20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

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

(SS) Villapudua v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-18(c)(2)

Where a treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record, it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Here, Dr. Wahid’s opinions were contradicted by the state agency medical consultants. ... Thus, this Court looks to whether the ALJ provided specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Wahid. ... Upon consideration, the Court finds that the ALJ stated specific and legitimate reasons supported by independent evidence for the weight given to Dr. Wahid’s opinions, especially in light of the contradictory opinions of other physicians.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, while opinions from non-treating or non-examining sources do not receive controlling weight but require a meaningful explanation of the weight assigned.

Myers v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-12-23(c)(2), (d)(2)

On the other hand, when the opinion comes from a non-treating or non-examining source, it is usually not entitled to controlling weight. ... There is however, no “reasons-giving requirement” for non-treating source opinions. ... Rather, the ALJ must provide only “a meaningful explanation regarding the weight given to particular medical source opinions.” ... Here, the Commissioner seems to rely on the stricter standard governing treating source opinions. ... But, the Undersigned finds, and Plaintiff does not state otherwise, that there are no treating source opinions of record. ... Accordingly, the ALJ was not required to assign controlling weight to these opinions or provide “good reasons” for discounting them. ... Instead, the ALJ must have provided a “meaningful explanation regarding the[ir] weight[.]”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record; otherwise, the ALJ must give good reasons for declining controlling weight.

Edwards v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2019-12-31(c)(2)

The ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a treating source if the ALJ “find[s] that a treating source’s medical opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record . . . .” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, she must give “good reasons” for that decision. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

ACEVEDO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-01-10(c)(2)

The regulations provide that an ALJ shall give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and it is not “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For claims filed before 2017, a treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only when supported by medical evidence and consistent with the record; otherwise, it is weighed using the treatment relationship, specialty, support, and consistency.

Carl Gebauer, Jr. v. Saul · filed 2020-01-17(c)(2)

In claims like this that were filed before 2017, a treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is supported by sound medical evidence and a consistent record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐8p. When an ALJ does not give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, then that opinion should be weighed based on the nature and extent of the treatment, the treating source’s area of specialty, and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record and supported by other evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); SSR 96‐8p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Lutz v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-23(d)(2)

An ALJ must give “controlling weight” to a treating source’s opinion if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Schaaf v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight.

Welles v. Saul · filed 2020-02-07(c)(2)

Under the regulations governing claims filed before March 27, 2017, if a treating physician’s opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, it should be given controlling weight.4 See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Next, the Court finds that the ALJ erred in not affording controlling weight to the opinion of Welles’s treating physician, Dr. McKnight, who had treated Welles on a regular basis for several years. ... In view of the nature and extent of the treatment relationship and the objective evidence that supports Dr. McKnight’s opinions, the ALJ should have fully credited his testimony.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source opinion to clearly articulate good reasons grounded in the regulatory factors for rejecting it, although the ALJ need not expressly discuss every factor when the reasoning and adherence to the Regulations are clear.

Brady v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-10(c)

Although an ALJ is not required to explicitly go through each and every factor of the Regulation when evaluating a treating source opinion, the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the Regulations must be clear. ... The ALJ is required to provide “good reasons,” grounded in the factors set forth in the Regulations, for rejecting a treating physician’s opinion. ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) (“The better an explanation a source provides for an opinion, the more weight we will give that opinion.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cockrell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-11(c)(2)

The rule requires an ALJ to “give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment(s) if the opinion is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” LaRiccia v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 549 F. App’x 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Albright v. Berryhill · filed 2020-02-12(c)(2)

As a general matter, an ALJ will assign controlling weight to an opinion from a treating source, but only if it is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 590 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992)); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When a treating source opinion is inconsistent with other evidence in the record, or if clinical evidence does not support the opinion, that opinion “should be accorded significantly less weight,” regardless of its source. Craig, 76 F.3d at 590; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating provider's medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence.

Crowley v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-10(c)(2)

A medical opinion from a treating provider is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) generally gives treating-source opinions more weight, permits discounting unsupported or contrary opinions, and requires good reasons for the weight assigned.

Johnson v. Saul · filed 2020-02-18(c)(2)

Generally, a treating source’s opinion is given more weight than other sources in a disability proceeding. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating source’s opinion may be disregarded if it is unsupported by clinical or other data or is contrary to the weight of the remaining evidence in the record. Anderson, 696 F.3d at 793-94; Pena v. Chater, 76 F.3d 906, 908 (8th Cir. 1996). The ALJ must “give good reasons” to explain the weight given the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Anderson, 696 F.3d at 793.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bekeleski, Beth v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-02-21(c)(2)

Under the regulations in effect at the time, a medical opinion such as Dr. Blackburn’s was entitled to controlling weight only if three conditions were met: first, the opinion was rendered by a treating source; second, it was well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostics; and third, it was not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ward v. Saul · filed 2020-02-21(c)(2)

The treating physician’s opinion “as to the nature and severity of [an] impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Id. (quoting Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008) (in turn quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ either to give a qualifying treating-source opinion controlling weight or to explicitly consider the treatment, support, consistency, and specialization factors.

Walp v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-24(a)(2), (c)(2)

The regulations define a “treating source” as an “acceptable medical source who provides [claimant], or has provided [claimant], with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with [claimant].” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Given these regulations and that the ALJ referred to Dr. Lodi as a “treating provider,” the Court assumes that the ALJ considered Dr. Lodi to be a treating physician. As such, the ALJ was required to either assign Dr. Lodi’s opinion controlling weight, or “explicitly consider” the Burgess factors. Estrella, 925 F.3d at 95–96.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

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

In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Williamson Jr v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-30(c)(2)

For claims filed before March 27, 2017, as was Plaintiff’s, a treating physician’s medical opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is to be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... A treating physician’s opinion should be awarded controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. The ALJ’s hunch that medical professionals are willing to make false statements to the government to avoid tension with their patients neither shows that Dr. Mavrelis’s opinion is not well-supported nor renders the opinion inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the case record.

Pastore v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-04(d)(2)

The Act requires ALJs to grant significant weight to treating physician opinions supported by medical evidence in the record, and requires treating physician opinions be granted “controlling weight” when the opinion is “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ward v. Berryhill · filed 2017-03-31(c)(2)

This Court applies the “treating physician rule[,]” which establishes that a treating physician’s report is “binding on the fact-finder unless contradicted by substantial evidence.” Contreras v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 15CV1277TSCDAR, 2017 WL 943900, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2017); Settles v. Colvin, 121 F. Supp. 3d 163, 169 (D.D.C. 2015); Espinosa v. Colvin, 953 F. Supp. 2d 25, 32 (D.D.C. 2013); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2) (stating that when “a treating [physician]’s opinion . . . is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [plaintiff’s] case record, [SSA] will give it controlling weight”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not contradicted by other substantial evidence.

