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).

When an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the listed regulatory factors in determining the opinion's weight.

Chang v. Saul · filed 2022-08-15(c)(2)

Because the ALJ did not assign controlling weight to this opinion, the ALJ was required to consider the following factors in determining the weight to give the opinion: examining relationship, length of treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion with medical findings, consistency with the record as a whole, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). However, the ALJ did not discuss these factors, instead stating only that she was giving Dr. Sokolowski’s opinion little weight because it was inconsistent with Plaintiff’s “demonstration of normal gait, preserved strength in his bilateral upper and lower ... extremities, and reported pain improvement with ongoing physical therapy.” (R. 25.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to weigh every medical opinion, giving a treating opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while considering supportability and consistency in determining the weight due.

Holley v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-07(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (f)(2)

Under the governing regulations, the ALJ was required to weigh every medical opinion when assessing Plaintiff’s RFC. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.1 There were disparate opinions relevant to Plaintiff’s physical and mental abilities, some indicating that she was extremely limited and others indicating that she was not so limited. Consistent with the governing regulation, the ALJ weighed every opinion and provided reasons for that weight. The court finds that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s evaluation of the medical and other opinions. ... Because Dr. Anderson was a treating physician, her opinions could have been entitled to controlling weight, but only if they were well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and were not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in Plaintiff’s case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (supportability relevant to the weight due a medical opinion). ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (opinion is entitled to greater weight if it is consistent with the other evidence of record). ... The court finds that the ALJ evaluated Dr. Anderson’s opinions consistent with the governing regulations, and substantial evidence supports the reasons the ALJ gave for granting those opinions little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider six factors when weighing a medical source opinion, but does not require explicit discussion of every factor for each opinion.

Click v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-26(c)(1)–(6)

An ALJ must consider six factors in deciding what weight to give a medical source opinion: 1. Examining relationship: more weight is given to the opinion of a source who has examined the claimant than to one who has not; 2. Treatment relationship: more weight is given to the opinion of a source who has treated the claimant than to one who has not; more weight is given to the opinion of a source who has treated the claimant for a long time over several visits and who has extensive knowledge about the claimant’s impairment(s); 3. Supportability: more weight is given to a medical source opinion which is supported by relevant evidence (such as laboratory findings and medical signs), and to opinions supported by good explanations; 4. Consistency: the more consistent the opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight it should be given; 5. Specialization: more weight is given to the opinion of a specialist giving an opinion in the area of his/her specialty; and 6. Other factors: any other factors that tend to contradict or support an opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6); see also Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). The ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor for each opinion. Oldham, 509 F.3d at 1258.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally gives more weight to a medical source’s opinion about issues in the source’s specialty than to an opinion from a nonspecialist.

Mickles v. Saul · filed 2022-09-27(c)(5)

Moreover, the ALJ noted that Dr. Sheppard is not a specialist, and neither Mickles’s cardiologist nor pulmonologist indicated his heart or pulmonary obstruction issues required any limitations. (R. at 35.) See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) (2021) (more weight generally given to a specialist’s opinion about medical issues related to his area of specialty than to an opinion of a medical source not a specialist).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six factors when a treating-source opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, but the ALJ need not expressly apply each factor if the decision gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Brown v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-28(c)

When the ALJ does not give the treating source opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consult the six factors from 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine the proper weight to be given. The six factors include: ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. The ALJ does not need to expressly apply the six factors. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). The ALJ needs to simply “provide[] good reasons in his decision for the weight he gave to the treating sources’ opinions.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the length of the treating relationship and the provider’s specialized training.

Hampton v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-10-20

Moreover, the ALJ essentially disregarded an opinion from Plaintiff’s longest-term medical and mental-health provider from within the disability period, finding it inconsistent with other treatment notes but apparently not considering the length of the treating relationship or the provider’s specialized training (id.), as the regulations in force for Plaintiff’s application required him to do. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives treating-provider opinions greater weight and requires an ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when weighing them.

Morefield v. Berryhill · filed 2022-10-21(c)(2)–(c)(6)

Social Security regulations generally provide that more weight is given to opinions of treating providers than to opinions of other medical sources. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Additionally, an ALJ must consider the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the opinion’s supportability, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the provider is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)–(c)(6), 416.927(c)(2)–(c)(6). An ALJ must give “specific and legitimate” reasons supported by substantial evidence for discounting a contradicted opinion of a treating provider. Bayliss v. Barnhart, 427 F.3d 1211, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005). To reject an uncontradicted opinion of a treating provider, an ALJ must state “clear and convincing reasons” supported by substantial evidence for doing so. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions using relevant weighing factors, including the examining relationship, support, consistency, and specialization, and to explain the weight assigned.

Garduno v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-10-21(c)

The applicable regulations and case law require an ALJ to consider all medical opinions and discuss the weight assigned to those opinions.11 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); ... The Court finds that the ALJ applied the correct legal standard in evaluating Dr. Padilla’s opinion regarding Mr. Garduno’s ability to do work-related mental activities and that her reasons for according partial weight are supported by substantial evidence. ... These findings, therefore, demonstrate the ALJ considered and discussed relevant regulatory factors when evaluating Dr. Padilla’s medical opinion evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider a relevant opinion from a source who is not an acceptable medical source and permits evaluating that opinion based on factors including its consistency with the record.

