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 an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source's specialization, giving more weight to better-supported and more consistent opinions.

Neal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-12-28(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider six factors when evaluating a medical opinion, but does not require the ALJ to explicitly discuss each factor if the decision articulates the analysis of the evidence.

BOWERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-12-30(c)(1)-(6)

The Court finds that the ALJ adequately addressed the six factors under 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(C)(1)-(6), noting that the “ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor in his decision,” Samah, 2018 WL 6178862 at *5, but only needs to “articulate at some level her analysis of a particular line of evidence,” Phillips, 91 F. App’x at 780.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b)-(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate each medical source opinion.

Belew v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-09(b)-(c)

Providing a blanket rejection of the opinions is contrary to the regulations which require that each medical source opinion be evaluated. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b)-(c), 416.927(b)-(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider each medical opinion with the other relevant evidence and assess its weight using factors such as supportability and consistency.

Ripson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-18(b)-(c)

An ALJ assesses a medical opinion by looking at several factors, including: ... (3) supportability—giving more weight to opinions supported by other evidence from the medical source, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings; ... (4) consistency—giving more weight to opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole; ... Id. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). ... And afterward, the ALJ properly relied on the factors of supportability and consistency to evaluate Dr. Weiss’s medical opinion. This affords substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(4) directs an ALJ to give more weight to treating or examining-source opinions and to consider whether each opinion is supported by evidence and consistent with the record.

Romero v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-01-20(c)(1)–(4)

The ALJ need not adhere to the “clear and convincing” standard because they never treated or examined Claimant. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(2) (providing an ALJ must give more weight to opinions from treating or examining physicians); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)–(4) (providing an ALJ must consider whether each opinion is supported by evidence and consistent with the record); see also Farlow, 53 F.4th at 488 (“Opinions from treating physicians receive more weight than opinions from examining physicians, and opinions from examining physicians receive more weight than opinions from non-examining physicians.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Skordas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-30(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”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider acceptable medical source opinions and assign each a weight; an opinion may be discounted when it is conclusory, unsupported, inconsistent with the objective record, or overly reliant on self-reported symptoms if the ALJ gives adequate reasons.

Jones v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-02(c)

An ALJ must consider the acceptable medical source opinions of record and assign weight to each. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... An ALJ may discount an otherwise valid medical source opinion as overly conclusory, poorly supported by or inconsistent with the objective medical record, or inordinately reliant on a claimant’s self-reported symptoms, provided the ALJ provides clear and convincing reasons to discredit the symptom allegations. See, e.g., Coleman v. Saul, 979 F.3d 751, 757–58 (9th Cir. 2020).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as judgments from acceptable medical sources about an impairment and requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and explain the weight assigned to them.

DREISTADT v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-02-02(a)(1), (c)

The regulations that apply to Plaintiff’s claim define medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [his or her] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his or her] physical or mental restrictions.” Id. §§ 404.1527(a)(1), 416.927(a)(1). An ALJ must consider all the medical opinions in a claimant’s record and explain the weight he or she will afford them. Id. § 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider six factors when deciding what weight to accord a treating physician’s opinion.

VANSCIVER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-02-07(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 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and, when evaluating a non-treating source, consider the listed factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-07(c)

As for medical opinions from sources that are not “treating sources” as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), the ALJ must consider the following factors set forth for the evaluation of medical opinions: examining relationship; treatment relationship; supportability; consistency; specialization; and other factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion by the judgments it reflects about the nature and severity of an impairment, including the claimant's symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, abilities, and restrictions.

Coleman v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-02-16(a)(2)

Like Hammock’s report, Dr. Sturridge’s report contains diagnoses but does not “reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [Coleman’s] impairment(s)[.]” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Instead, the records contain medical opinions merely to the extent that they state Coleman’s symptoms and diagnoses.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not govern a claim filed after superseding medical-opinion rules took effect; the ALJ must apply the regulations in effect when the claim was filed.

Quattlebaum v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-16

Next, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ applied incorrect regulations. Plaintiff argues that, because his protective filing date is April 10, 2015, the ALJ should have used the regulatory framework outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 to evaluate the medical opinions, despite new superseding rules becoming effective March 17, 2017, and should have used the musculoskeletal listings framework as it was outlined in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1 prior to the changes that became effective April 2, 2021. ECF 18-1, at 7, 15–17. As noted above, however, the claim at issue is the new claim filed on May 5, 2021, not the April 10, 2015, claim. ALJs do not have discretion to apply different regulations—they must evaluate a claim using the regulations in effect at the time a claimant filed a claim. Thus, the ALJ was correct in applying the rules as they were on May 5, 2021.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, testing, and the opinion’s consistency and support, and permits discounting the opinion when the reasons are minimally articulated.

Derry v. Saul · filed 2023-02-09(c)

As such, “[o]nce contrary evidence is introduced,” that opinion “becomes just one piece of evidence,” and the ALJ must consider various factors when deciding the weight to afford it, if any, including: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; physician’s specialty; types of tests performed; and consistency with and support for the opinion in the record. Ray v. Saul, 861 Fed. Appx. 102, 105 (7th Cir. 2021); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The court upholds an ALJ’s decision to discount a treating physician’s opinion after considering these factors if she “minimally articulated her reasons—a very deferential standard.” Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who discounts a treating physician’s opinion to address each of its six medical-opinion factors, and merely acknowledging the regulation is insufficient.

Cannon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-02-22(c)

However, the second blemish in the ALJ’s reasoning is more problematic. After declining to apply the “treating physician rule” it failed to address each of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)’s six factors. The ALJ appropriately “acknowledged the existence of the Section 404.1527(c) factors,” Dowling v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 986 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2021), but he nonetheless failed to address them. Mere acknowledgement of the regulation’s existence is insufficient and falls short of the ALJ’s duties.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires the Commissioner to defer to a physician’s medical opinion and directs the ALJ to consider factors such as the treatment relationship, consistency, and objective support.