Frank Lloyd, Jr. v. Berryhill · filed 2017-04-03(c)(2)

While a treating physician’s opinion is usually entitled to controlling weight, it must be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and not contradicted by other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Ghiselli v. Colvin, 837 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 2016). Without corroborating objective evidence, Heinsen severely downplayed Lloyd’s capacity to sit, walk, and stand. Indeed Heinsen reported on several occasions that Lloyd had normal gait, and Lloyd’s foot x-rays showed a healed fracture and no degenerative changes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight.

Lewis v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-02(c)(2)

Accordingly, the ALJ is required to give “controlling weight” to opinions proffered by a claimant’s treating physicians so long as the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” ... The ALJ failed to adequately explain why he failed to give the opinions of Lewis’ treating physicians “controlling weight” under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) and § 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating source's well-supported opinion to receive controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Lesley v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-06(d)(2)

Social Security Rules expressly require that a treating doctor’s opinion on an issue of a claimant’s impairment be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ' See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), In weighing medical source opinions in Social Security cases, the Ninth. Circuit distinguishes among three types of physicians: (1) treating physicians, who actually treat the claimant; (2) examining physicians, who examine but do not treat the claimant; and (3) non-examining physicians, who neither treat nor examine the claimant. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). ... First, the Court finds that the ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the opinions of Dr. Patel and Dr. Rosenbaum do not meet the test of providing “specific and legitimate reasons” supported by substantial evidence in the record. See Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. Rather, the ALJ merely rejected Dr. Patel’s opinion outright, without specific or legitimate citation to the administrative record. (Tr. 33.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source 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, and to provide specific good reasons when assigning it less than controlling weight.

Burton v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-06-27(c)(2)

ALJs must give treating-source opinions controlling weight if “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). If the ALJ gives the treating-source opinion something less than controlling weight, “good reasons” must be provided “that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight given to the treating physician’s opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Morr v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 616 F. App’x 210, 211 (6th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544). The ALJ provided good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for determining that the treating-source opinions are not entitled to controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) permits an ALJ to withhold controlling weight from a treating physician’s opinion when substantial evidence is inconsistent with it.

Williams v. Berryhill · filed 2017-07-31(d)

However, in this case the ALJ identified substantial evidence inconsistent with the assessments: (1) the treatment notes, (2) the state consultants, (3) Ms. Williams’s ability to conduct the tasks of daily life, and (4) Ms. Williams’s documented lack of compliance with medical advice. ... Based upon this inconsistent evidence, the ALJ was permitted to not give the treating physicians’ opinions controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 provides that a treating source medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Notali v. Berryhill · filed 2017-08-09(c)(2)

However, if a “treating source medical 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 treating physician’s opinion “is not entitled to ‘controlling weight.’” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 631–32 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting S.S.R. 96-2p at 4); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for assigning less than controlling weight to a treating source's opinion; inconsistent treating opinions or better-supported medical assessments can constitute good reasons.

Chesser v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-09(c)(2)

Where an ALJ assigns less than controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for doing so. Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). Good reasons for assigning lesser weight to the opinion of a treating source exist where “the treating physician’s opinions are themselves inconsistent,” Cruze, 85 F.3d at 1325, or where “other medical assessments ‘are supported by better or more thorough medical evidence,’” Prosch, 201 F.3d at 1013 (quoting Rogers v. Chater, 118 F.3d 600, 602 (8th Cir. 1997)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sampson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-07-13(c)(2)

Under the relevant regulations, the ALJ must give “controlling weight” to an opinion from a treating source if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits a treating-source opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the objective medical evidence.

Burney v. Berryhill · filed 2017-08-22(c)

If an opinion from a treating source is well-supported by and consistent with the objective medical evidence in the record, it may be entitled to controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, so a contrary non-examining opinion alone is insufficient to deny controlling weight.

Pavao v. Berryhill · filed 2017-09-29(c)(2)

A treating physician’s medical opinion is given controlling weight if that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2); see Choate, 457 F.3d at 869. ... However, the existence of a contrary opinion from a non-examining source is not a sufficient basis alone for denying controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion. See Singh, 222 F.3d at 452; see also Brewer-Kite v. Colvin, 959 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1189 (S.D. Iowa 2013) (“It is well settled law that the opinions of physicians who have not examined the claimant, do not constitute substantial evidence on the record as a whole upon which to base a denial of benefits.”). ... The only basis the ALJ provided for not giving controlling weight to Dr. Hata’s opinion is the fact of contrary opinions from consulting physicians. (AR at p. 30). The court finds this is error. See Singh, 222 F.3d at 452.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; if it is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must assess the factors in § 404.1527(c) and explain the weight assigned.

Gallishaw v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2017-11-08(c)(2), (c)

For these reasons, the opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight on the issue of the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments, so long as that opinion "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [a claimant's] case record." ... If the ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight because it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record, then the ALJ must assess six factors to determine how much weight to afford the treating medical opinion and other medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Gavazzi v. Berryhill · filed 2017-04-19(c)(2)

“[T]he opinion of a claimant’s treating physician as to the nature and severity of the impairment is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.’” ... Here, the ALJ, on the basis of the record before him, was not entitled to assign minimal or no weight to the parts of Dr. Wood’s opinions mentioned above.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Womble v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-08-30(c)(2)

Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (stating that the opinion of a treating physician will be given controlling weight if it is supported by medically acceptable and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record, and requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to that opinion.

Garneau v. SSA · filed 2017-10-10(c)(2)

Under the applicable regulations, the opinions of treating sources such as Dr. Rock are entitled to controlling weight if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [a claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion, she must still determine how much weight to give that opinion by considering the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). After an ALJ considers those factors, “[i]n many cases, a treating source’s opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.” Hunt v. Colvin, No. 16-cv-159-LM, 2016 WL 7048698, at *7 (D.N.H. Dec. 5, 2016) (quoting SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4 (S.S.A. July 2, 1996)). Finally, an ALJ must give “good reasons in [her] decision for the weight [she] give[s] [a claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s supported, consistent opinion; if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must weigh it under the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2017-12-27(c)(2)

An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, so long as that opinion is supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic evidence not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). But if the ALJ concludes that a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, she must weigh the opinion in light of several factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (listing factors). The ALJ need not perform an exhaustive, step-by-step analysis of each factor; she need only provide “good reasons” for both her decision not to afford the physician’s opinion controlling weight and for her ultimate weighing of the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats a medical source as a treating source when the claimant has an ongoing treatment relationship and requires the ALJ to explain the weight given to that source’s opinion.

Linehan v. Berryhill · filed 2017-12-27(a)(2), (c)(2)

Dr. Gray is a treating source who saw Plaintiff ten times from June through August 2015. R. 564-96. These visits occurred almost every week. Id. Weekly visits are of “a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice” for the treatment of depression. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). The ALJ committed an error of law when she failed to provide any discussion of the weight that she assigned to Dr. Gray’s opinion as to the nature and limiting effects of Plaintiff’s depression and other cognitive impairments. Id. at § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, an ALJ may discount it only for specific, supportable good reasons.

