20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

When an ALJ declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supporting medical evidence, consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialty.

Wade v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-02-19(c)(2)-(5)

4Ifan AL] determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, she must consider (1) the length of treatment and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the medical evidence in the record that supports the opinion; (4) the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; and (5) the treating physician’s specialty. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still weigh it using the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-10(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion, (4) consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole, (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue, and (6) any other factors that tend 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.

When an ALJ gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight, § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires consideration of factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

(SS) Malloy Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-25(c)(2)-(6)

Additionally, when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676.)

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source's opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must explicitly consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors.

Cushman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-26(c)(2)

When the ALJ “do[es] not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight,” as happened here, he must “explicitly consider” the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), including (1) the frequency, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating-source opinion that is not given controlling weight to be evaluated using the specified regulatory factors and still receive deference.

Moses v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2020-05-01(c)

A treating source opinion is still entitled to deference and must be evaluated according to the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires a treating-source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight to be weighed using factors including the nature and extent of the treatment relationship and the opinion's consistency with the record.

Savage v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-28(c)(2)-(6)

In cases where a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, the opinion is weighted according to factors such as the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, as well as the consistency of the opinion with the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Revels, 874 F.3d at 654.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician's opinion to consider all relevant factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Cunningham v. Saul · filed 2020-07-10(c)

However, a finding that a treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with other evidence in the record “means only that the opinion is not entitled to ‘controlling weight.’” ... “Even when there is substantial evidence contradicting a treating physician’s opinion such that it is no longer entitled to controlling weight, the opinion is nevertheless ‘entitled to deference.’” ... The opinion “must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.” ... These factors include, inter alia, the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the nature and extent of the treatment relationship. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Although the ALJ is not required to analyze each factor in detail, the ALJ must indicate that he has considered all the relevant factors. ... The ALJ therefore failed to consider all of the relevant factors, and “[t]his failure alone constitutes reversible legal error.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires the Commissioner to consider the listed factors when deciding the weight to give a treating source's opinion.

Polk v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-14(c)(2)–(6)

Finally, Claimant asserts that the ALJ did not properly weigh Dr. Amezcua-Patino’s opinion under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6). Section 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) provides a list of factors for the Commissioner to consider in evaluating the weight the Commissioner should accord an opinion by a treating source. ... Consideration is all that is required. ... The ALJ complied with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an adjudicator weighing a treating-source medical opinion to consider the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Coyle v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-06(c)

The ALJ was required to weigh several factors in determining the weight to be accorded to the treating physicians’ opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, *4. The ALJ does not need to discuss each factor, see Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007), but the ALJ must nevertheless consider each factor and “give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1301 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); Romo v. Berryhill, No. 16-cv-02248-WJM, 2017 WL 3911071, at *5 (D. Colo. Sept. 7, 2017).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a noncontrolling treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, support and consistency with the record, and the physician’s specialization.

Wells v. Saul · filed 2020-09-01(c)(2)-(6)

When a treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ should weigh it ... according to factors such as the nature, extent, and length of the physician-patient working relationship, the frequency of examinations, whether the physician’s opinion is supported by and consistent with the record, and the specialization of the physician.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs the ALJ to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and whether the medical source is a specialist when deciding the weight of a treating physician's opinion.

Dereu v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-03(c)

In determining whether to accord controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, factors to be considered by the ALJ include: (1) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (2) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and (4) whether the opinion is from a specialist. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization, when determining the opinion’s weight.

Moroianu v. Berryhill · filed 2020-09-14(c)

If an ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider the following factors in determining the appropriate weight: length and frequency of the treatment relationship; nature and extent of the treatment relationship; evidence provided by the source in support of the opinion; consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; and the source’s level of specialization. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ gives a treating physician's opinion less than controlling weight, the opinion must be weighed using factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization, and failure to discuss those factors is reversible legal error.

(SS) Midwood v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-24(c)(2)-(6)

Moreover, when an ALJ elects to afford the opinion of a treating physician less than controlling weight, the opinion must be “weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization of the physician.” Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 675 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)). The ALJ’s failure to discuss these factors “alone constitutes reversible legal error.” (Id. at 676) Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the court finds that the ALJ failed to offer a specific and legitimate, let alone clear and convincing, reason for rejecting Dr. Ching’s opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when determining the weight of a treating source’s opinion if it is not given controlling weight.

Roytman v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-30(c)(1)–(6)

Notably, the ALJ does not evaluate the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). The Court finds that the ALJ failed to give good reasons for not giving Dr. Poblaguyev’s opinion controlling weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires the Commissioner to consider the listed factors and articulate good cause for the weight assigned to a treating source’s opinion, without requiring a separate finding on every factor.

Medford v. Berryhill · filed 2020-10-02(c)(2)

The regulations require only that the Commissioner “apply the factors and articulate good cause for the weight assigned to the treating source opinion.” ... “The ALJ need not recite each factor as a litany in every case.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must consider the factors listed in subsection (c) even if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Ryan v. Saul · filed 2020-10-29(c)

But even when a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless also consider the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) to determine what weight to accord the opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a treating physician’s opinion but does not require explicit discussion of each factor.