Tomczak v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-09(a)(1), (c), (c)(1)-(6), (d)(1)

The Commissioner is responsible for determining whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability and need not credit a physician’s conclusion that the claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). But the Commissioner generally must defer to a physician’s medical opinion, such as statements concerning the nature or severity of the claimant’s impairments, what the claimant can do, and the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions. § 404.1527(a)(1), (c). ... In determining how much deference to give a physician’s medical opinion, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes between the opinions of treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Generally, an ALJ should give the greatest weight to a treating physician’s opinion and more weight to the opinion of an examining physician than a non-examining physician. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 1040-41; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) (listing factors to be considered when evaluating opinion evidence, including length of examining or treating relationship, frequency of examination, consistency with the record, and support from objective evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 establishes a framework for weighing medical opinions, requires consideration of every opinion, and requires particularized reasons for the weight assigned.

Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-13(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. ... 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”). ... “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 consider every medical opinion, weigh it using the listed factors, and state with particularity the weight assigned and the reasons for that determination.

Pelleitier v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-16(c)

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”). ... “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)(3)-(4) requires the adjudicator to consider an opinion’s internal support and consistency with the evidence when weighing it.

Nielson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-21(c)(3)-(4)

The court finds that this did not happen here. Rather, the ALJ provided several reasons, including lack of internal support and consistency with the evidence to discount Dr. Garg’s opinion (Tr. 1921). See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4); 416.927(c)(3)-(4) (the ALJ considers an opinion’s internal support and consistency with the evidence); see also Jones v. Colvin, 610 F. App’x 755, 758 (10th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing McGoffin, rejecting Plaintiff’s argument “that the ALJ could reject [a doctor’s] opinions only by citing contrary medical evidence,” and finding that “[t]he lack of affirmative support in the medical record is a legitimate consideration at both steps of treating physician analysis”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fleming v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-17(c)

Notably, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) states that the relevant factors for consideration of medical opinions include length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and “other factors.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) and (c) require an ALJ to consider every medical opinion of record and evaluate it under the applicable factors.

Pacheco v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-05-24(b), (c)

The ALJ was required to consider every medical opinion of record, including those of Dr. Hochreiter and Dr. Hausmann. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(b),(c); 419.927(b)(c). On remand, the ALJ is directed to do so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 governs the evaluation of medical opinions for claims filed under its earlier regulatory framework, and an ALJ must account for an opinion’s consistency with the record.

Berna v. Social Security Administration · filed 2024-09-03

Because of the date of Claimant’s applications, the ALJ must rely on 20 C.F.R. §404.1527 to evaluate medical opinions. The ALJ singled out Dr. Honghiran’s restriction on the amount of sitting Claimant can do and found it to be unsupported. However, there is nothing in the record that contradicts Dr. Honghiran’s assessment, and it is consistent with Claimant’s severe injuries. As stated above, Claimant has consistently complained of back, sacral, and buttock pain after his multiple fractures, and he must shift from side to side when he is sitting. He also must elevate his legs to remedy his back and knee pain. The ALJ’s failed to acknowledge the consistencies between the evidence and Dr. Honghiran’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For a claim governed by the prior regulations, the ALJ must review every medical opinion, evaluate a non-controlling treating-source opinion under the regulatory factors, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Brown · filed 2026-02-11(c)

Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ must review every medical opinion. ... 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.” ... The ALJ’s treatment of PA Stirling’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence. Despite Plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, the ALJ did not discount PA Stirling’s opinion merely because he was not an acceptable medical source. The ALJ went on to evaluate PA Stirling’s opinion using the relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions and explain the evidence and reasoning behind the weight assigned to them.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26

Turning to Plaintiff’s second argument, the ALJ is tasked with evaluating the presented medical evidence to determine the appropriate RFC. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... In so doing, the ALJ consistently provided evidence and reasoning for her assignment of weight to the different medical evidence. Thus, the Court finds that the ALJ sufficiently evaluated the medical evidence in her determination of the RFC.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats a report assessing a claimant’s functioning and support needs as a medical opinion that the ALJ must evaluate and weigh.

Selg v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-18(a)(1)

On March 9, 2020, the Court directed the parties to submit additional briefing on whether the March 22, 2017, SMRC report constitutes a “medical opinion” within the meaning of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... The parties agree that the March 22, 2017, SMRC report constitutes a “medical opinion,” see Br. [21] at 1; Br. [20] at 1, and based upon those briefs and relevant legal authority, the Court concurs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source, including by considering opinions relevant to the claimant’s limitations.

Rindfleisch v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-05-20(c)

Simply put, plaintiff was entitled to consideration of Ms. Ramnani’s assessments, and an explanation for the ALJ’s rejection of the limitations they described. ... 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) (“[r]egardless of its source, [the Commissioner] will evaluate every medical opinion [it] receive[s]”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions not given controlling weight to be evaluated using factors including the examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, and specialization; the relationship factor need be mentioned only when relevant to distinguishing opinions.

(SS) Keovilai v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-23(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). ... Although the nature and extent of the treating or examining relationship is a relevant regulatory factor to consider, it does not bear mentioning unless it is a relevant basis upon which to distinguish between the opinions in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using support, consistency with the record, physician specialty, and other factors that support or contradict the opinion.

Poler v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-24(c)

An ALJ will evaluate medical opinions in the record based on “the following factors: (1) the evidence in support of the opinion; (2) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (3) the specialty of the physician; and (4) any other factors which may support or contradict the opinion.” Suttles v. Colvin, 654 F. App’x 44, 46 (2d Cir. 2016) (citing 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 directs an adjudicator to give more weight to medical opinions that are well explained, supported by medical findings, and consistent with the record as a whole, while reserving residual-functional-capacity determinations to the Commissioner.

Cavalieri v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-26(c)(3), (4), (d)

The regulations explicitly state that the issue of RFC is “reserved to the Commissioner” because it is an “administrative finding that [is] dispositive of the case.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). ... Thus, the ALJ reasonably assigned reduced weight to these opinions given their stark inconsistencies with the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), (4) (more weight is given to medical opinions that are well explained, supported by medical findings, and consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

WILLIAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-05-27(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(b) requires an ALJ to consider all medical-opinion evidence with the other relevant evidence and assign weight to each opinion relied upon; subsection (c) requires analysis of acceptable-source opinions under the listed factors unless the opinion is a controlling treating medical opinion.