Dimambro v. US Social Security Administration, Acting Commissioner · filed 2018-01-05(c)(2)

A “treating source’s” opinion is entitled to “controlling weight” if that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Foley v. Astrue, No. 09-10864, 2010 WL 2507773, *8 (D. Mass. June 17, 2010). Even if a treating source’s opinion does not satisfy these requirements, “it may be ‘entitled to deference.’” Douglas v. Colvin, 2016 DNH 176, *6 (quoting SSR 96–2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *4 (July 2, 1996)). If the ALJ rejects the opinion of a treating source, the ALJ must give “good reasons” for his determination that are “both specific . . . and supportable.” Jenness v. Colvin, 2015 DNH 167, *6. Those reasons must “offer a rationale that could be accepted by a reasonable mind.” Id. (internal quotes and citations omitted). As long as the ALJ satisfies this standard, I will uphold his decision to discount a treating source’s opinion. Costa v. Astrue, 565 F.Supp.2d 265, 271 (D. Mass. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when it conflicts with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Scouten v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2018-01-22(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is “inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires substantial weight for treating-physician opinions but does not make them controlling when substantial contrary evidence exists and the ALJ explains the departure.

Callaway v. Berryhill · filed 2018-02-16(c)(2)

While treating physicians' opinions must be given "substantial" weight, ALJs need not treat them as controlling if they are contradicted by substantial evidence and the ALJ explains why she is not following them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) governs when a treating source's opinion should receive controlling weight, and substantial medical evidence consistent with that opinion undermines giving it less than controlling weight.

Inserra v. SSA · filed 2018-02-21(c)(2)

In light of the foregoing, and for the reasons set forth in claimant’s memoranda, the court is constrained to conclude that the ALJ’s finding that the additional treatment notes “do not document any meaningful change or deterioration in the claimant’s presentation” is not supported by substantial evidence. As claimant points out, those additional treatment notes and records consisted of nearly 500 pages of medical reports - a substantial portion of which were entirely consistent with Dr. Kaploe’s opinions. All of that, in turn, undermines the ALJ’s decision to give the opinion of Dr. Kaploe - claimant’s primary treating source - less than controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while permitting less weight when those conditions are not met if the adjudicator gives sufficiently specific good reasons.

Austin v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2018-03-12(d)(2)

An administrative law judge must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (internal quotes omitted); ... Conversely, a treating source’s opinion may be given less weight if it is unsupported by sufficient clinical findings and is inconsistent with the rest of the evidence. If an administrative law judge decides to give a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight, he must give “good reasons” for doing so that are sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight given to the treating physician's opinion and the reasons for that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating source's opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Adamson v. Colvin · filed 2018-03-27(c)(2)

Further, even if accepted as a diagnosis, Dr. Leahy’s finding of CRPS would not be entitled to controlling weight under the relevant regulations. First, Dr. Leahy gave no opinion on the severity of Adamson’s case of CRPS for purposes of a benefits determination. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (Aug. 24, 2012) (describing controlling weight preconditions for a “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)”) (emphasis added). Moreover, Dr. Leahy’s explanation of the indeterminable nature of CRPS undermines any claim that his finding is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques[,]” as the regulations require. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to decline controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, so long as the ALJ gives good reasons for doing so.

Bakoian v. Colvin · filed 2018-03-27(c)(2)

An ALJ may choose not to grant controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if that opinion is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). It is for the ALJ, not this Court, to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence regarding a claimant’s limitations, so long as he provides “good reasons” for deciding not to adopt a treating physician’s opinion. Id.; accord Abubakar v. Astrue, No. 11-cv-10456, 2012 WL 957623, at *8-10 (D. Mass. Mar. 21, 2012). Rather than summarily rejecting Dr. Talbot’s more extreme assessments as “inconsistent with the treatment record” or acknowledging only parts of Dr. Talbot’s treatment notes, the ALJ this time fairly summarized all of Dr. Talbot’s (and Dr. Sigel’s) treatment records, identified particular reports which he considered important in deciding whether and to what extent to accord weight to Dr. Talbot’s opinions, and gave good reasons for his determinations in this respect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent medical opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, weigh it using the listed factors while giving specific reasons for the weight assigned.

Darlene Shields v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-05-14(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion must be given controlling weight whenever it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). Moreover, even if a treating source’s medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, that does not mean that it should be rejected. Blakley, 581 F.3d at 408. Rather, at that point, the ALJ: must apply certain factors—namely, 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 the specialization of the treating source—in determining what weight to give the opinion. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (emphasis added); see also Blakley, 581 F.3d at 408 (“Treating source medical opinions [that are not accorded controlling weight] are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §[§] 404.1527[(c)] and 416.927[(c)].

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires adjudicators to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Cauley v. Berryhill · filed 2018-05-09(c)(2)

Rather, adjudicators are required to consider whether treating source medical opinions are "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques" and "not inconsistent with other substantial evidence" in the case record. 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence.

Packer v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2018-05-30(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a “treating source’s” opinion “controlling weight” if that opinion is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see Foley v. Astrue, No. 09-10864, 2010 WL 2507773, *8 (D. Mass. June 17, 2010).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Hedges v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-05-31(c)(2)

Under the “treating-source rule,” the ALJ is required to give “controlling weight” to a treating clinician’s opinion if that opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... The ALJ did not violate the treating-source rule in Hedges’ case. While the ALJ’s decision afforded Hedges’ treating psychologist’s opinion “little weight,” it did so because her opinion was neither supported by objective evidence nor consistent with the other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits an ALJ to discount it for those reasons and requires good reasons for assigning limited weight.

Smith v. Berryhill · filed 2018-06-29(c)(2)

Ordinarily, the “opinion of a treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d 72, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 128 (2d Cir. 2008); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. However, the ALJ may set aside the opinion of a treating physician that is contradicted by the weight of other record evidence. Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). A treating physician’s opinion may also be rejected if it is internally inconsistent or otherwise uninformative. Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 32 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Micheli v. Astrue, 501 F. App’x 26, 28 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary order) (“A physician’s opinions are given less weight when his opinions are internally inconsistent.”). An ALJ must provide “good reasons” for affording limited weight to the treating source’s opinion and more weight to a non-treating source. Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir. 1998); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Monahan v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-02(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives more weight to treating-source medical opinions because treating sources can provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of an impairment and a unique perspective unavailable from objective findings or brief examinations.

Flynn v. Commissioner of Social Security Admin. · filed 2018-07-06(c)(2)

The ALJ also relied heavily on opinions of two expert physicians, who did not treat or examine Flynn, but who reviewed the record and largely agreed with the ALJ’s views. However, doctors who have not treated or examined a patient are generally entitled to less deference. See Selian, 708 F.3d at 419; see also Burgess, 537 F.3d at 130. This reflects the purpose of the treating physician rule: to “give more weight to medical opinions from [the] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [any] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The treatment provider’s perspective would seem all the more important in cases involving mental health, which are not susceptible to clear records such as x-rays or MRIs. Rather, they depend almost exclusively on less discretely measurable factors, like what the patient says in consultations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but treating physicians are not always entitled to controlling weight.