Gannon v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-17(f)

Further, the ALJ did not improperly apply the relevant regulatory factors when considering LCSW Norton’s March 2019 opinion. For claims filed before March 27, 2017, a LCSW is not considered an “acceptable medical source.” SSR 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329989, at *2 (Aug. 9, 2006). The ALJ must still consider the opinion of a LCSW if it is relevant to the claimant’s disability determination. See Piatt v. Colvin, 80 F. Supp. 3d 480, 493 (W.D.N.Y. 2015); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(f), 416.927(f). Here, the ALJ found LCSW Norton’s “opinion and dire conclusions” from March 2019 to be far less persuasive than Dr. Santarpia’s because LCSW Norton’s opinion was inconsistent with his own objective findings and with the other objective medical evidence on the record. Tr. 30.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ to evaluate medical-source opinions using factors such as examining and treatment relationships, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant considerations.

Coyazo v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-02(c)

Medical source opinions must be weighed using the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c),14 i.e., (1) examining relationship, (2) treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, (5) specialization, and (6) other factors. Of course, “[n]ot every factor … will apply in every case,” SSR 06-03P, 2006 WL 2329939, at *5 (Aug. 9, 2006), and the ALJ is not required to expressly apply every factor in weighing an opinion. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for the weight she gives a medical source opinion, and where she fails to do so, the case must be remanded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion to consider listed factors in deciding the weight given to medical opinions and meaningfully account for those factors in the decision.

Lollis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-12-07(c)(2)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors as appropriate when weighing medical opinions, but does not require an express discussion of every factor.

McMahon v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-01-11(c)

Although an ALJ must consider all medical opinion evidence and the § 404.1527(c) factors as appropriate, the ALJ need not do so expressly. See Harris v. Colvin, 584 F. App’x 526, 527 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The agency was not required to specifically reference each factor listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)”); Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562 n.4 (9th Cir. May 1, 2018) (“[T]he ALJ is not required to make an express statement that she considered all the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the ALJ committed legal error in failing to explicitly mention each factor when discounting Dr. Hennings’ and Friedburg’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability.

Johnson v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-02-14(c)

Controlling regulations “require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Scott, 647 F.3d at 740 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... Given the ALJ’s near-total failure to weigh Dr. Chang’s opinions in accordance with the applicable regulation, remand is required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) and (c)(4) call for greater weight when a medical opinion has a better supporting explanation and is more consistent with the record as a whole.

Wiseman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-15(c)(3), (c)(4)

The ALJ properly concluded that such discrepancies between Dr. Gerges’s opinion, his own materials, and the documentation compiled by other physicians warranted affording less credence to Dr. Gerges’s findings. 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.”); id. § 404.1527(c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give that medical opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ evaluating treating-physician opinions to consider factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, the relationship’s nature and extent, supportability, and consistency with the record.

Nguyen v. Saul · filed 2023-02-27(c)(2)-(6)

Lastly, ALJ Levine did not detail specific and legitimate reasons for valuing other medial opinions over Drs. Marquart and Aiken’s medical opinions. On remand, ALJ Levine was instructed to detail his reasoning when evaluating treating physician medical opinions in accordance with regulatory factors including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and consistency with the record. (See AR 785, citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2-6).) ALJ Levine wholly failed to remedy this error as to Dr. Marquardt and Dr. Aiken’s medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to meaningfully consider the applicable listed factors before deciding how much weight to give a medical opinion; a factor-by-factor discussion is not required.

Miller v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-03-14(c)

For claims—like Plaintiff’s—filed before March 27, 2017, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 outlines the ALJ’s assessment of medical opinions the ALJ receives from “acceptable medical sources,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1), such as “a claimaint’s treating physician or other, non-treating physicians[,]” ... “Generally, ALJs possess the discretion to determine the level of weight given to each medical opinion provided and received.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). The ALJ observes the “treating physician rule[,]” by which a treating physician’s medical opinion is given “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the treating physician’s medical opinion is not afforded controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the following factors to determine how much weight is appropriate: (1) the length of the physician’s treatment relationship with the claimant, (2) the physician’s frequency of examination, (3) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (4) whether the medical evidence in the record supports the physician’s opinion, (5) the consistency of the physician’s opinion with the entirety of the record, and (6) the treating physician’s specialization. ... The ALJ is not required to outline a factor-by-factor analysis, but the ALJ’s decision must show “meaningful[] consider[ation]” of each factor “before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, and to comprehensively explain the reasons for assigning that weight.

Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-24(c)(2)–(6)

While an ALJ may decide to give less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, if they do they must “comprehensively set forth [their] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004). In doing so, they must consider the factors listed under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)(i), (ii) and 404.1527(c)(3)-(6), to determine how much weight to give to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hendel v. Saul · filed 2023-03-20(c)

These factors include but are not limited to the nature and extent of the treatment relationship (including its length, and the frequency of examinations), the opinion’s supportability, the opinion’s consistency with the medical record as a whole, and the treating physician’s specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight to weigh the opinion under factors including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

McCormick v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-11-20(c)

Furthermore, the Court finds that the ALJ erred by failing to evaluate the treating source’s opinions according to the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Because the ALJ chose not to give Dr. Park’s opinion controlling weight, he was required to consider factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient relationship, the frequency of evaluations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician. ... In sum, the Court finds that the ALJ erred by failing to provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to assign “no weight” to Dr. Park’s opinion. Further, the ALJ failed to address the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Because Dr. Park’s assessment included limitations that would preclude Plaintiff from maintaining employment, the Court cannot conclude that the ALJ’s error was harmless. ... Thus, remand for further administrative proceedings is required to reassess Dr. Park’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to consider a function-by-function analysis as a factor when weighing a medical opinion.