MCCORMACK v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-03(b), (c)

In reviewing the record to make the RFC assessment, the ALJ must take into account all the medical opinion evidence along with all other relevant evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b), and must allocate weight to each medical opinion upon which it relies. ... Any medical opinion from an acceptable medical source, unless it is designated a controlling treating medical opinion, must be analyzed according to factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). These factors include the examining and treating relationship; the length and frequency of the relationship; the extent and nature of the relationship; the amount of objective medical evidence supporting the opinion; consistency with the entire record; specialization of the medical professional; and other factors that tend to support or contradict an opinion. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(e)(2) requires an ALJ to consider the findings and opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants, although the ALJ is not bound by them.

Gorbet v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2021-09-30(e)(2)

ALJs “are not bound by any findings made by State agency medical or psychological consultants, or other program physicians or psychologists,” but ALJs “must consider findings and other opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 416.927(e)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to expressly discuss every listed factor when evaluating a medical opinion, so long as the decision indicates the factors were considered; under subsection (c)(6), the ALJ may consider the source's familiarity with the Administration's disability programs and evidentiary requirements.

Lopez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(c)

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ did not have to expressly address each of the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in her decision. ... It is enough that the ALJ gives some indication that the factors were properly considered. ... Here, the court is satisfied the ALJ properly considered all of the relevant factors given that she expressly discussed treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and familiarity with the SSA’s guidelines.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources reflecting judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including what the claimant can still do and the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions; treatment progress notes without such judgments are not medical opinions.

Neela v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(a)

Even so, the ALJ correctly noted that Dr. Bains’s certifications are vague as to N.N.’s functional limitations. Dr. Bains did not provide any medical opinions, but rather only medical progress notes documenting his treatment of N.N. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)5 (defining medical “opinions” as “statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”); Lowry v. Colvin, No. 13-cv-03304-NC, 2014 WL 3836224, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2014) (physician’s treatment notes did not constitute a medical opinion because notes did not contain a subjective assessment of claimant’s physical limitations with regard to his ability to perform functional tasks). ... The Court finds no error in the ALJ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Bains’s certifications.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions to include judgments about an impairment's prognosis and what a claimant can still do despite the impairment.

Williams v. Saul · filed 2021-10-13(a)(1)

Medical opinions are defined as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). Prognosis is specifically included in the Regulations’ definition of medical opinions. Therefore, this reason cannot support the ALJ’s rejection of the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Stains v. Saul · filed 2022-02-16(a)(1)

The regulations applicable to Plaintiff’s application define medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). “Acceptable medical sources” are defined as a licensed physician, licensed psychologist, licensed optometrist (for vision issues only), a licensed podiatrist (foot and ankle impairments only), or a qualified speech-language pathologist (speech and language impairments only). 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502. Based on these definitions, and because there appears to be no dispute on the issue, I find that the statements by the physical therapists and Dr. Fox are not medical opinions as defined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, abilities despite impairment, and physical or mental restrictions.

Steele v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-15(a)(1)

But these findings are not medical opinions worthy of independent evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (“[M]edical opinions are statements . . . 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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from physicians, psychologists, or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about an impairment and its symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, capabilities, and restrictions.

Murphy v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-18(a)(1)

By regulation, medical opinions are defined as "statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source's judgment about the nature and severity of impairments and what a claimant can still do despite them.

Gresham v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-06(a)(2)

Under the pertinent regulations, “[m]edical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s), including [a claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [a claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [a claimant’s] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). ... Thus, the statement cannot constitute a medical opinion under the regulations, and the ALJ was, therefore, under no obligation to grant it a specific weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats as medical opinions statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of an impairment and related matters, including what the claimant can still do and physical or mental restrictions.

Snyder v. SSA · filed 2022-09-28(a)(1)

Medical opinions are "statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about an impairment’s nature and severity, including what the claimant can still do and the claimant’s physical or mental restrictions.

GARLAND v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2023-02-24(a)(1)

“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the plaintiff’s] impairment(s), including [the plaintiff’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the plaintiff] can still do despite impairment(s), and [the plaintiff’s] physical or mental restrictions.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about an impairment and the claimant’s remaining abilities and restrictions.

Kantor v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-16(a)(1)

However, even when the consultant provides a narrative RFC assessment, “an ALJ can [not] turn a blind eye” to moderate limitations found in the first part of the form. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (“Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”). ... Moreover, when the consultant fails to provide a narrative RFC, the ALJ must address the consultant’s opinions expressed as to each of the four categories of limitations or explain why those opinions were rejected.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines medical opinions as statements from medical sources reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments.

Lipkus v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-21(a)(1)

As such, Dr. Todd’s opinion properly spoke to the nature and severity of Plaintiffs cardiovascular impairments based on evidence from the relevant period, including testing performed on October 6, 2016. See Tr. 44: see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (defining medical opinions as “statements from medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s)”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A medical statement qualifies as a medical opinion when it addresses at least one of a claimant’s symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, remaining abilities despite impairments, or physical or mental restrictions.

Garcia-Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-05-31(a)(1)

Thus, a medical statement qualifies as a medical opinion under Section 404.1527(a)(1) when it discusses at least one of the following: plaintiff’s symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what a plaintiff can still do despite the impairment, and physical or mental restrictions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) defines medical opinions as statements reflecting judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, remaining abilities, and physical or mental restrictions.

(SS) Laguna-Peralta v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-02-03(a)(2)

Consultative examiner Dr. Wagner and State agency physicians Drs. Bawa and Pham provided medical opinions regarding the effects of Plaintiff’s impairments. (See AR 34, 97–98, 110–111, 125–27, 140–41, 2132; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), 416.927(a)(2) (defining medical opinions as statements that “reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis, and prognosis, what you can do despite your impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s judgment about an impairment and its effects, including what a person can still do and their physical or mental restrictions.

FLADGER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-05-19(a)(1)

The Regulations state: 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). The evidence cited by Plaintiff does not contain statements about what Plaintiff can still do, or not do, despite his impairments. The ALJ did not err by not treating the cited records as medical opinion statements, nor did this Court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to consider six regulatory factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require express discussion of every factor if the ALJ applies some relevant factors.