Aguayo v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-13(d)(2)

Plaintiff is correct that the “treating physician rule” directs ALJs to give controlling weight to a claimant's treating physician if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). But it is also clear from the regulation that treating physicians are not always entitled to controlling weight. ... Because the ALJ found that Dr. Gonzalez’s opinion was otherwise inconsistent with the evidence of record, she was not required to accord his findings controlling weight.

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 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Manley v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-16(c)(2)

The treating physician’s opinions are only given controlling weight if they are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating-source opinion to consider the regulatory factors when assigning weight and adequately explain the decision.

Pale v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-23(d)(2)–(6)

Even assuming the ALJ provided “good reasons” for not affording Dr. Dees’s opinion controlling weight, he was still required to address the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R § 404.1527 to determine what weight to give the opinion. ... Here, the ALJ afforded Dr. Dees’s opinion only “little weight,” but failed to adequately address or otherwise demonstrate consideration of many of the other enumerated factors. ... For these reasons, the Court concludes the ALJ did not offer substantial evidence for rejecting Dr. Dees’s opinions, which is an error requiring remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Denson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-07-24(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); accord Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating source's medical opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Brooks v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-20(c)(2)

The regulation at 404.1527(c)(2) states, in pertinent part: "If 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 is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight." ... As stated above, because all four of the regulatory criteria were met, it was error for the ALJ to not have given controlling weight to the medical opinion rendered by Dr. Israel regarding the nature and severity of Plaintiff's impairment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ciaffarafa v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-21(c)(2)

The opinion of a treating source is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Linehan v. Berryhill · filed 2018-08-30(c)(2)

The ALJ committed a legal error when she did not give good reasons, or indeed any reasons, for the weight assigned to Dr. Gray’s medical opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Dalzell v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-19(c)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Anderson v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-24(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimed impairment is entitled to controlling weight if the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(2). Correspondingly, an ALJ need not give controlling weight to an opinion that is not well-supported by clinical findings or laboratory techniques or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a treating-source medical opinion to be given controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.

Albizu v. Berryhill · filed 2018-09-28(c)(2)

The "treating physician rule," as it is known, "mandates that the medical opinion of a claimant's treating physician [be] given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion significant, potentially 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.

Lau v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. · filed 2018-10-22(c)(2)

Insofar as these doctors were treating sources, their opinions were due significant weight, if not "controlling weight," so long as their opinions were "well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and ... not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the [claimant's] case record."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source's opinion about the nature and severity of an impairment when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Ryan v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-08(d)(2)

Dr. Lake’s opinions on the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s impairments are consistent with the Social Security Administration’s regulatory guidance: ... If 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 is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to consider the specified factors.

Horton v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-19(c)(2)

An ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if “it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see Scott v. Astrue, 647 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2011). “If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the 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.” Moss v. Astrue, 555 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir. 2009); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). ... The ALJ does not, however, identify the treatment notes that contradict the doctor’s opinions or those that suggest Dr. Bibbs relied uncritically upon plaintiff’s reports of her own limitations. ... The ALJ’s failure to identify specifically the evidence that contradicts Dr. Bibbs’s opinions renders the Court unable to engage in meaningful review of the ALJ’s decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and gives weight to the length and frequency of the treating relationship.

Mischler v. Berryhill · filed 2019-03-20(c)(2)(i)

Under the treating-physician rule in effect at the time of Mischler’s application, the ALJ must give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight “if it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” ... In any case, it is undisputed that Dr. Dennison treated Mischler for many years and had nearly monthly contact with her for more than a year before completing the assessment, which weighs heavily in favor of affording her opinion great, if not controlling, weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Smith v. Colvin · filed 2019-03-31(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and ... not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record[.]” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits limited weight when the opinion conflicts with the treatment notes and record.

Tavarez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-05-01(c)(2)

Such opinions are given controlling weight if they are “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [are] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.E.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); ... Here, the ALJ explained that Dr. Balmaceda’s findings regarding Plaintiff's limitations in sitting and lying down were not consistent with her own treatment notes, nor were these opinions consistent with the record as a whole, which was proper.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source medical opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record; if it is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must provide good reasons.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-06-04(c)(2)

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. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c). Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if two conditions are met: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). If the ALJ does not assign controlling weight to a treating source, she must provide good reasons for doing so.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Woodbrook · filed 2019-06-06(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight. Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Sanchez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-06-10(c)(2)

A treating source's opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment(s) is entitled to controlling weight if it: (1) "is 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)(2). ... Conversely, when 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 requirement of controlling weight does not apply.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) directs an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence, but permits the ALJ not to accept it when those criteria are unmet.

Clayton v. Saul · filed 2019-07-02(c)(2)

An ALJ should give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is well-supported with accepted medical evidence and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ need not accept a treating physician’s opinion if it does not meet these criteria.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Diaz v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-03(c)(2)

The regulations also address the weight to be given a treating source's opinion: "If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case, we will give it controlling weight." 20 CFR § 404.1527(c)(2). ... In this case, the ALJ's decision denying benefits to Diaz after March 2012 violated the treating physician rule and there was a particular lack of *398coherence to the evaluation and rejection of Dr. Rubinfeld's March 2015 treating source opinion.

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 by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Schlisner v. Berryhill · filed 2019-07-03(c)(2)

An ALJ will give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence. Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 2013); House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741, 744 (8th Cir. 2007); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when medically approved diagnostic techniques support it and it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Ratliff v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-05(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight where medically approved diagnostic techniques support the opinion and the opinion is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Verge v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-07-15(c)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s condition is entitled to “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires adjudicators to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion.

DOTEN v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION COMMISSIONER · filed 2019-07-24(c)(2)

This comported with the requirement that adjudicators “give good reasons . . . for the weight we give your treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion that is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed under the regulation’s factors.

Mize v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-07-30(c)(2)

An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion if the opinion is both: (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; and (2) consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); Branum v. Barnhart, 385 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir. 2004). “[I]f the opinion is deficient in either of these respects, then it is not entitled to controlling weight.” Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003). Even if a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “[t]reating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.” Id. (quotation omitted). If the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, specific legitimate reasons must be given for doing so. ... Based on Plaintiff’s work history, her limited treatment record, her reported activities of daily living, and the absence of supporting reports by Dr. Wiegman, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported treating-source opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and to give good reasons for withholding that weight.

Partin v. SSA · filed 2019-07-31(c)

ALJ’s must give “controlling weight” to opinions from treating sources “[i]f [they] find that a treating source’s opinion … is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ must provide “good reasons” for not giving a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating-source opinion to consider the regulatory factors when deciding what weight to assign it.