Mosley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-11-10(c)

A “function-by-function” analysis is “not a factor under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to evaluate an opinion from a non-acceptable medical source using the applicable factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), and such an opinion may outweigh an acceptable-source opinion.

Fischer v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(f)

Although a nurse practitioner is not an “acceptable medical source” under section 404.1527(a), a nurse practitioner’s opinion should be evaluated as set forth in section 404.1527(f) as an “other medical source.” See Britton v. Colvin, 787 F.3d 1011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2015) (nurse practitioners are defined as “other sources”); Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1013 (9th Cir. 2014). Section 404.1527(f) requires an ALJ to consider “other medical sources” using the factors listed in section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), which are the same factors applied to medical opinions from acceptable medical sources, although “not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 1527(f)(1). Importantly, this subprovision of the regulation makes clear that “an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source . . . may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source, including the medical opinion of a treating source.” Id. The provision draws on the factors set forth in 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) to explain circumstances under which it might be appropriate to give greater weight to the opinion of a non-acceptable medical source than to an acceptable medical source: “For example, it may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source, has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for the opinion, and the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, there is no regulatory support for the ALJ’s first reason for discounting Ms. Hom’s opinion. Her status as a non-acceptable medical source, alone, is not a valid reason for assigning her opinion less weight than qualifying medical source opinions. Additionally, there is no indication that the ALJ considered the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) in analyzing Ms. Hom’s opinion. As a result, the Court finds the ALJ committed legal error with respect to his first reason for discounting the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2) requires an ALJ to expressly discuss opinions from non-medical sources only when they may affect the outcome of the case.

SIZEMORE v. KIJAKAZ · filed 2022-05-04(f)(2)

Evidence from non-medical sources, such as this, need only be expressly discussed “when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly discuss every listed factor if the consideration of the evidence is clear enough for judicial review.

Kochaba v. Saul · filed 2021-10-01(c)

The ALJ need not explicitly discuss each factor under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), so long as the ALJ’s consideration of the evidence is presented clearly enough to allow for judicial review.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported and consistent treating-source medical opinion controlling weight, but otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh it using factors including treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

O'Neal v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-05(c)(2)-(6)

Under the regulations applicable to O’Neal’s claim, if the Social Security Administration finds that a treating source’s medical opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record,” the Social Security Administration will give that opinion “controlling weight.” ... Where the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate the opinion based on several factors, including the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the level of specialization of the source. ... To the extent that the ALJ did discount Dr. Moniz’s opinions, the Court find that the ALJ gave good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, that brought the ALJ’s decision within the “available zone of choice.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

KLOTZ v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-10-05(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(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Lehman v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-09-30(c)

In weighing an opinion from a treating physician, an ALJ must consider various factors, including: “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the relevant evidence, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, supporting the opinion; the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and whether the physician is a specialist in the area covering the particular medical issues.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to give little weight to a nurse practitioner’s opinion when it is unsupported by the practitioner’s treatment notes and other record evidence.

Stevens v. Berryhill · filed 2020-04-30(c)

These are appropriate and sufficient grounds to support the ALJ’s decision not to credit the limitations opined by Nurse Gause. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to solicit additional information to develop a medical opinion when its supporting medical evidence is not readily discernible.

Zima v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-16(c)(3)

The ALJ had a “duty to solicit additional information to flesh out an opinion for which the medical support is not readily discernable.” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3); Smith v. Apfel, 231 F.3d 433, 437–38 (7th Cir. 2000) (finding that the ALJ’s duty to develop the record included soliciting updated medical records when the ALJ did not afford the treating doctor's opinion controlling weight on that basis). Here, too, the ALJ had a duty to seek out more information if he believed there was a lack of backup support for Dr. Gupta’s medical findings.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to further develop the record only when the evidence is ambiguous or inadequate for proper evaluation.

(SS) Duron v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-03(c)(3)

The ALJ’s duty to further develop the record is triggered only where the evidence is ambiguous or inadequate to allow for proper evaluation. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(3); Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 459-60 (9th Cir. 2001). The timeline of events here cannot, in and of itself, establish such ambiguity or inadequacy.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the weight given to a nonexamining source's opinion depend on how well the source explains that opinion.

Ting v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-01-23(c)(3)

While an ALJ is permitted to take into consideration the opinion of a non-examining source in determining a claimant’s RFC, regulations promulgated by the SSA caution that “because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with [the claimant], the weight [given to] their opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate how well a nonexamining source considered the evidence, but does not require discounting the source merely because the source did not consider every item of evidence.

Fierro v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-02-06(c)(3)

The fact that Drs. Dupont and Sabourin did not consider all the medical evidence in their determinations did not require the ALJ to discount their opinions. Elsey v. Saul, 782 F. App’x 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)) (“The regulations require that an ALJ evaluate the degree to which a non-examining source considers the evidence, not that a failure to consider all evidence requires the source to be discounted.”) Nor did the ALJ error by failing to obtain another medical opinion regarding the evidence not reviewed by the state agency physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) requires an ALJ to evaluate how thoroughly a nonexamining source considered the evidence, but does not require discounting the source merely because the source failed to consider all of it.