Brand v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(c)

There are six regulatory factors an ALJ should consider when weighing a medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... Simply put, so long as the ALJ applies some of the relevant factors affirmance is often required. This is because an ALJ is “not required’ to apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.’” Razo v. Colvin, 663 F. App’x 710, 715 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished) (quoting Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion using the regulation’s listed factors.

Siders v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(c)(2)–(6)

Nevertheless, even where an opinion is not entitled to deference under the treating physician rule, the ALJ must still apply several factors to determine the weight that the opinion should be afforded. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Those factors are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the supportability of the opinion, that is, the extent to which it is consistent with medical signs and laboratory findings, (4) the consistency of the opinions with the record and other opinions, (5) whether the physician is a specialist, and (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating medical opinion evidence.

Velez v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-05(c)(2)-(6)

The ALJ considered the requisite factors and applied the correct legal standard in evaluating the medical opinion evidence. See Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)); Batson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 359 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004) (ALJ is responsible for resolving conflicts in the medical testimony). The ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to discount the opinions of Dr. Yuen as inconsistent with the medical record, including Velez’s conservative treatment. See Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008) (inconsistency between physician’s opinion and the medical record was a specific and legitimate reason to reject the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion and permits discounting or rejecting an opinion, including a treating physician’s, when supported by good reasons and substantial evidence.

Griffin v. SSA · filed 2021-08-16(c)

An ALJ must consider every medical opinion when assessing a disability claimant’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... An ALJ can discount or reject any medical opinion—including the opinion of a treating physician so long as she provides good reasons supported by substantial evidence for doing so. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to consider how well a medical opinion accounts for all pertinent evidence when deciding the weight to give it.

Barrett v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-16(c)(3)

How well a medical opinion considers all pertinent evidence is one factor the ALJ can consider in deciding the weight to give a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). Dr. Webster conducted her own evaluation of the Plaintiff, including several objective tests. Tr. 827-835. The ALJ gave a detailed description of this evaluation and appears to weigh Dr. Webster’s opinion on that basis. An alleged limited review of records is not a clear and convincing reason to discount Dr. Webster’s testimony given that she is an examining physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate each medical opinion and weigh it using specified factors, generally giving more weight to an examining source.

DEAN v. KIJAKAZI · filed 2021-08-17(c)

For claims like Plaintiffs that are filed before Match 27, 2017, ALJs evaluate the medical opinion evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec., 873 F.3d 251, 255 (4th Cir. 2017). “Medical opinions” ate “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impaitment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impaitment(s), and your physical or mental resttictions.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1)). While the regulations mandate that the ALJ evaluate each medical opinion presented to him, generally “more weight is given ‘to the medical opinion of a soutce who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)). Opinions must be evaluated and weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(€)(6), including (1) the length of the treatment relationship, (2) the frequency of examination, (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) the supportability of the opinion, (5) the consistency of the opinion with the record, (6) whether the soutce is a specialist, and (7) any other factors that may support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization, but the ALJ need not discuss every factor.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-20(c)

The ALJ nevertheless considered Ms. Leonard’s opinions under the regulatory factors found in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c), including (i) the frequency of examinations and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the physician’s opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the physician has a relevant specialty. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c) (2), 416.927(c)(2); see Clark v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 143 F.3d 115, 118 (2d Cir. 1998); Marquez v. Colvin, No. 12 CIV. 6819 PKC, 2013 WL 5568718, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2013). However, the ALJ was not required to consider every factor. See, e.g., Atwater v. Astrue, 512 F. App’x 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2013).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when weighing a treating-physician opinion, but does not require a slavish recitation of every factor when the ALJ's reasoning and adherence to the treating-physician rule are clear.

Schramm v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(c)

In deciding how much weight to afford the opinion of a treating physician, “‘the ALJ must explicitly consider, inter alia: (1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.’” Greek, 802 F.3d at 375 (quoting Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013)). However, where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation is clear, and it is obvious that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed,” no “slavish recitation of each and every factor” of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lange v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-23(d)

An ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion [he] receives, regardless of its source.” Pena v. Chater, 968 F. Supp. 930, 937 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulatory factors when evaluating medical opinions, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor if the decision sufficiently accounts for the factors and builds an accurate and logical bridge between the evidence and the conclusion.

Morris v. Saul · filed 2021-08-24(c)

While we may not agree with the weight the ALJ ultimately gave Dr. Belford’s opinions, our inquiry is limited to whether the ALJ sufficiently accounted for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, see Elder v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 408, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of benefits where ALJ discussed only two of the relevant factors laid out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527), and built an “accurate and logical bridge” between the evidence and his conclusion. We find that deferential standard met here. ... As in Schreiber, the ALJ’s opinion here “sufficiently accounted” for the regulatory factors. Thus, the ALJ did not err in assessing of Dr. Andreeva’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, explain the weight assigned and the reasons for it, and consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialty.

PHILLIPS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-08-25(c)

An ALJ must evaluate every medical opinion in the record, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), and must state with particularity the weight given to those opinions and the reasons therefor. See Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. In determining the weight to accord each medical opinion, the ALJ must consider several factors, including the examining and treating relationship between the physician and the claimant, the physician’s presentation of supporting medical evidence, the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, the physician’s specialty, and other factors. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization.

Goers v. Saul · filed 2021-08-27(c)

When weighing medical opinions, an ALJ must consider certain regulatory factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the medical source’s opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record, and the source’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); see also Walker v. Saul, No. 18 CV 918, 2020 WL 1698857, at *3 (N.D. Ind. April 8, 2020).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider an opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole and generally give more weight to a specialist’s opinion on medical issues related to the specialist’s area.

Moon v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-27(c)

The regulations require the ALJ to consider the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). But here, the ALJ omitted substantial reports of fatigue consistent with the Doctors’ opinion letters from his evaluation. ... The Commissioner’s objection stating the ALJ was “certainly aware that Plaintiff’s care providers had administered treatment in connection with his lymphoma” falls short of the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to “give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) generally favors giving more weight to a medical opinion that is consistent with the record as a whole.