Block v. Saul · filed 2019-08-01(c)

Even if the ALJ had given a “good reason” for not affording Dr. Masood's opinions controlling weight, the ALJ was still required to address the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to give the opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Emerich, Beryl v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2019-08-02(c)(2)

An ALJ is required to assign a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, provided the opinion is supported by “medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques[,]” and it is “not inconsistent” with substantial evidence in the record. Schaff v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 869, 875 (7th Cir. 2010); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Cordeiro v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-02(c)(2)

The ALJ must give “[c]ontrolling weight . . . to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments if the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence’ in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) permits an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion less than controlling weight when it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

PORTER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2019-06-25(c)(2)

Although generally, an ALJ may give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source, he may give it less weight if the opinion is “not consistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.” See Ochmanski v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-cv-02784, 2019 WL 981644, at *5 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2019) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)). ... Here, the ALJ provided several adequate reasons for assigning little weight to Dr. Glass’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight; if it is not given controlling weight, the adjudicator must consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests, consistency, and supportability.

Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-05(c)(2)

As noted, the ALJ must grant “controlling weight” to any treating source opinion which is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Moreover, if an ALJ does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight, the 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."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) provides that a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion receives controlling weight, while an ALJ may weigh it using treatment, support, and consistency factors when controlling weight is not given.

Jayne-Chandler v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-08-05(c)(2)-(6)

Generally, a treating source’s opinion on the nature or severity of impairments is given controlling weight if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). “[T]hese sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); 416.927(c)(2). Nevertheless, an ALJ may discount the weight given to a treating source opinion where it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(4); 416.927(c)(2)-(4); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2. When controlling weight is not given, the ALJ may consider an array of factors to determine what weight to grant the opinion, including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examinations, the degree to which relevant evidence supports the opinion, and the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole. See 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(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Morris v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-06(c)(2)

ALJs must afford treating sources controlling weight if they “find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the] impairment(s) is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see also, Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001) (“Although the treating physician rule generally requires a court to accord greater weight to the testimony of a treating physician, the rule does not require that the testimony be given controlling weight.” (quoting Hunter v. Sullivan, 993 F.2d 31, 35 (4th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)).

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 substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding how much weight to give an opinion that is not controlling.

Loveless v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-09(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if the “opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. ... If the ALJ decides that the treating physician’s opinion should not be given controlling weight, the ALJ is “required by regulation to consider certain factors in order to decide how much weight to give the opinion.” ... These factors are set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(5) and include: 1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; 2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; 3) supportability; 4) consistency with the record as a whole; and 5) whether the treating physician was a specialist in the relevant area. ... The ALJ ignored favorable evidence in dismissing Dr. Bush’s opinion, which requires remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Erickson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-12(d)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating source's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (2005); ... Before a treating physician's opinion can be discounted, the ALJ must provide “good reasons.” ... The ALJ is required to assess the following factors in determining how much weight to accord the physician's opinion: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other relevant factors.” ... If other evidence in the record conflicts with the opinion of the treating physician, this opinion will not be deemed controlling or conclusive, and the less consistent the opinion is, the less weight it will be given.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) generally requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and otherwise requires consideration of specified factors in deciding its weight.

Evans v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2019-08-12(c)

In considering a claim of disability, the ALJ generally must give the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c)(2).3 However, the ALJ must do so only if that opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mason v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-13(c)(2)

A treating source opinion must be given “controlling weight” if such opinion (1) “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not assigned controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2) directs the Commissioner to weigh the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, consistency, specialization, program familiarity, and familiarity with relevant case-record information.

Izzi v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-13(c)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), when not assigning controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner should consider the length of the relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, how well-supported the opinion is by medical signs and laboratory findings, its consistency with the record as a whole, the treating source’s specialization, the source’s familiarity with the Social Security program and understanding of its evidentiary requirements, and the extent to which the source is familiar with other information in the case record relevant to the decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight to explain the weight assigned while considering the regulatory factors.

RIDENHOUR v.SAUL · filed 2019-08-19(c)(2)

Where an AL] declines to give controlling weight to a treating source opinion, he must “sive good reasons in [his] . . . decision for the weight” assigned, taking the above factors into account. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion to weigh specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Henman v. Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(c)(2)-(6)

When the ALJ determines a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, he then must determine how much weight to assign the opinion by applying several factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record; (5) specialization of the treating source; (6) other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2-6), 416.927(c)(2-6). The rule further requires the ALJ give “good reasons” for the weight given to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). ... Therefore, Magistrate Judge Majzoub’s reliance on Kornecky and Fifer is appropriate. Even though the ALJ did not specifically address the limitations on Henman’s upper extremities, his broader discussion of the other evidence in the record in conjunction with Dr. Bell’s opinion is sufficient to support the assignment of little weight to the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) says that a treating physician’s opinion is not automatically determinative and receives controlling weight only when it is not inconsistent with other controlling evidence.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(d)

Treating physician opinions are not determinative and granted controlling weight only when not inconsistent with other controlling evidence, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Meyers v. Astrue, 681 F.Supp. 2d 388, 405 (W.D.N.Y.) (citing Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d 28, 31 (2d Cir. 2004)), and the treating physician rule requires the court consider four factors in determining whether an ALJ correctly refused to grant a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight including: “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the opinion; (iii) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist.” ... Here, the ALJ’s determination to afford limited weight to Dr. Bakhai’s opinion regarding functional limitations resulting from Plaintiff's bipolar disorder and PTSD (R. 30), does not comply with the four factors, especially the third factor, i.e., the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Foutty v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-20(d)(2)

If the treating physician’s opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the plaintiff’s] case record, [the ALJ] will give it controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Valentine v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-21(c)(2)

But a treating physician’s opinion as to the “nature and severity” of a plaintiff’s impairments will be given “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the plaintiff’s] case record.” ... If an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must consider a number of factors to determine how much weight to assign to the treating physician’s opinion, specifically: “(1) the frequen[cy], 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.” ... The ALJ must set forth the reasons for the weight assigned to the treating physician’s opinion. ... By assigning Dr. Pierre’s medical opinion “little weight” for lack of “relevant clinical data,” (R. 20), without obtaining the treatment notes from UMMHC, the ALJ failed to develop the record before declining to give controlling weight to Dr. Pierre’s medical opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating-source 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.

Manning v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-08-22(d)(2)

“An ALJ must give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ must weigh the regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Yaden v. SSA · filed 2019-08-23(c)(2)

A treating source’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and ‘not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.’” ... If a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, then the ALJ considers the following factors in order to determine how much weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of the 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; and (5) the specialization of the treating source. ... Ultimately, the ALJ must provide “good reasons” for giving less than controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion. ... Dr. Basham’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight because it lacks proper support and is inconsistent with substantial evidence in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairments controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the substantial evidence in the record.

