Prieto v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-06(d)(2)

The ALJ was not required to adopt the findings or opinion of any of the physicians but rather was required to determine the RFC based on all of the evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (“Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as . . . your residual functional capacity . . . the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a non-treating medical opinion to consider its support and explanation, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors, and to explain the weight assigned well enough for a claimant or reviewer to follow the reasoning; the ALJ need not discuss every factor explicitly.

Hughes, Amanda v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2022-09-08(c)(3)-(6), (f)(2)

The regulations applicable to Hughes’s claim also require ALJs to consider the following factors in evaluating any non-treating medical opinion: the support and explanation provided for the opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the medical record as a whole, the source’s specialization, and any other factors that “tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(6). However, a failure to explicitly discuss each regulatory factor is typically not a stand-alone basis for remand. ... Rather, an ALJ only needs to “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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider regulatory factors when weighing a non-treating source’s opinion, but the ALJ need only minimally articulate the reasoning and need not explicitly discuss each factor.

Gordon v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-09(c)

When evaluating a non-treating source’s opinion, the ALJ is required to determine the weight to assign the opinion by considering certain regulatory factors, including “the claimant's examining and treatment relationship with the source of the opinion; the physician's specialty; the support provided for the medical opinion; its consistency with the record as a whole; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion.” ... However, while the ALJ must “consider the factors found in found in 20 C.F.R. §. 404.1527(c),” he need only “minimally articulate” his reasoning, and the ALJ “need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider and evaluate every medical opinion, defines medical opinions as judgments from acceptable medical sources about a claimant’s impairments and resulting limitations, and provides standards for weighing those opinions.

Smiley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-12(a)(1), (b), (c)

Because Plaintiff’s claim was filed before March 27, 2017, the opinion evidence rules set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 apply. These regulations require ALJs to adhere to certain standards when weighing medical opinions. First, the ALJ is required to consider and evaluate every medical opinion in the record, regardless of its source. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), (c) (emphasis added). The regulations define “medical opinions” as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity” of a claimant’s impairments, including “symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For applications filed before March 31, 2017, Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, give a well-supported and non-inconsistent treating physician's opinion controlling weight, and consider specified factors when assigning lesser weight.

Doreson v. Saul · filed 2022-09-13(c)

The regulations require that for applications filed before March 31, 2017, the ALJ must evaluate “every medical opinion” and assign a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 261 (7th Cir. 2018). ... In this case, after deciding not to give Dr. Kelley’s opinion any weight, the ALJ properly acknowledged his obligation to decide what lesser weight to assign the opinion, taking into account the factors of (1) whether there was an examining or treating relationship; (2) the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the frequency of examination; (4) the consistency and supportability of the physician's opinion; and (5) the physician's specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to evaluate a treating physician's opinion using the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors.

Jenkins v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-13(c)

In evaluating the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ considers the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). In this case, the ALJ, applying the required framework, specifically identified inconsistencies in Dr. Iteld's opinion with plaintiff's testimony and the objective medical evidence, and areas in which Dr. Iteld's opinion was unsupported.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) identify the support for a medical opinion and its consistency with the record as factors in determining the weight it receives.

Vega v. Saul · filed 2022-09-13(c)(3), (c)(4)

She conducted a mental status examination including memory and concentration tasks to measure Plaintiff's ability to focus and remember rather than relying exclusively on Plaintiff's subjective reports of her symptoms (A.R. at 95, 96, 1266). See Andrews v. Kijakazi, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-40069-TSH, 2022 WL 867803, at *3 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2022) (the consultant's performance of a mini-mental status examination as opposed to Plaintiff's subjective statements supported the ALJ's assignment of significant weight to her opinion); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3). Dr. Hernandez-Rivera's opinions about Plaintiff's abilities to remember, concentrate, and interact with others were consistent with treatment records from providers and other record evidence. See Abubakar v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-10456-DJC, 2012 WL 957623, at *11-12 (D. Mass. Mar. 21, 2012) (comparing the non-treating physician's opinion to the majority of the medical evidence and the plaintiff's testimony to determine whether or not the weight the ALJ assigned to the opinion was supported by the evidence); 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 weighing a treating source’s opinion to consider the listed relationship, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors and explain the weight assigned.

