20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider a treating physician’s opinion rendered after the insured period when evidence from that period corroborates it.

Freismuth v. Astrue · filed 2013-01-31(d)(2)-(6)

As such, under Estok and 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6), the ALJ should have considered Dr. Phillips’ opinions; her decision to outright disregard such evidence constitutes an error.

Section 404.1527 governs medical opinions for a new disability period considered on appeal from a medical cessation decision when the review request was filed on or after March 27, 2017, and the prior rules governed the cessation decision.

Tolan v. Saul · filed 2022-03-28

Pursuant to POMS and HALLEX, when a medical cessation or termination decision is appealed and a new period of disability is considered, as it was here, the old rule (20 C.F.R. § 404.1527) applies if the initial request for review of the determination was filed on or after March 27, 2017 and the old rule was used in the initial medical cessation decision.

Section 404.1527 governs evaluation of medical opinions for Title II claims, not Supplemental Security Income claims under Title XVI.

Lloyd v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-09-10

At the forefront, the undersigned notes that Plaintiff’s contentions utilize outdated regulations which are not binding to the present claim, and Plaintiff’s cited regulations do not even pertain to Supplemental Security Income Benefits. Plaintiff cites 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, while § 404.1 states, “[t]he regulations in this part 404 . . . relate to the provisions of title II of the Social Security Act[,]” which governs Disability Insurance Benefits.

Section 404.1527 governs the weighing of medical opinions in disability benefit determinations; it does not control MaineCare home and community benefits assessments.

Peters v. Comm'r, Maine Dep't of Health and Human Servcs · filed 2014-11-10

The section of the C.F .R. that Ms. Peters cites to, however, pertains to determinations regarding whether an individual is disabled for purposes of receiving disability benefits. This case does not involve a determination of whether or not Ms. Peters, who is already receiving MaineCare, and who is eligible for the PDN-III program, is or is not disabled.

A failure to consider an opinion under § 404.1527 is harmless when considering it would not produce a more restrictive residual functional capacity.

Gill v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2023-12-19

The undersigned finds it unnecessary to determine whether Ms. Andrews’s letter constitutes an opinion requiring consideration under § 404.1527 because even if the letter is an opinion, any failure by the ALJ to consider it was harmless.