Booth v. Berryhill · filed 2019-08-23(c)(2)

But a treating physician’s opinion as to the “nature and severity” of a plaintiff’s impairments will be given “controlling weight” if the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the plaintiff’s] case record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Verboort v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2019-08-27(c)(2)

“The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given ‘controlling weight’ so long as it ‘is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.’”” Trevizo y. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s non-controlling opinion deference and assess the treatment relationship, examination frequency, evidentiary support, qualifications, and other supporting or contradicting factors when deciding how much weight it deserves.

Tackett v. SSA · filed 2019-08-28(c)(2)-(6)

However, when a treating physician’s opinion is not given “controlling weight,” it is still entitled to deference and the ALJ must assess the following factors to determine how much weight to afford the opinion: the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination by the treating physician, the medical evidence supporting the opinion with the record as a whole, the qualifications of the treating physician, and other factors tending to support or contradict the opinion. 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(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and to provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Sandra C. v. Saul · filed 2019-08-30(c)(2)

Substantial weight should be given to the opinion, diagnosis and medical evidence of a treating physician unless there are good reasons to do otherwise. ... If a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record, the ALJ must give it controlling weight. ... When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on the (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) medical evidence supporting the opinion; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in the medical conditions at issue; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... If a treating source is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The regulations confirm that, “[w]e will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” ... With no “good reasons” left, what remains is a treating source opinion that appears to be well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the contemporaneous evidence of record. At least as to the period to which it pertains, it may well be entitled to controlling weight. ... All of this should be explored on remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Collazo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-04(c)(2)

The Court’s inquiry starts and ends with the question of contraindication. 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 other substantial evidence in the case record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). While duration of treatment relationship, expertise, and format of the report are all potentially valid basis for weighing contraindicated testimony from an accepted medical source, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i-ii); Dr. Brown’s opinions were not inconsistent with the cited substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating source’s medical opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Bunnell v. US Social Security Administration, Commissioner · filed 2019-09-05(c)(2)

A treating source’s medical opinion is entitled to controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). The ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight he gives a treating source’s medical opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c)(2). “Those reasons must offer a rationale that could be accepted by a reasonable mind.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 defines a treating source as an acceptable medical source with an ongoing treatment relationship, treats a source whose relationship exists solely to obtain a disability report as nontreating, and requires an ALJ to evaluate every medical opinion.

Stanhope v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2019-09-06(a)(2), (b)

Under 20 C.F.R. section 404.1527(a)(2), a treating source is an acceptable medical source who has “an ongoing treatment relationship” with a patient. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). Further, an acceptable medical source is not considered a patient’s treating source in situations where the patient’s “relationship with the source is not based on your medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on your need to obtain a report in support of your clam for disability. In such a case, we will consider the acceptable medical source to be a nontreating source.” Id. Nevertheless, the ALJ is required to evaluate every medical opinion he receives. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Martin v. Berryhill · filed 2018-12-21(c)(2)

An ALJ must “give good reasons” for discounting a treating source opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2); see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 793 (8th Cir. 2012). ... Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. Butcher’s opinion because Dr. Butcher’s opinion was inconsistent with the medical 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 not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Black v. Social Security Administration · filed 2019-01-07(d)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the ALJ must give controlling weight to a claimant’s treating physician when the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating medical source’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence, requires good reasons for the weight assigned, and § 404.1527(d)(1) reserves disability determinations to the Commissioner.

Thurston v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2019-01-30(c)(2), (d)(1)

The ALJ analyzes the opinions of state agency consultants, treating sources, and examining sources under the same rubric. See Ledoux, 2018 WL 2932732, at *4; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must consider “the examining relationship, treatment relationship (including length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, and nature and extent of the treatment relationship), supportability of the opinion by evidence in the record, consistency with the medical opinions of other physicians,” along with the doctor’s expertise in the area and any other relevant factors. ... A treating medical source’s opinion about the claimant’s impairment will be given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2). An ALJ must give “good reasons” for the weight given to a treating source’s medical opinion. Id. “Those reasons must offer a rationale that could be accepted by a reasonable mind.” ... If the ALJ satisfies that standard, the court will uphold the decision to discount a treating source’s opinion. Id. ... In addition, the determination of disability is reserved to the Acting Commissioner. § 404.1527(d)(1). For that reason, opinions about disability from medical providers are not entitled to weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Cindy F. v. Berryhill · filed 2019-02-13(d)(2)

If a treating physician's opinion is supported by medically acceptable techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the treating physician's opinion is given controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) governs the weight assigned to treating-source opinions: controlling weight is due when the opinion is well supported and consistent with the record, otherwise the ALJ weighs specified factors and need not expressly discuss every factor.

Scherer v. Commissioner Of Social Security · filed 2019-08-02(c)

The ALJ determines how much weight to give a treating physician’s medical opinions. Newton, 209 F.3d at 455. The ALJ will give the opinions controlling weight if they are well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) (2017); Newton, 209 F.3d at 455. If the ALJ determines that the treating physician’s opinions should not be given controlling weight, the ALJ decides how much weight, if any, to give to the opinions by considering the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those factors are (1) the length and frequency of the treatment relationship, (2) the nature and extent of the relationship, (3) the supportability of the doctor’s findings, (4) the consistency of the findings with the rest of the record, (5) the physician’s level of specialization, and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(6) (2017). The ALJ need not expressly consider all Section 404.1527(c) factors in deciding to discount a treating physician’s opinion. E.g., Jones v. Astrue, 821 F. Supp. 2d 842, 852 (N.D. Tex. 2011). ... Applying the Section 404.1527 factors, the court finds that the record supports the ALJ’s assessment. ... Based on an independent review of the record, the court finds that the ALJ’s decision to accord Dr. Pollack’s assessment limited weight was supported by substantial evidence and was not in error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to opinions from treating physicians than to opinions from non-treating physicians.

Vasquez v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-25(c)(1)

An ALJ must generally give more weight to the opinions of treating physicians than non-treating physicians. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1); 416.927(c)(1); see also Richards v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 592 F.3d 232, 240 n. 9 (1st Cir. 2010) (“[T]reating physicians’ opinions are ordinarily accorded deference in Social Security disability proceedings.”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and to explain the weight assigned if controlling weight is denied.

Danello v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-01-14(c)(2)

SSA regulations mandate specific procedures an ALJ must follow in determining the appropriate weight to assign a treating physician’s opinion. ... Second, if the ALJ decides the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it must determine how much weight, if any, to give it. ... At both steps, the ALJ must “‘give good reasons in [its] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it gives the] treating source’s [medical] opinion.’” ... In summary, the ALJ failed to give good reasons for rejecting Dr. Sherman and Dr. Dispenza’s assessment of Plaintiff’s ability to handle a typical workday. The ALJ therefore erred in declining to give those doctors’ opinions controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and permits controlling weight only when the opinion is well supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Clay v. Saul · filed 2020-03-17

The ALJ must give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. To be given controlling weight, a medical source’s opinion must be well supported by objective medical evidence and must be consistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors in determining the opinion's weight and explain the reasons for that weight.