Schilling v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-13(c)

The ALJ must “always give good reasons” for the weight assigned to a treating physician opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The regulations require the ALJ to consider the presence of examining or treating relationships, the nature and frequency of such relationships, the evidence supporting the opinions, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, the specialization of the person giving the opinion, and any other factors that support or refute the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... In sum, because Dr. Bergquist’s opinions are well supported by medically acceptable evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ failed to give good reasons for why Dr. Bergquist’s opinions should be given no weight. Accordingly, remand is required so that the ALJ may reconsider the medical opinions of Dr. Bergquist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider medical opinions, weigh them as part of the residual functional capacity determination, and explain with particularity the weight assigned and the reasons for it.

Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-22

Because Plaintiff applied for benefits before March 27, 2017, which is before the change in regulations, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 applied to Dr. Marrero’s opinion. Under the prior regulations, at step four, an ALJ must properly consider treating, examining, and non-examining physician’s opinions and weigh these opinions and findings as an integral part of the ALJ’s RFC determination. ... Whenever a physician offers an opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments—including the claimant’s symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis; physical and mental restrictions; or what the claimant can still do—the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to the opinion and the reasons therefor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ evaluating an acceptable medical source’s opinion to articulate consideration of every relevant factor; the explanation need only allow meaningful judicial review.

BAIN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-09-23

Plaintiff’s first challenge to this assessment of Ms. Witherite’s statement is that the ALJ failed to evaluate it pursuant to the regulations that direct ALJs’ consideration of medical opinion evidence offered by acceptable medical sources at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. This argument fails. The ALJ did not discuss whether Ms. Witherite’s statement was offered by an acceptable medical source. However, even when ALJs evaluate an acceptable medical source’s opinion, they are not required to articulate their consideration of every factor that is relevant to their consideration. Phelps v. Colvin, No. 15-257, 2017 WL 372738, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 26, 2017) (explaining that “a factor-by-factor analysis is not required” and that the requirement is merely that the “explanation allows meaningful judicial review”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source medical opinion to consider nonexclusive factors including the opinion’s consistency with the remaining medical evidence; failure to explicitly apply those factors may be harmless when the ALJ otherwise gives good reasons for the assigned weight.

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-26(c)

Moreover, under the “old regulations” applicable to the ALJ’s decision here, when assessing medical opinion evidence from a treating source, the ALJ must consider, among other things, how consistent the opinion is with the other evidence of record. See, e.g., Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64, 75 (2d Cir. 2022) (“The governing regulations require an ALJ to explicitly consider certain nonexclusive factors when making this determination: “(1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”) (summarizing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); citation omitted). However, the failure to explicitly apply these so-called “Burgess factors” may be harmless error if the ALJ otherwise provides good reasons when assigning weight to a treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) generally requires an ALJ evaluating an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source to explain the weight given or ensure that the discussion lets a claimant or later reviewer follow the adjudicator's reasoning.

Kozlowski v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-28(f)(2)

With these principles in mind, the Court finds no error in the ALJ’s treatment of NP Conway’s opinion. Although NP Conway is a medical source with a treatment relationship with Claimant, she could not offer a “medical opinion” as “an acceptable medical source” under the relevant regulations. Accordingly, the ALJ was required only to explain the weight given to her opinion, or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allowed the Court to follow the ALJ’s reasoning. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires opinions from professionals who are not acceptable medical sources to be considered using the factors in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2).

Wise v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(c)(1)-(2)

Thus, “[o]pinions from those professionals deemed not acceptable medical sources[,]” like Plaintiff’s therapist, are “considered using the same factors” in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) and (2) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1) and (2). Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source controlling weight to consider the listed factors, meaningfully consider each factor, and explain the differing weight assigned to medical opinions.