Bryant v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-30(c)(4)

In evaluating the opinions, the ALJ cited medical evidence consistent with the physicians’ assessments. (Doc. 19-2 at 26–27, 29–31); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (“Generally, the 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(a)(2) treats a medical source whose relationship with the claimant is solely to obtain a disability-support report as a nontreating source, whose opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Dimond v. Saul · filed 2020-09-28(a)(2)

Under those rules, the SSA “will not consider an acceptable medical source to be [a] treating source” if the applicant’s relationship with the source is based not on his need for treatment or evaluation, “but solely on your need to obtain a report in support of your claim for disability.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Instead, a source such as Dr. Lewis—the SSA’s consultative examiner to whom Plaintiff was referred for evaluation as part of his application for disability benefits—is considered “a nontreating source.” Id. Dr. Lewis is not a treating source, and thus his opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) requires considering the length and nature and extent of the treatment relationship when determining what weight to give a medical opinion.

Finston v. Berryhill · filed 2021-03-30(c)(2)(i)-(ii)

But contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, the ALJ properly considered the nature and extent of Dr. Carlisle’s treatment relationship with plaintiff in determining what weight to give her opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) (factors for evaluating treatment relationship include the length and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship). The ALJ correctly noted that Dr. Carlisle only saw plaintiff biannually. See AR at 22, 713. Additionally, although Dr. Carlisle occasionally provided clearance for plaintiff’s injections (see id. at 419-29), her lower back pain was primarily treated at the pain management clinic. As such, the ALJ properly discounted Dr. Carlisle’s opinion on the basis that she saw plaintiff only a limited number of times and did not primarily treat plaintiff’s lower back pain.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Lovett v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-29(c)(2)–(6)

If the opinion of a treating physician is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must apply a number of factors in order to determine the opinion’s proper weight. See Shaw v. Chater, 221 F.3d 126, 134 (2d Cir. 2000). These factors include: (i) the frequency of examination as well as the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating source’s opinion; (iii) the extent to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the treating source is a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors. See Clark, 143 F.3d at 118; see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Jones v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-02-03(d)(3)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to explain the acceptance of medical opinion evidence.

Dixon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-01-31

While an ALJ must explain why he rejects medical opinion evidence, no such requirement exists where the ALJ accepts medical opinion evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527; 96-8p (July 2, 1996) (“If the RFC assessment conflicts with an opinion from a medical source, the adjudicator must explain why the opinion was not adopted.”); Orteza v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 748, 750 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that the ALJ is not required to provide clear and convincing reasons where the ALJ is not rejecting medical opinion evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims governed by § 404.1527, an ALJ may not reject a treating physician’s opinion with conclusory assertions that it lacks support or consistency; the ALJ must identify conflicting records and explain why certain clinical findings are credited over others.

Vazquez v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-10-25(c)(3)–(4)

The Court agrees that the ALJ’s conclusory statements that Dr. Jacob’s 2014 opinion was not supported by or consistent with the record is not substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s rejection of that opinion. Regarding supportability, the applicable regulation explains, “[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.” ... As to consistency, the applicable regulation explains, “[g]enerally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” ... Here, the ALJ simply fails to identify conflicting records and explain her reasons for crediting certain findings over others. Accordingly, the ALJ does not adequately articulate how Dr. Jacob’s 2014 opinion is not consistent with the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Monteith v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-07-09(d)(2)

The “treating physician” rule requires that the ALJ give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”7 Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion regardless of its source and consider the opinion’s consistency with the record and other opinions when assigning weight.

Hammad v. Saul · filed 2021-07-27(c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Second, in assessing the weight of all medical opinions pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c), the ALJ is required to consider the consistency of each opinion with the record in general and those of other opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) identifies a provider’s familiarity with the treatment history as a factor in weighing the provider’s opinion.

Tabayoyon v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-30(c)(6)

A provider’s familiarity with the treatment history is a factor to consider when weighing opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(6) makes a medical source’s familiarity with the other information in the claimant’s case record relevant when weighing the source’s opinion.

Nelson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-11-03(c)(6)

Third, the ALJ found Dr. Severinghaus’ opinion was inconsistent with the record as a whole. Id. An ALJ may discredit physicians’ opinions that are unsupported by the record as a whole. Batson, 359 F.3d at 1195. Moreover, the extent to which a medical source is “familiar with the other information in [the claimant’s] case record” is relevant in assessing the weight of that source’s medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(6), 416.927(c)(6). The ALJ found Dr. Severinghaus’ opinion that Plaintiff has marked limitations in social functioning was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s reported social activities, including visits with friends, being a bridesmaid, and taking a trip to Reno. Tr. 1264. The ALJ also referenced an earlier discussion of Plaintiff’s activities. Id. Earlier in the decision, the ALJ discussed Plaintiff’s ability to get out of the house regularly, travel independently, shop once or twice per week, attend appointments, go on walks and other small outings, visit friends’ homes, and play cards. Tr. 1256. Plaintiff was observed as cooperative and pleasant at examinations. Tr. 1255-56. Plaintiff contends her ability to engage with family and friends is not inconsistent with marked limitations in an ability to engage in social functioning in a work environment. ECF No. 10 at 11. However, the ALJ has offered a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and opinion, when considering the range of activities and socializing Plaintiff was able to handle outside of the home. See Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1038 (“[W]hen the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation” the court will not reverse the ALJ’s decision).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using six listed factors and to consider those factors, as applicable, when weighing opinions from nonmedical sources.

Rubini v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-07-31(c), (f)(1)

With respect to a medical opinion, the ALJ must apply the six-factor checklist set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Generally, the regulations instruct ALJs weighing the opinions of nonmedical sources to consider the same six factors listed above, with the caveat that “not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... In this case, the ALJ recounted the length and nature of Trager and Dubil’s respective relationships with Plaintiff. He explained that they lacked medical expertise and that he found their opinions inconsistent with the rest of the record. But the ALJ did not discuss the other applicable factors, such as Trager and Dubil’s areas of specialization.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats opinions about a claimant's residual functional capacity as administrative findings for the ALJ to decide, rather than medical opinions.