Tutolo v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-31(c)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s assessment, the ALJ must consider the following factors to determine the weight to give the opinion: (1) the length of treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence in support of the opinion; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; (5) whether the opinion is that of a specialist; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). be ALJ must then “comprehensively set forth [his] reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.” ... Moreover, even if the ALJ properly decides not to afford Dr. Blanco’s opinion controlling weight, she must consider the factors set forth above to determine what weight, if any, it should be afforded (which she did not do here).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 allows an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion less weight when it is inconsistent with the record or lacks adequate medical support and explanation.

Frezza v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-08-31(c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4)

It is well established that an ALJ may give the treating physician’s opinion less weight when the opinion is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. See Tricarico v. Colvin, 681 F. App’x 98, 101 (2d Cir. 2017) (summary order) (“Although a treating physician’s assessment is typically given more weight than other examiners’ assessments, internal inconsistencies, and the conflicting opinions of other examining physicians, where supported by evidence in the record, can constitute substantial evidence to support not according the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, as well as good reasons to attribute only limited weight to that opinion.”) (citation omitted); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(4) (“Generally, the more consistent an opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we give to that opinion.”). It is also appropriate to afford less weight to an opinion that is not thoroughly explained or supported by objective medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(3) (explaining that the degree of weight given to a medical opinion is affected by the amount of medical evidence and the quality of the explanation supporting the opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) requires an ALJ to consider six factors and adequately explain the weight assigned to a physician's opinion.

BOWERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2020-08-03(c)(1)-(6)

While the ALJ retains the discretion to ultimately determine the weight placed on a physician’s opinion, the ALJ must provide an adequate explanation pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6), and none was provided. Therefore, this matter is remanded for further consideration of the weight to be accorded to the opinion of treating physician Dr. Tennyson, as well as a determination of Plaintiff’s residual functional capacity based on the appropriately weighed medical evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats disability determinations as reserved to the Commissioner, so an ALJ need not adopt a medical source’s disability opinion, and non-treating opinions are not entitled to controlling weight.

Cruz, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-03-26(d)(1)

There is no dispute that issues that would direct the determination or decision of disability are reserved for the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). This means that the Commissioner is not required to find the claimant disabled simply because a medical source opined that a claimant is disabled or unable to work. Id. at § 404.1527(d)(1). ... Opinions from non-treating and non-examining sources are never assessed for “controlling weight.” ... Instead, an ALJ weighs these opinions “based on the examining relationship (or lack thereof), specialization, consistency and supportability[.]”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating-source opinion after denying it controlling weight, and to analyze the substance of those factors even if it need not expressly list each one.

Ray v. Saul · filed 2021-06-30(c)

To be sure, Ray is right that the ALJ failed to expressly analyze Dr. Zaragoza’s opinion within the framework of the factors delineated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Among the factors an ALJ must consider in weighing a medical opinion after deciding not to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight are the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; the physician’s specialty; the types of tests performed; and the consistency and support for the physician’s opinion throughout the record. See id. Generally acknowledging the regulatory factors is insufficient. See, e.g., Campbell v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 299, 308 (7th Cir. 2010). While we will not vacate or reverse an ALJ’s decision based solely on a failure to expressly list every checklist factor, we do expect the ALJ to analyze the treating source’s medical opinion “within the multifactor framework delineated” in the regulation. Karr, 989 F.3d at 512; see also Gerstner v. Berryhill, 879 F.3d 257, 263 (7th Cir. 2018). On the other hand, we will affirm the ALJ’s decision if we are confident that the ALJ’s reasoning sufficiently accounted for the substance of the prescribed factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to explain why medical-opinion evidence is rejected or given less weight.

LOPEZ v. SAUL · filed 2021-10-07

The ALJ alone is responsible for making the disability determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(1), 416.927(e)(1). In making that determination, the ALJ is “free to accept some medical evidence and reject other evidence,” so long as she “provides an explanation for discrediting the rejected evidence.” Zirnsak v. Colvin, 777 F.3d 607, 614 (3d Cir. 2014); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927. Generally, “opinions of [Plaintiff’s] treating physician are entitled to substantial and at times even controlling weight.” Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 43; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). However, an ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317-18 (3d Cir. 2000), and may choose which medical opinions to credit. Plummer v. Apfel, 186 F.3d 422, 429 (3d Cir. 1999). Regardless of what weight the ALJ assigns to medical opinions, the ALJ must adequately explain the evidence she rejects or affords lesser weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors bearing on the opinion’s weight.

Robinson v. Saul · filed 2022-06-23(c)(2)(i)-(6)

Should a physician’s opinion not meet the requirements of the treating physician rule, the ALJ must consider each of the following factors to determine the weight the opinion should be afforded: (1) “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination;” (2) “the nature and extent of the treatment relationship;” (3) “supportability” or “the extent to which the treating physician presents relevant evidence to support the medical opinion;” (4) “consistency” of the opinion “with the evidence of the record;” (5) “the extent to which the treating physician is a specialist opining as to issues related to his or her area of specialty;” and (6) any other factors that “tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” Dowling v. Comm’r, 986 F.3d 377, 384-85 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(6)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the regulation’s listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned to a medical opinion.

Brooks v. Commissioner, SSA · filed 2023-03-17(c)

“[T]he ALJ must consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) and give good reasons for the weight he assigns to the opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source’s medical opinion and specific, legitimate reasons for rejecting it completely.

Thomason v. Social Security Administration · filed 2023-09-28(d)(2)

After considering these factors, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Robinson v. Barnhart, 366 F.3d 1078, 1082 (10th Cir. 2004)(citations omitted). Any such findings must be “sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinions and the reason for that weight.” Id. “Finally, if the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must then give specific, legitimate reasons for doing so.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301 (quotations omitted). The ALJ’s rejection of Dr. Pella’s opinion did not comply with the precepts of Watkins.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive more weight than a non-treating physician’s, and gives it controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Hipkins v. Barnhart · filed 2004-02-18(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is generally given more weight than a non-treating physician’s. ... Further, the “opinion of a treating physician is accorded ‘controlling weight’ if it is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence^]’ ” ... An ALJ may reject “ ‘a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence’ and not due to [the ALJ’s] own credibility judgments, speculation or lay opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ that does not give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting medical and laboratory findings, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Mollo v. Barnhart · filed 2004-03-02(d)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must consider (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the opinion is supported by medical and laboratory findings; (4) the physician’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

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 requires a well-supported treating physician opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, with specified factors considered and reasons given for the weight assigned.