Donnie Hall v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-07(c)(2)-(6)

When the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, he must consider a nonexclusive list of factors to determine the weight to be given to all medical opinions in the record: (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the physician’s opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record; and (5) specialization of the physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) (2022); Arakas, 983 F.3d at 106. The ALJ is not required to discuss each factor in his decision. See Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 986 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2021). However, “it must nonetheless be apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion,” id. (emphasis omitted), and he “must include a narrative discussion describing how the evidence supports his explanation of the varying degrees of weight he gave to differing opinions concerning the claimant’s conditions and limitations,” Woods v. Berryhill, 888 F.3d 686, 695 (4th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up). “Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ] will give to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider the applicable regulatory factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, and to explain the weight assigned.

Maldonado v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-12(a)(1), (c)(1)-(5)

Because Ms. Maldonado filed her applications on October 14, 2016, 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 and SSR 06-03p apply to the ALJ’s evaluation of this opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927 (evaluating opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017); SSR 06-03, 2006 WL 2329939 (considering opinions and other evidence from sources who are not “acceptable medical sources” in disability claims). 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(a)(1) and 416.927(a)(1) state that “[m]edical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” ... The regulations go on to state that more weight will be given to medical opinions from a source who has examined the claimant, who has treated the claimant, who has treated the claimant over a period of time, and who has knowledge about the claimant’s impairment. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(2) and 416.927(c)(1)-(2). The regulations also state that more weight will be given to medical source opinions that are supported by relevant evidence such as medical signs and laboratory findings; that are consistent with the record as a whole; and that are rendered by a specialist about the medical issues related to his or her area of specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(5) and 416.927(c)(3)-(5). ... The ALJ’s determination, however, is completely silent with respect to her consideration of the regulatory and ruling factors as required when evaluating treating and other source medical opinions. ... The ALJ’s failure to apply the correct legal standard in evaluating this medical opinion evidence is clear error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions, apply the treating-source weighing and good-reason requirements, and distinguish medical-source judgments from claimant-reported symptoms and issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Preston v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-10-12(a)(1), (c), (c)(2), (d)(1)

An ALJ must consider all medical opinions that she receives in evaluating a claimant’s case. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Further, an ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the ALJ’s] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... But as previously explained, a medical opinion is defined as a statement from an acceptable medical source that “reflect[s] judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Plaintiff’s subjective report about obtaining a handicap parking sticker and his inquiry about an electric wheelchair do not constitute statements from an acceptable medical source. ... And the governing regulations provide that a statement by a medical source that someone is disabled or cannot work is not a medical opinion because that is a dispositive issue reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider each medical-source opinion with other relevant evidence, give more weight to treating or examining opinions, and assess support, consistency, and other listed factors; it does not require deference to a non-treating, non-examining source.

FARLOW V. KIJAKAZI · filed 2022-11-16

The regulations say an ALJ must consider each opinion from a medical source along with other relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b). An ALJ must give more weight to opinions from treating or examining physicians, § 404.1527(c)(1)–(2), and consider whether each opinion is supported by evidence and consistent with the record. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(4). The ALJ must also consider factors such as a source’s specialized knowledge about disability programs or an area of medicine. § 404.1527(c)(5)–(6). Nothing in the relevant regulations requires an ALJ to defer to an opinion from a non-treating, non-examining medical source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion under the treating-source support and consistency rules and the listed weighing factors, and to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Smethurst v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-11-21(c)

An ALJ must review every medical opinion. ... First, the ALJ must consider whether the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques. ... If the ALJ finds that the opinion is well-supported, then he must confirm that the opinion is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... If these conditions are not met, the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight. ... This does not end the analysis, however. Even if a physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, that opinion must still be evaluated using certain factors. ... After considering these factors, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion. ... If the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a supported and consistent treating-doctor opinion controlling weight and makes the opinion’s consistency with the record a factor in determining its weight.

Winters v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-13(c)(2), (c)(4)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the ALJ must accord “controlling weight” to a treating doctor’s opinion where medically-approved, diagnostic techniques support the opinion and the opinion is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d at 654. ... A medical opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole represents a valid factor to consider when deciding what weight to give the opinion. 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 weigh medical opinions regardless of their source, while § 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion that is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Sipe v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-28(c), (c)(2)

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). Under these regulations, the ALJ is required to give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [claimant’s] case record.”