(SS) Rios v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-02-13(c)(3)

While it is not clear whether Dr. Amado and Dr. D’Adamo considered Plaintiff’s general anxiety disorder (their reports note that they considered Plaintiff’s depression, bipolar and “related disorders” [AR 120-21, 133-34]), “[t]he regulations require that an ALJ evaluate the degree to which a non-examining source considers the evidence, not that a failure to consider all evidence requires the source to be discounted.” Elsey v. Saul, 782 Fed. Appx. 636, 637 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the weight given to a nonexamining source's medical opinion depend on the degree to which the source provides supporting explanations.

Grantham v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-09-21(c)(3)

The regulations state that “because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3). The regulations do not mention “amount of examination time” as a factor in weighing a medical opinion. ... Again, the regulations state that the Administration will evaluate the examining source opinion based on whether it provides “supporting explanations.” Using a particular phrase to describe the opinion does not seem to be a supporting explanation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion, apply the applicable weighing factors—including treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors—and treat state-agency consultants’ findings as opinion evidence except for the ultimate disability determination.

Maddox v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2021-11-10(c), (c)(2), (c)(1)-(6), (e)

The Social Security Administration’s regulations provide that “[r]egardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Generally, more weight is given to the opinions of examining physicians than nonexamining physicians. More weight is given to the opinions of treating physicians since they are more likely to be able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of a claimant’s medical impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The medical opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight, i.e., it must be adopted by the ALJ, if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), SSR 96-2p, and Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001). ... In determining what weight to give the opinions of medical sources, the ALJ applies the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6),6 which are: whether the source examined the claimant; whether the source has a treatment relationship with the claimant and, if so, the length of the relationship and the frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the source’s opinion with respect to all of the evidence of record; whether the source is a specialist; and, other relevant factors. See SSR 96-2p; Hines v. Barnhart, 453 Fd 559,563 (4th Cir. 2006). The ALJ considers the evidence in the record as a whole when analyzing Plaintiff’s claims, as does this court when reviewing the ALJ’s decision. See Craig, 76 F.3d at 595. ... Even when a treating opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “it does not follow that the ALJ ha[s] free reign to attach whatever weight to that opinion that he deem[s] fit.” Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 986 F.3d 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2021). It must be “apparent from the ALJ’s decision that he meaningfully considered each of the factors before deciding how much weight to give the opinion.” Id. ... “20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) requires ALJs to consider all of the enumerated factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Arakas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 107 n.16 (emphasis in original). ... State agency medical consultants “are highly qualified ...who are also experts in Social Security disability evaluation. Therefore, administrative law judges must consider findings and other opinions of State agency medical and psychological consultants and other program physicians, psychologists, and other medical specialists as opinion evidence, except for the ultimate determination about whether you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). As demonstrated above, in analyzing each of the consultants’ opinions, the ALJ considered the appropriate regulatory factors and cited to substantial evidence in support of the weights assigned to such opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an administrative law judge to evaluate every medical opinion, first determine whether a treating source's opinion receives controlling weight, and otherwise consider the listed factors when assigning weight.

Hearld v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-08-05(c)

As Plaintiff filed her application prior to March 27, 2017 (Tr. 259-60), the rules in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 apply to the ALJ’s assignment of weight to the medical opinions in the record. The regulations require administrative law judges to evaluate every medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The process of assigning weight to medical opinions in the record begins with a determination whether to assign controlling weight to the medical opinion of the treating source. Id. If controlling weight is not assigned to the treating source’s opinion, the administrative law judge must consider the factors in paragraphs (c)(1)-(6) of this section in deciding how much weight to accord each of the medical opinions in the record, including the medical opinion from the treating source. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) reserves responsibility for assessing a claimant’s residual functional capacity to the Commissioner rather than a medical professional.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-18(d)(2)

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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f)(2)(i) recognizes state agency medical consultants as highly qualified specialists in Social Security disability evaluation whose opinions may help translate medical evidence into concrete functional limitations.

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-03-22(f)(2)(i)

Moreover, State agency medical consultants are highly qualified specialists with expertise in Social Security disability evaluation and ALJs frequently rely upon such opinions to translate clinical findings, objective testing and treating and examining medical opinions in the record into concrete functional limitations. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(5)(2)(i); see, e.g., Skeens v. Astrue, 903 F.Supp.2d 1200 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2012) (ALJ properly relied on State agency consultant to translate medical opinions in the record into concrete functional limitations for purposes of disability evaluation).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a medical source says that a claimant is disabled or unable to work, the ALJ need not adopt the statement or give it special significance but must review the medical findings and other evidence supporting it.

Ford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-05-12(d)(1), (3)

The regulations further state that when a medical source provides a statement such as that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work,” the ALJ is not required to determine that the claimant is disabled or give any special significance to that statement. However, the ALJ is required to review all of the medical findings and other evidence that support that medical source’s statement. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(1), (3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not decide the claim, but it may not be ignored merely because the final decision belongs to the Commissioner.

Bjornson v. Astru · filed 2012-01-31(e)(1)

The pertinent regulation says that “a statement by a medical source that you are ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). That’s not the same thing as saying that such a statement is improper and therefore to be ignored, as is further made clear when the regulation goes on to state that “the final responsibility for deciding” residual functional capacity (ability to work—and so whether the applicant is disabled) “is reserved to the Commissioner.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider all evidence in the record when determining a claimant’s RFC.