Huhta v. Barnhart · filed 2004-05-17(d)(2)

The ALJ erred by failing to give controlling weight to the opinions of plaintiffs treating-physicians, Dr. Gibson and Dr. Plummer. It is well-settled that “the medical opinion of a claimant’s treating physician is given controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial record evidence.” ... In determining what weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, the Commissioner must consider: (1) the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the frequency of examination; (3) the evidence presented to support the treating physician’s opinion; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as whole; and (5) whether the opinion is offered by a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Further, the ALJ must articulate his reasons for assigning the weight that he does accord to a treating physician’s opinion.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives preference to the opinion of a treating physician over a consulting physician's limited opinion that does not address the claimant's other medical conditions or their severity.

Jones v. Barnhart · filed 2004-05-19(d)(2)

The opinion of consulting physician Drew Anthony who only performed a musculoskeletal examination of plaintiff at the request of Disability Determination does not discount the opinion of treating physician Hillman. The court notes that his opinion that plaintiff has mild right leg and back pain is limited to his one area of examination. He never addresses pain complaints from other medical conditions or expresses an opinion as to their severity. Furthermore, the regulations give preference to the opinion of the treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives preference to treating-physician opinions when determining their evidentiary weight.

Edwards v. Barnhart · filed 2004-05-24(d)(2)

Furthermore, the regulations give preference to the opinion of the treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Holler v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-06-02(d)(2)

Controlling weight is given to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician regarding the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment when, among other things, it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... Controlling weight should have been given to Dr. Hainley’s opinion, possibly as modified by Dr. Tran in her opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Skarbek v. Barnhart · filed 2004-06-23(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if supported by the medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive controlling weight when it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Wegner v. Barnhart · filed 2004-06-30(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Charles v. Barnart · filed 2004-07-26(d)(2)

The regulations further provide that "if we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Given these guidelines, we must first decide whether Dr. Rock's determination that Charles could stand no more than four hours in an eight hour day is supported by "medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques." The ALJ determined that it was not, and we agree.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Strickland v. Barnhart · filed 2004-08-19(d)(2)

An ALJ must also give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion regarding the severity of a medical condition if the opinion is well supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see Gudgel v. Barnhart, 345 F.3d 467, 470 (7th Cir.2003).

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 requires an adjudicator to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Holland v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-01(d)

Even if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference and must be weighed using the following six factors: ... (6) other, factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (listing these factors); ... After considering these factors, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight he ultimately assigns to the opinion of the treating physician.

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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives preference to the opinion of a treating physician when medical opinions are weighed.

Menefee v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-14(d)(2)

The regulations give preference to the opinion of the treating physician. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the prescribed analysis before an ALJ rejects a treating physician's opinion about a claimant's limitations.

MITTAG v. Barnhart · filed 2004-09-29(d)(2)

On remand, to the extent the ALJ rejects the opinions of Mittag’s treating physicians regarding Mittag’s limitations, the ALJ shall complete the analysis required by 20 C.F.R. 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally favors treating-source opinions because of their longitudinal perspective and requires clear reasons when an ALJ gives a treating physician’s opinion less weight.

Ashford v. Barnhart · filed 2004-10-05(d)(2)

The Commissioner’s regulations also recommend a similar preference for the opinions of treating doctors. Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultive examinations or brief hospitalizations. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives preference to the opinion of a treating physician.

Webster v. Barnhart · filed 2004-10-25(d)(2)

Furthermore, the regulations give preference to the opinion of the treating physician. 20 CFR § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion substantial deference, but permits an ALJ to reject it when it lacks objective medical support or is contradicted by substantial evidence, provided the ALJ gives a reasoned basis.

Ford v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-11-10(d)(2)

Although a treating physician’s opinion typically is entitled to substantial deference, the ALJ is not bound by that opinion. Warner, 375 F.3d at 390; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The treating physician’s opinion is entitled to deference only if it is based on objective medical findings, Harris v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir. 1985), and is not contradicted by substantial evidence to the contrary. Hardaway v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 823 F.2d 922, 927 (6th Cir. 1987). If the treating physician’s opinion is not supported by objective medical evidence, the ALJ is entitled to discredit the opinion as long as he sets forth a reasoned basis for doing so. Shelman v. Heckler, 821 F.2d 316, 321 (6th Cir. 1987).

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) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supportability, consistency, and specialization when assigning weight.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-30(c)

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff that the ALJ’s articulated reason for discounting Dr. Lin’s opinion is insufficient. The ALJ’s Decision does not address some of the factors noted in the applicable regulation. There is no discussion of length of treatment, frequency of examination, the nature and extent of treatment relationship and or specialization of the treating physician. Even though the ALJ found certain internal inconsistencies within Dr. Lin’s medical source statement, that is not a sufficient basis to discount the treating physician’s opinion without at least touching on some of the other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed regulatory factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion, even when objective evidence is lacking.

Sticka v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(c)

Further, even where there is a lack of objective evidence to support a treating physician’s opinion, 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 giving a medical opinion less than controlling weight to consider factors including the treatment relationship, medical support, consistency, and the physician's specialization.

Lamarca v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-10-11(c)

If the opinion is given less than controlling weight, the ALJ shall consider various factors in assessing that opinion, such as the examining relationship, the extent of the relationship, medical support for the opinion, its consistency, the physician’s specialization, and other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner must weigh it using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, specialization, and other relevant factors.

(SS) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-03(c)(2)–(6)

“If a treating physician’s opinion is not given ‘controlling weight’ because it is not ‘well-supported’ or because it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, the [Commissioner] considers specified factors in determining the weight it will be given.” ... These factors include (1) the “[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination;” (2) the “[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship;” (3) the “[s]upportability” of the opinion;” (4) the “[c]onsistency” of the opinion “with the record as a whole;” (5) whether the opinion is from “a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty;” and (6) “any other factors [the claimant] or others bring to [the ALJ’s] attention, or of which the ALJ is aware, which 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) does not require an ALJ to expressly discuss every factor used to weigh a treating source's medical opinion in the written decision when the ALJ gives sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Ransom v. Commissioner of SSA · filed 2020-02-05(c)(2)

There is no requirement, however, that the ALJ “expressly” consider each of the Wilson factors within the written decision. See Tilley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 394 F. App’x 216, 222 (6th Cir. 2010) (indicating that, under Blakley and the good reason rule, an ALJ is not required to explicitly address all of the six factors within 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) for weighing medical opinion evidence within the written decision).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to determine its weight after considering the listed treatment, support, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

Martorana v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-13(d)(2)-(6)

If the ALJ decides that a treating source's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, he must determine the weight it should be given after considering: (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 treating source's opinion is supported by objective evidence; (4) whether the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the treating source is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is given; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ's attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)(i) gives more weight to a treating source’s medical opinion when the source has seen the claimant often and long enough to develop a longitudinal picture of the impairment.

Cooper v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2020-02-13(c)(2)(i)

Here, the ALJ did not err by determining that Dr. O’Connell’s one-time examination of Plaintiff and review of a prior evaluation did not equate to a view of the longitudinal record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) (“When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the medical source’s medical opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.”).