Norton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-18(d)(2)

Opinions about an individual’s RFC status are administrative findings that an ALJ must decide, not a medical opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for assigning a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Kruse v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-05-21(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s reliance on cases applying the “treating source” rule is misplaced, as a specific regulation mandates that the Commissioner give “good reasons” for giving a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the ALJ weighs it using the listed factors and gives good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight.

Abbott v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-09-08(c)(2), (c)(4)

However, a treating physician’s opinion as to the nature and severity of an impairment must be given “controlling weight” only if it is (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and (2) is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)(2). When an opinion does not garner controlling weight, the appropriate weight to be given to the opinion will be determined based upon the length of treatment, frequency of examinations, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole, the specialization of the source, and other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. The ALJ is not required to explain how she considered each of these factors but must nonetheless give “good reasons” for giving a treating physician’s opinion less than controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to weigh the opinion using the listed factors when controlling weight is not given.

Rousselle v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-22(c)(1)-(6)

For applications filed prior to March 27, 2017, the Social Security regulations afford a treating source opinion controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... But even if the ALJ does not afford the treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ owes that opinion deference and must weigh that opinion using all the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). ... “An ALJ is not required to expressly discuss each factor in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” ... Here, the ALJ acknowledged that Dr. Hynes was a treating physician and expressly gave Dr. Hynes’ opinion little weight due to the inconsistencies described above. ... Thus, this court finds no error in the ALJ’s treatment of Dr. Hynes’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors, gives generally greater weight to a specialist’s opinion on issues within the specialist’s area, and requires consideration of those factors when a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by substantial evidence.

Christensen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-22(c), (c)(2), (c)(5)

In evaluating medical opinions, the ALJ must consider: 1) whether the source examined the claimant; 2) the length, frequency, nature, and extent of any treatment relationship; 3) the degree of support the opinion has, particularly from objective medical evidence; 4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; 5) the source’s specialization; and 6) “other factors.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675; Orn, 495 F.3d at 631-32; Revels, 874 F.3d at 665. ... Further, it was reasonable for the ALJ to give greater weight to Dr. Christensen’s opinions about Petitioner’s mental health limitations, given his specialty as a licensed psychologist. See 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.”); (AR 30) (crediting the findings of mental health professionals over that of Dr. Burton). ... Where substantial evidence in the record contradicts the opinion of the treating physician, the opinion of the treating physician is no longer entitled to controlling weight. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). In that event, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to accord the opinion of the treating physician. The factors include the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination by the treating physician, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship between the patient and the treating physician. Orn, 495 F.3d at 631. Even when contradicted by the opinion of an examining physician that constitutes substantial evidence, the treating physician’s opinion is “still entitled to deference.” SSR 96–2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) requires an ALJ applying the older medical-opinion rules to consider the regulatory factors when deciding what weight to assign an opinion.

Valdez v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-24(d)

Under the older rules, an ALJ must consider all the medical opinions in the record and discuss the weight each opinion is assigned. Mays v. Colvin, 739 F.3d 569, 578 (10th Cir. 2014). “[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).” Lauxman v. Astrue, 321 F. App’x 766, 769 (10th Cir. 2009).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider a treating source's specialization and permits consideration of other factors that support or contradict the medical opinion when weighing it.

TESTA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-27(c)(5), (c)(6)

Specialization is a factor that an ALJ must consider when weighing a treating source’s evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5), and the ALJ is entitled to consider “[o]ther factors … which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion” as well, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to meaningfully consider the applicable listed factors and explain the weight assigned to medical-source opinions, and it does not permit rejecting an opinion merely because it addresses disability or ability to work.

Cumbee v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-28(c), (d), (f)(1), (f)(2)

However, plaintiff correctly points out that the regulation requires defendant to consider the opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources “using the same factors listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6).” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... At bottom, the ALJ “generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator’s reasoning.” Id. § 404.1527(f)(2). ... Rather, “the ALJ [is] required to consider each of the six 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors before casting [treating physician’s] opinion aside.” Id. ... The ALJ may not treat the fact that the medical opinion is on an issue reserved for the Commissioner as an outcome-determinative reason to reject that opinion either.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider six factors when deciding what weight to give a treating physician's opinion.

COVINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-09-28(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) requires an ALJ to consider the relevant weighing factors, including an opinion’s supportability and consistency, when evaluating a one-time consultative examiner’s opinion.

Russell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-28(c)

Therefore, the ALJ was not required to give the psychologist’s evaluation special deference under the treating physician rule but was required to consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), namely, supportability and consistency. ... Accordingly, the ALJ considered the necessary factors under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c), including supportability and consistency with the record when addressing the opinions of psychological consultant Dr. Janco-Gidley, and did not err at Step Two by not categorizing Plaintiff’s mental impairments as severe.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) makes the treatment relationship a factor in weighing a medical opinion, so a one-time examining physician's opinion need not receive great weight.

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

Indeed, as noted above, the opinions of medical practitioners who examine a claimant only once, such as Dr. Herson, are not entitled to great weight. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1160 (citing McSwain, 814 F.2d at 619); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion to determine its weight using the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

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

In that event, the ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to accord the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion using applicable factors including the treatment relationship, supporting explanation, consistency with the record, and the source’s specialization.

Wells v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-30(c)

An ALJ must decide what weight should be given a medical opinion by considering, to the extent applicable, specific regulatory factors, including (1) the length, nature, and extent of the medical treatment relationship; (2) the explanatory support for the opinion; (3) the medical opinion’s consistency with other evidence; and (4) any specialization of the medical source. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c). ... Considering that Dr. Polczinski examined Wells, provided supporting explanations for his opinions, specialized in clinical psychology, and his opinion was consistent with the record as a whole, 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c), the ALJ appropriately afforded great weight to his opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider six listed factors and explain the evaluation well enough for meaningful judicial review.

KANE-HUGHES v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-26(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). ... However, the ALJ must explain her evaluation of the medical evidence sufficiently to permit the Court to meaningfully review whether her reasoning complies with the regulation’s standards.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to meaningfully consider each applicable regulatory factor before deciding how much weight to give it.