Colon v. Saul · filed 2022-08-26(c)

In making the RFC determination, “the ALJ must consider all evidence before him.” Burnett, 220 F.3d at 121 (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled or unable to work does not require the ALJ to find the claimant disabled.

Richardson v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) · filed 2023-01-24(d)(1)

To the extent Dr. Garrison’s statement that Plaintiff “may be” entitled to disability is a disability determination, the ALJ was not required to adopt it. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (“A statement by a medical source that [a plaintiff is] ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that [the ALJ] will determine that you are disabled.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(f) recognizes state-agency medical consultants as qualified experts whose opinions an ALJ may rely on when evaluating a disability claim.

VeRost v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-01-09(f)

"It is well settled that an ALJ is entitled to rely upon the opinions of both examining and non- examining State agency medical consultants, since such consultants are deemed to be qualified experts in the field of social security disability." House v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 32 F. Supp. 3d 138, 151-52 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); accord 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(f).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2) does not apply to a benefits claim filed in 2019; section 404.1513(a)(2) provides the pertinent definition of a medical opinion.

Hodge v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2025-09-05(a)(2)

As the Commissioner notes, Plaintiff cited to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). However, because Plaintiff applied for benefits in 2019, the pertinent regulation is 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 applies only to applications filed before March 2017.

Deamer v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2024-05-23

So Cole, which involved an ALJ’s failure to consider a claimant’s therapist’s opinion, 661 F.3d at 939, and section 404.1527(f)(2), which describes the articulation standard for opinion evidence, are inapposite. ... Moreover, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 only applies to applications filed before March 2017. Deamer filed his application in September 2021, Tr. 183, so section 404.1527 doesn’t apply to his case.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats an RFC determination as a decision reserved to the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion.

(SS) Lewis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-02-23(d)(2)

A determination of RFC is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion); 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats an RFC determination as a legal decision reserved to the Commissioner, rather than as a medical opinion.

(SS) Gallo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(d)(2)

A determination of residual functional capacity is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2) (RFC is not a medical opinion), 404.1546(c) (identifying the ALJ as responsible for determining RFC).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats residual functional capacity as an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not adopt a medical source’s RFC opinion.

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) treats physical therapists as other sources rather than acceptable medical sources, but requires the ALJ to weigh their opinions and explain the weight given.

Marchewska v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-14(d)

In his discussion of PT Lubey’s report, ALJ Weir correctly identified physical therapists as an “other source”, rather than an acceptable medical source, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). “[A]n ALJ is still required to weigh opinion evidence from a physical therapist, and, in rendering the disability determination, should explain the weight afforded to the opinion and why”. Trank v. Saul, 2020 WL 2553278, *3 (W.D.N.Y. 2020). “Factors to be considered in determining how much weight to give to a physical therapist’s opinion include the examining and treating relationship, the frequency of treatment, whether the opinion is well explained, and whether the opinion is supported by other evidence in the record”. Id. Here, ALJ Weir considered these factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(2)’s rules for evaluating acceptable medical source statements do not apply to physical therapists’ notes.

HARRINGTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-05-03(a)(2)

“Consequently, the rules for evaluating acceptable medical source statements do not apply to the physical therapist’s notes.” Hatton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 131 F. App’x 877, 878–79 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2)). ... The Court finds no error with the ALJ’s evaluation in this regard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a medical opinion as an acceptable medical source’s judgment about an impairment’s nature and severity, including the claimant’s capabilities and restrictions, while treating disability and ability to work as issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Chelkonas v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-03-22(a)(2), (d)(1), and (d)(3)

Under the applicable regulations, a medical opinion consists of statements from an acceptable medical source that reflects the judgment about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, including symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what a claimant can still do despite such impairments, and any physical or mental restrictions. ... Statements by a medical source that a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” constitute opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner and do not direct that a finding of disabled is warranted. ... The Commissioner need not afford any special significance to the source of such an opinion because the determination of disability and ability to work remain issues reserved to the Commissioner.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 supplied the former hierarchy of medical opinions, under which treating doctors generally received the most weight and nonexamining doctors the least.

Durham III v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-05-01

Under prior Social Security regulations, a hierarchy of medical opinions dictated the weight that must be given by an ALJ: treating doctors were generally given the most weight and non-examining doctors were generally given the least weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (1991); 56 Fed. Reg. 36,932 (Aug. 1, 1991). For applications filed on or after March 27, 2017, the new regulations eliminate the old hierarchy of medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a). Plaintiff filed an application for disability insurance benefits on March 2, 2018. Thus, the Commissioner’s new regulations apply to the ALJ’s assessment of this opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) treats statements from acceptable medical sources as medical opinions when they reflect judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments, but mere examination findings and treatment notes do not qualify.

Ison v. SSA · filed 2023-07-07(a)(1)

A threshold question, however, is whether the evidence is a medical opinion. The regulation during the relevant period provided that “[m]edical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). ... “[T]hese records are merely that: medical records.” ... Therefore, the ALJ was not required to evaluate the persuasiveness of Dr. Wright’s progress notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines medical opinions as acceptable medical-source judgments about the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments and requires the ALJ to consider every relevant medical opinion.

Tisdale v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-11-13(a)(1), (b)-(c)

The regulations define medical opinions as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairments[.]” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1). The ALJ must consider every relevant medical opinion in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b)-(c); SSR 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *5 (July 2, 1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(a)(1) requires an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions, but treatment notes that do not discuss functional limitations are not medical opinions.

Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2024-04-15(a)(1)

Dr. Windsor’s notes list Plaintiff’s diagnoses and mention her referral for sleep medicine, physical therapy, and medication for headaches, as well as being a good candidate for acupuncture. AR at 468. Yet the notes do not discuss any functional limitations. An ALJ is only required to evaluate medical opinions and the two treatment notes Plaintiff cited do not fall into that category. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1); see also Treichler v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 775 F.3d 1090, 1103 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he ALJ’s analysis need not be extensive.”). The Court thus finds no error in the ALJ’s evaluation of this matter.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(5) generally permits giving more weight to a specialist's opinion on issues within the specialty, but it does not permit summarily discounting or rejecting an acceptable medical source's opinion merely because the source is not a specialist.

Huizen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-01(c)(5)

In evaluating an opinion, the Commissioner “generally give[s] 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.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5). ... A discussed, the regulation allows the Commissioner to give more weight to the opinion of a specialist. However, this regulation does not state that the Commissioner can summarily discount or reject the opinions of an acceptable medical source (such as Ms. Way) on the basis that she was not a specialist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires consideration of the medical opinion underlying another agency’s disability determination even though the other agency’s disability conclusion need not be adopted.

Zuniga v. O'Malley · filed 2023-10-02(c), (d)

Although DSHS uses different rules to establish eligibility for benefits, the ALJ is not required to adopt DSHS conclusion regarding disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d). However, the ALJ is required to consider the underlying medical opinion that the agency’s conclusion is based upon. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). Even if the rules of DSHS and the SSA are different in some respects, it is not apparent that these differences affect Dr. Shapiro’s report without further analysis by the ALJ. This is not a legitimate reason for rejecting the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ determining residual functional capacity to consider all relevant medical and other record evidence.

Swindon v. Kijakazi · filed 2024-09-05(d)(2)

In determining RFC, “the ALJ must consider all relevant medical and other evidence in the record.” Tanya Lynn P. v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 4726531, at *5 (D. Conn. 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)); see also Parker-Grose v. Astrue, 462 F. App’x 16, 18 (2d Cir. 2012) (“A RFC determination must account for limitations imposed by both severe and nonsevere impairments.”). ... This evidence is relevant to the exertional assessment the ALJ rendered, but there is no indication that it was considered. See Tanya Lynn P., 2021 WL 4726531, at *5 (ALJs must consider “all relevant medical and other evidence in the record”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3), (4), and (6) permits an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s timing, explanation, and supportability and to reduce the weight of an opinion rendered before the relevant period.

Hyde v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2025-07-14(c)(3), (4), (6)

Finally, the ALJ correctly rejected Dr. Jasmin’s opinion because it was rendered before Plaintiff’s onset-date and did not specifically identify Plaintiff’s maximum capabilities during the relevant period. In evaluating medical opinions, an ALJ may consider the timing, level of explanation, and supportability of the opinions. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4), (6). Although an ALJ must consider medical opinions rendered outside the time period at issue, they still may reduce the weight given to those opinions. See Ahearn, 988 F.3d 1111; see also Carmickle v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 533 F.3d 1155, 1165 (9th Cir. 2008). It was appropriate for the ALJ to consider Dr. Jasmin’s opinion but reduce its weight because it was rendered before the relevant period.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Garcia v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-09-22(c)

The ALJ must evaluate medical opinions according to the following factors: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) treats residual functional capacity as a legal decision reserved for the Commissioner rather than a medical opinion.

(SS) Sepulveda v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-21(d)(2)

As previously noted, the RFC is not a medical opinion, but a legal decision that is expressly reserved for the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2); 404.1546(c); Vertigan, 260 F.3d at 1049 (“It is clear that it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the claimant’s physician, to determine residual functional capacity.”) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1545).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Willis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-18(c)(2)

Supportability and consistency are the important factors to be considered in weighing medical opinions. “The regulations state that an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion is supported by ‘medically acceptable and clinical laboratory diagnostic techniques,’ and (2) it is ‘not inconsistent’ with substantial evidence in the record.” Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010). ... Thus, the ALJ sufficiently explained any inconsistencies and supported her decision to not give controlling weight to Dr. Dugan’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires medical opinions that do not receive controlling weight to be evaluated for the examining relationship, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

(SS) Abitia v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-31(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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion whose vague terms fail to explain the claimant’s functional limitations.

Kong v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-23(c)(3)

Dr. Gomes’s lack of definition for the terms “will have difficulty” and “will not have difficulty” do not sufficiently address the range of Plaintiff’s functionalities, despite Plaintiff’s mental impairments. 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.”). Thus, in discounting Dr. Gomes’s opinion for its vagueness, the ALJ did not err.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider all of its enumerated factors when deciding the weight to give a medical opinion, including a treating source’s GAF opinion.

Haynes v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-15(c)

The ALJ had been previously ordered by the court to weigh the GAF opinions and the 2011 letter of Dr. Scott using all of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors; the ALJ ignored the court order and failed to weigh the opinions in accordance with the applicable legal standards. As displayed above, the court considered the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors in light of the record; the record displays that most factors would support giving favorable, even controlling, weight towards Dr. Scott and thus Plaintiff’s disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and any other relevant factors.

PETERSEN v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-08-18(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(c)(4) requires an ALJ to assess whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record and permits rejecting an inconsistent opinion when substantial evidence supports that assessment.