Houtz v. Saul · filed 2021-11-10(c)

Here, the ALJ stated that he had considered opinion evidence in accordance with the requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. R. at 20. However, even if Dr. Park’s opinions were not entitled to controlling weight, it does not appear that the ALJ meaningfully considered each of the factors under § 404.1527(c) before deciding how much weight to give her opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to meaningfully consider each regulatory factor before deciding the weight to give the opinion.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-26(c)

Therefore, because the ALJ declined to give this treating physician’s May 2016 opinion controlling weight, he was required to meaningfully consider each of the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh a medical opinion based on its consistency with the record, the explanation supporting it, and the length and nature of the treatment relationship.

Hiduchick v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-17(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ first noted that this opinion was not supported by the objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (the ALJ is charged with evaluating the “consistency of [an] opinion with the record as a whole”). ... Moreover, the regulations instruct the ALJ to give weight to the source opinion evidence based on the explanation provided by the source to support the opinion. 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.”). ... As the regulations instruct the ALJ to consider the length and nature of the treatment relationship when weighing source opinions, the ALJ did not err by noting the short period of the treatment relationship. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source’s medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions based on their supportability and consistency with the record.

Sims v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-17(c)(3)-(4)

That is just what ALJ Kenyon did here. He thoroughly reviewed all of the medical evidence of record and found that Nurse Harmon’s opinion was not supported by, or consistent with, the more recent evidence of record indicating an improvement in Plaintiff’s condition. ... see also, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) (medical opinions evaluated for supportability and consistency).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) provides that a supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion should receive controlling weight; if it is not given controlling weight, the ALJ should weigh it using the listed regulatory factors.

Lucas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-11-16(c)(2), (c)(2)(i)-(ii), (c)(3)-(6)

For claims like this one filed prior to March 27, 2017, the ALJ “should give controlling weight to the treating physician’s opinion as long as it is supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” ... When a treating source’s opinion is not assigned controlling weight, the ALJ should still determine what weight to give it according to the following factors: the length, nature, and extent of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant; whether the physician’s opinions were sufficiently supported; how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole; whether the physician specializes in the medical conditions at issue; and other factors, such as the amount of understanding of the disability programs and their evidentiary requirements or the extent to which an acceptable medical source is familiar with other information in the claimant’s case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) directs an ALJ to give more weight to medical opinions supported by relevant evidence, especially medical signs and laboratory findings, and to better-explained opinions.

Lipker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-12-08(c)(3)

The ALJ overlooked or ignored that Dr. Hutcheson provided thorough explanations—including objective findings—for his opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(3)-(6) directs an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using factors including supporting evidence, explanation quality, consistency with the record as a whole, and the physician's specialty.

Pellegrini v. Saul · filed 2021-12-30(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(c)(2)(ii) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion when its source is not well-positioned to address the impairment because it was outside the source’s area of treatment, while section 404.1527(c)(4) favors opinions consistent with the record as a whole.

McCrory v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-06(c)(2)(ii), (c)(4)

Plaintiff’s mental-health records routinely show that, at appointments, Plaintiff had intact thought processes and the ability to focus and remain attentive with medication. See Moore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-CV-1850, 2020 WL 5077347, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020) (collecting cases and concluding that ALJ properly rejected opinions which were “not in harmony with years of contemporaneous notations”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (stating that an ALJ generally gives more weight to a medical opinion that is consistent “with the record as a whole”). ... That may be true, but the ALJ’s point still stands: Dr. Young was not as well-positioned to opine on Plaintiff’s physical impairments because that was not his area of treatment. Cf. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) (“[I]f your ophthalmologist notices that you have complained of neck pain during your eye examinations, we will consider his or her medical opinion with respect to your neck pain, but we will give it less weight than that of another physician who has treated you for the neck pain.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(1) directs an ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a source who is not an acceptable medical source using the factors in § 404.1527(c), including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, and consistency with the record.

Simone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-11(f)(1)

“Nonetheless, an ALJ must weigh that opinion according to a number ... of factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; evidence in support of the opinion; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and other relevant factors.” Evans, 649 F. App’x at 39 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1). ... The ALJ also made only passing reference to PA Gaskill’s treating relationship with plaintiff but did not discuss her lengthy treatment record. See T. at17. ... As such, remand is warranted for the ALJ to attempt to determine the author of the 2019 medical statement, and what, if any, weight is assigned to the remainder of it; and to address PA Gaskill’s full treatment history more thoroughly.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider the relevant factors, but the ALJ need not expressly discuss each factor if the record shows they were considered and the explanation permits meaningful review.

Feldhausen v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2022-01-12(c)(2)-(6)

While the ALJ did not expressly discuss each factor, he is not required to do so as long as this Court can determine the factors were considered.30 The Court finds the ALJ’s lack of specific mention of the factors does not prevent meaningful review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the Commissioner to consider every medical opinion with the other relevant evidence, weigh it using the listed factors, and adequately explain the weight assigned.

Spulecki v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-19(b), (c)(1)-(6)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, such as this one, the Commissioner evaluates medical opinion evidence under the framework set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.6 ... Under that framework, the Commissioner is required to evaluate and consider every medical opinion submitted, together with the rest of the relevant evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (b) and (c). ... To determine what weight to afford a medical opinion, the Commissioner considers the following factors: ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(1)-(6); Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 351 F. Supp. 3d 270, 279 (W.D.N.Y. 2018). ... After considering these factors, the Commissioner must adequately explain the weight afforded to the medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using six listed factors, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor if the decision clearly identifies the weight assigned and the reasons.

Kelley v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-01-25(c)(1)-(6)

To weigh the opinions in the record, an ALJ considers: (1) the examining relationship between the opinion source and the claimant; (2) the treatment relationship between the source and the claimant; (3) whether the opinion is supported by relevant evidence, particularly objective medical evidence; (4) whether the opinion is supported by the record; (5) whether the source’s opinion is on an area in which the source is an expert; and (6) any other factors that “tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6). ... That explanation, however, need not explicitly address each of the six factors described by the regulations. ... Instead, the ALJ’s explanation must only be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator” gave the opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to consider the listed factors, including how well the source supports the opinion.