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-31(c)(4)

Plaintiff also argues that, in noting the lack of corroborating evidence in the record for Dr. Briggs’s opinion that Plaintiff required a cane, the ALJ was stating her “opinion that Smith did not need a cane” and improperly playing doctor. (See Doc. 14 at 16). But the ALJ was merely assessing whether Dr. Briggs’s opinion was consistent with the record, as Defendant’s regulations obligated her to do. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Moreover, the ALJ’s conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff herself testified that no doctor directed her to use a cane, (Doc. 11-9 at 57), and Plaintiff does not cite any objective evidence in the record (apart from Dr. Briggs’s opinion) supporting her need for a cane. Thus, the Court concludes that the inconsistency between the record evidence and Dr. Briggs’s opinion is a specific and legitimate reason supported by substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Briggs’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(5) requires an ALJ to apply the specified factors when weighing a medical opinion but does not require the ALJ to explicitly address each factor in the decision.

DAVIS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-08-31(d)(2)-(5)

When weighing a medical opinion, ALJs are required to apply the following relevant factors: (1) length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability, (4) consistency, and (5) specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2)-(5); 416.927(d)(2)-(5). ALJs may also consider other factors that support or contradict the opinion at issue. Id. ... As an initial matter, ALJs need not explicitly address each analysis factor when issuing their decisions. Brock v. Comm’r. of Soc. Sec., 758 F.App’x. 745, 751 (11th Cir. 2018).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion.

Sheets v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-07(c)(2)

Furthermore, an ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the ALJ’s] notice of determination or decision for the weight [the ALJ] give[s] your treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ provided no reasons, let alone good reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s treating physicians’ opinions. This omission constitutes reversable error because the ALJ’s reasoning is not sufficiently specific to make clear to the Court the weight the she gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight. See id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for denying a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight and for the lesser weight ultimately assigned, considering the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-10(c)(2)

If an ALJ finds that a treating physician’s opinion should receive less than controlling weight, the ALJ must give “good reasons” why, again by reference to the two factors above. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). And the ALJ must also determine, once again based on “good reasons” (although the permissible “good reasons” at this step are more inclusive), how much weight to assign that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Appropriate factors for the latter analysis include “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Blakley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009). ... Thus, the ALJ provided sufficient goods reasons for the decisions: (1) not to afford Barnett’s opinions controlling weight, and (2) instead to afford those opinions little weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves to the Commissioner the questions whether a claimant is disabled or unable to work, so a treating physician’s opinion on those questions is entitled to no weight.

Degraff v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-26(d)(1)

Finally, the ALJ properly rejected Dr. Barnett’s conclusions about Claimant’s disability status and ability to work, (R. 26), because the questions of whether a claimant is “disabled” or “unable to work” are reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(1). As the Seventh Circuit has often reiterated, such opinions are “entitled to no weight, even coming from a treating physician.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats statements as medical opinions when they provide an actual diagnosis or assessment of physical or mental limitations, while a doctor's opinion on the ultimate issue of disability receives no special significance.

Driscoll v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-31(a)(1); (d)

Furthermore, the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons to discount Dr. ... Rogers’ opinions by relying in part on the contradiction between Dr. Rogers’ account of Driscoll’s driving activity and the evidence in the record concerning that activity, see Tommasetti, 533 F.3d at 1041 (determining that an ALJ may reject a medical opinion that is based on the claimant’s inaccurate reports), as well as the fact that Dr. Rogers addressed an issue reserved to the Commissioner, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (stating a doctor’s opinion on the ultimate issue of disability is not entitled to “any special significance”). ... Moreover, contrary to Driscoll’s claims, the ALJ did mention the “Best Doctors” reports, which were not proper medical opinions as they did not provide an actual diagnosis or assessment of Driscoll’s physical or mental limitations, but rather suggested further diagnostic steps. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) (defining medical opinions).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) reserves residual-functional-capacity determinations to the Commissioner as administrative findings rather than medical opinions.

Schroff v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-25(d)

As explained above, RFC is an administrative finding, not a medical one. 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) reserves to the Commissioner the determination whether a claimant is disabled, including an opinion that the claimant can work only part time.

McGowan v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-09-05(d)(1)

Rather, the determination that a disability benefits claimant can work less than full time is a determination that a claimant is disabled, see SSR8 96-9p, 1996 WL 374185 at *2 (“RFC is the individual's maximum remaining ability to perform sustained work on a regular and continuing basis; i.e., 8 hours a day, for 5 days a week, or an equivalent work schedule.”), and an opinion that a claimant is disabled is a determination specifically reserved to the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) (opinions that a claimant is disabled is reserved to the Commissioner).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bruno v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-31(c)(4)

The ALJ properly considered each opinion and whether each was consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) gives more weight to a medical opinion to the extent it is consistent with the record as a whole.

Bashans v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-25(c)(4)

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, the ALJ reviewed and evaluated the medical record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (instructing that “the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight [the ALJ] will give to that medical opinion”). ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err in discounting Dr. Zeigler’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from a treating physician’s opinion when it is not well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques or conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record.

Lapointe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-04(c)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record,” the ALJ need not give it controlling weight. Id.; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Tonapetyan v. Halter, 242 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir. 2001) (an ALJ may discredit treating physicians’ opinions that are conclusory, brief, and unsupported by the record as a whole or by objective medical findings). ... Thus, the Court agrees that the ALJ reasonably found Dr. Cheeves’s opinion inconsistent with the objective medical evidence and other doctors’ assessments.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s well-supported opinion unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and an ALJ must articulate reasonable grounds for assigning it little weight.