Donald Thomas, Jr. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2022-03-04(c)(2)–(6)

Supportability, or how well a treating source explains his or her opinion, is a highly relevant § 404.1527(c) factor, and the ALJ committed no legal error when he relied on that factor to discount Dr. Hartzfeld’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a nontreating medical source's opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the source's specialty.

Brown v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of (TV1) · filed 2022-03-25(c)

The parties do not dispute that Dr. Spjut is a nontreating source [Doc. 21, p. 13]. Therefore, the ALJ was only required to evaluate Dr. Spjut’s opinion according to “factors including the length and nature of the treatment relationship, the evidence that the physician offered in support of h[is] opinion, how consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, and whether the physician was practicing in h[is] specialty.” Ealy, 594 F.3d at 514 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not require an ALJ to specifically address every listed factor when assessing medical opinions.

Sherman v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-04-15

Plaintiff also complains, again, that remand is warranted because the ALJ did not specifically address all the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 in assessing the various doctors’ opinions. (See Objs. at 3-4.) But as the Magistrate Judge noted (see R. & R. at 20-21 (citing applicable law and AR 1256)), she was not required to.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c), including (c)(2), requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician's opinion to give good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight and to consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, specialization, and supportability.

Perez v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-05-13(c), (c)(2)

For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not give good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight to Dr. Evans’s opinion, and that the ALJ did not adequately discuss the factors in § 404.1527(c) when she weighed that opinion. ... Finally, even if the ALJ had given a good reason for affording less than controlling weight to Dr. Evans’s opinion, the ALJ did not adequately discuss the factors that determine what weight should be afforded to his opinion. The ALJ recognized that Dr. Evans was a treating source, but she did not discuss “the length and nature of the treatment relationship Plaintiff had” with Dr. Evans. ... Nor did the ALJ consider that Evans’s specialty was orthopedic surgery, which gave him “specialized knowledge regarding Plaintiff’s conditions and their effect on [her] functional capacity.” ... Finally, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, the ALJ considered the supportability of Dr. Evans’s opinion. ... More to the point, Dr. Evans expressly opined in a July 22, 2014 treatment note that “the functional capacity evaluation is valid,” and he imposed corresponding restrictions on that basis. ... This was significant evidence of the supportability of Dr. Evans’s opinion, which the ALJ needed to address.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires the ALJ to consider each applicable regulatory factor when determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, although the decision need not detail every factor.

England v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-07(c)(2)(i)–(6)

The ALJ is not required to detail every factor in his or her decision; however, the record must reflect that the ALJ considered each factor in determining how much weight to give an opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, including the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record.

PARADISE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-06-28(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) requires an ALJ to evaluate a treating physician’s opinion using factors including treatment history, support, consistency, and specialization.

Mercado v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30(c)

Because the ALJ did not have good cause to reject Dr. Evans’s medical opinion, he was required to conduct the analysis outlined in § 404.1527(c), which he failed to do.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six factors when weighing a treating-source opinion, but does not require an exhaustive factor-by-factor discussion if the decision sufficiently explains the weight assigned.

Donovan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30(c)

There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. See Tilley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 216, 222 (6th Cir. 2010) (indicating that, under Blakley and the good reason rule, an ALJ is not required to explicitly address all of the six factors within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for weighing medical opinion evidence within the written decision). ... But even though an ALJ is required to consider all six regulatory factors, an ALJ is not required to set forth an “exhaustive “factor-by-factor analysis” in a determination. Here, ALJ Meade addressed the fact that Dr. Hart’s extreme opinion was inconsistent with conservative treatment, unsupported by objective medical findings, and that Dr. Hart was not a specialist. (R. at 23.) In short, AL Meade’s determination was sufficiently specific to make it clear to a reviewer why Dr. Hart’s opinion was discounted. That is all that the governing regulations require.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the listed factors; when evaluating opinions from non-acceptable sources, the ALJ may use those factors without addressing every factor, and need not recite them formulaically.

Lacey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-06-30(c), (f)(1)

In the absence of a controlling treating medical opinion, as in this case, an ALJ must consider the following factors in deciding the weight to be given to any medical opinion: the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion is with the record as a whole, and other factors that “tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), 416.927(c)(1)-(6). However, a formulaic recitation of factors is not required. ... This Court concludes that the ALJ’s assessment of Dr. Jones’ opinions complied with the applicable regulation and enjoys substantial support in the record. In short, this claim is without merit. ... When considering their opinions, an ALJ may refer to the factors considered in evaluating the opinions of acceptable medical sources, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416. 927(c), but need not refer to every such factor. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f)(1), 416.927(f)(1). ... This evaluation complied with the applicable regulations and, as this Court’s own summary of the evidence shows, enjoys substantial support in the record. Therefore, this Court has no authority to re-weigh that evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and weigh them using factors including the examining and treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Clanton v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2022-07-13(c)

In determining the weight to afford medical opinions, the ALJ considers all the medical opinions in the claimant’s case record together with other pertinent evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(e); 1527(c) (looking at the examining and treatment relationship between claimant and doctor, the length of the treatment and frequency of the examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability and consistency of the evidence, the physician’s specialization, and other factors that tend to support or contradict the medical opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to weigh medical opinions using the applicable regulatory factors and explain the treatment of probative opinion evidence.

Millard v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-08-18(c)

In making the RFC determination, “the ALJ must consider all evidence before him” and “evaluate every medical opinion . . . receive[d].” Burnett, 220 F.3d at 121 (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c); see also Adorno v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 43, 48 (3d Cir. 1994) (“The Secretary must ‘explicitly’ weigh all relevant, probative and available evidence. . . . The Secretary may properly accept some parts of the medical evidence and reject other parts, but she must consider all the evidence and give some reason for discounting the evidence she rejects.”). ... In deciding what weight to accord competing medical opinions, the ALJ is guided by factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). ... On this score, the Court finds that the ALJ's determination that Millard could perform medium work is not supported by substantial evidence. The discussion of the evidence was not sufficient to permit meaningful judicial review of the ALJ's decision. ... The ALJ did not explain why he disregarded the limitations in the opinions of Dr. Konecke, and there is no evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s proposed carrying limitation. For this reason, this case shall be remanded.