Bonzi v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2023-08-22(c)(2)

The SSA regulations dictate that an ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques support it and it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Social Security Ruling (“SSR”) 96-2p. ... Relying on Miller and Simon, this Court finds it is necessary to remand for a further inquiry into the lack of corroboration alleged by the ALJ. Simply stating there was no corroboration is not enough for the ALJ to accord little weight to the treating physician opinion – there must be “articulable reasonable grounds.” Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider every medical opinion, explain the weight given under the regulatory factors, and address contrary medical opinions before relying on another opinion.

Bearss-Logman v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-08-08(a)(1), (c)

Regardless of its source, the ALJ is required to consider and explain the weight afforded to every medical opinion in the record using certain factors, such as the amount of relevant evidence that supports the opinion, the quality of the doctor’s explanation, the consistency between the opinion and the medical record as a whole, and the doctor’s familiarity with the record as a whole. Id. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... As described above, the ALJ neglected to consider two such medical opinions from Drs. Kessler and Barsukov. See Tr. 18-23. Both doctors found Plaintiff’s functional limitations were more than “mild” in the relevant categories, which directly undermines the ALJ’s finding that Plaintiff’s bipolar I disorder was not severe. See Tr. 69, 85. It was therefore error for the ALJ to conclude that Plaintiff’s “mental impairment causes no more than ‘mild’ limitation in any of the functional areas” without addressing medical evidence that pointed the other way.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Hervey v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-26(c)(2)

Plaintiff’s argument that the treating physician rule was not applied appropriately is erroneous. A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Poupore v. Astrue, 566 F.3d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 2009); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If not given controlling weight, an ALJ must provide good reasons for not crediting the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. See Sanders v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 506 F. App’x 74, 77 (2d Cir. 2012); Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir. 1998) (requirement that ALJ gives good reasons “let[s] claimants understand the disposition of their cases”). Here, the ALJ stated why limited weight was accorded to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bomberry v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-07-27(c)(2)

At the time Plaintiff filed her claim for benefits, the ALJ was required to give controlling weight to the opinions of both treating physicians, so long as they were “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [ ] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Estrella v. Berryhill, 925 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2019). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet this standard, but must “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons” for doing so. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 33 (2d Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (the SSA “will always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating source’s opinion). ... Because the ALJ merely stated that Dr. Zeidman’s opinion was inconsistent with the findings on examinations without discussing the inconsistencies, the ALJ did not proffer a sufficient rationale for discounting Dr. Zeidman’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ either to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence or to provide a substantively reasonable explanation for assigning it less weight.

Cox v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-07-28(c)(2)

The Administration’s regulations accordingly direct ALJs to give special consideration to the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. They explicitly provide that, “[i]f we find that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and the doctor’s evidence is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight.” Id. § 416.927(c)(2) (emphasis added). Correlatively, an ALJ cannot afford any lesser weight to a treating physician’s opinions without satisfactorily explaining why. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2) (“We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.”). The ALJ here failed to adhere to those standards. The ALJ only afforded Dr. Hawthorne’s medical judgment “partial weight” when determining Cox’s residual functional capacity, yet failed to reasonably explain why he discounted her opinion, or even to acknowledge that she was Cox’s treating physician. See J.A. 123. Instead, the ALJ focused only on isolated portions of her testimony, rather than considering it as a whole and comprehensive assessment of Cox’s condition. ... For that reason, we reverse and remand with instructions to the district court to remand the matter to the Administration to reconsider Cox’s claim while either according controlling deference to Dr. Hawthorne’s opinion or offering a substantively reasonable explanation for not doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lyons v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2023-08-04(c)(2)

Dr. Sheafer’s opinion is worthy of controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. (c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source opinion to consider the regulatory factors, but failure to discuss every factor expressly is harmless when the ALJ otherwise gives good reasons for the weight assigned and applies the substance of the treating physician rule.

Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-08-11(c)

Plaintiff next argues that remand is warranted because the ALJ did not explicitly discuss each of the regulatory factors listed at 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c) and 416.927(c) when weighing the opinions of Drs. Bennett and Ohira. See ECF No. 6-1 at 15-18. However, as the Second Circuit recently explained in Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64 (2d Cir. Apr. 6, 2022), the failure to explicitly discuss the regulatory factors listed at 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c) is a procedural error subject to harmless error analysis, and a court can conclude that the error is harmless if the ALJ has otherwise provided “good reasons for its weight assignment.” Schillo, at 75 (citing Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96 and Halloran, 362 F.3d at 31-32). Even if the ALJ’s analysis did not expressly consider each factor, remand is not warranted, since the Court may conduct a “searching review” of the record to assure that the “substance of the treating physician rule was not traversed.” Estrella, 925 F.3d at 96 (quoting Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32); see also 56 Fed. Reg. 36932, 36935-36 (August 1, 1991), as amended 77 Fed. Reg. 10651, 10656 (February 23, 2012) (re-designating paragraphs (d) through (f) as (c) through (e)) (other amendments omitted) (explaining that not every factor will apply in every case and certain factors (for example, treatment relationship) will sometimes take precedence over other factors; and at other times, certain combinations of factors will result in a finding that one opinion is entitled to more weight than another, or that a single opinion is entitled to great weight while another might not be).