Daniliauskas v. Saul · filed 2021-01-08(c)

In any event, it is not required that the ALJ explicitly discuss each factor in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, but only that the ALJ consider each factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the relevant factors in § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) to determine the opinion’s appropriate weight.

Latahotchee v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-27(c)(1)–(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, then the ALJ must consider the relevant factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6) and determine the appropriate weight to give the opinion.

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.

Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-03-12(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(c)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's medical opinion and to consider the factors relevant to that weight.

Vernatter v. SSA · filed 2021-05-21(c)(2)

However, the ALJ is still required to “give good reasons on the record for according less than controlling weight to treating sources.” Blakley, 581 F.3d at 409 (citing Wilson, 378 F.3d at 547). In deciding what weight to give a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician.” Fox v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 827 F. App’x 531, 537 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406). ... The ALJ failed to consider “the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and any specialization of the treating physician” as required. Fox, 827 F. App’x at 537 (quoting Blakley, 581 F.3d at 406). ... The ALJ made no clear indication of why the § 404.1527(c) factors led him to assign little weight to Dr. Hart’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh a physician assistant's opinion using the listed factors, including its consistency with the record as a whole.

Tarbania v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-10-04(c)

“Nonetheless, an ALJ must weigh that opinion according to a number of factors, including the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; evidence in support of the opinion; the opinion's consistency with the record as a whole; and other relevant factors.” ... “Here, the ALJ did not consider the consistency of PA Friemann's opinion regarding Plaintiff’s mental impairments (see T 250 “poorly controlled anxiety and depression”) with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). Rather, in this regard, the ALJ compares only the consistency of the medical source statement opinion with PA Friemann’s treatment notes.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating-source opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527(c) requires the ALJ to consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Nutter v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-12(c)

Although the ALJ referenced 20 C.F.R. 1527, the opinion does not contain analysis of the listed factors that must be considered when a treating source is not given controlling weight. Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the examining relationship, treatment relationship, the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) identifies factors for weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but an ALJ’s failure to expressly address every factor is not reversible error when other adequate reasons support the weight assigned.

Simpson v. Kijakazi · filed 2021-10-22(c)

Toutant-Simpson also complains that the ALJ did not discuss all of the §404.1527(c) factors designed to help the ALJ “decide how much weight to give the treating physician’s evidence,” Bauer v. Astrue, 532 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2008) – namely whether Dr. Roehrich was a specialist; the frequency of examinations; and the length, nature, and extent of Toutant-Simpson’s relationship with Dr. Roehrich. But the Seventh Circuit has confirmed that the failure to articulate findings with respect to each factor does not constitute reversible error. See Karr v. Saul, 989 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2021) (ALJ affording treating physician’s opinion only “partial weight” without marching through §404.1527(c)(2) factors was harmless error). Hence, even if the ALJ had explicitly recognized Dr. Roehrich’s specialization, the length of Toutant-Simpson’s treatment, and the frequency of examinations, such recognition would not have overcome the fact that the opinions expressed in the mental RFC questionnaire were internally inconsistent and not supported by the doctor’s own treatment notes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship’s length, nature, and extent, examination frequency, physician specialty, and the opinion’s consistency and supportability, even when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Langer v. Saul · filed 2022-03-22(c)

Even if the ALJ was not obligated to assign Dr. Shrifter’s opinions controlling weight, the ALJ was required to consider the factors identified in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) in assessing what weight to give to Dr. Shrifter’s opinions. ... First, the ALJ never identified, let alone discussed, “the length, nature, and extent of” Plaintiff’s treatment relationship with Dr. Shrifter; the “frequency” with which Dr. Shrifter treated Plaintiff; or Dr. Shrifter’s specialty (internal medicine). See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (requiring consideration of these factors).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

CONTE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-05(c)(1)–(6)

The ALJ must consider the following factors when deciding what weight to accord the opinion of a treating physician: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the supportability of the opinion; (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the treating source’s specialization; and (6) any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)–(6). Accordingly, “the ALJ still may choose whom to credit but ‘cannot reject evidence for no reason or the wrong reason.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to give good reasons tied to the regulation's factors, although the ALJ need not expressly apply each factor.

Martinez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2022-08-04(c)

If it is not given controlling weight, “at the second step in the analysis, the ALJ must make clear how much weight the opinion is being given (including whether it is being rejected outright) and give good reasons, tied to the factors specified in the cited regulations for this particular purpose, for the weight assigned.” Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1330 (10th Cir. 2011). ... The ALJ is not required to “apply expressly each of the six relevant factors in deciding what weight to give a medical opinion.” Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating provider’s opinion is not given controlling weight, § 404.1527 requires the ALJ to weigh it using factors such as the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization, but does not require discussion of every factor when the decision shows those factors were considered.

(SS) Prine, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-09(c)(2)-(6)

As an initial matter, the ALJ was not required to discuss the § 404.1527 factors to avoid committing legal error. ... Regardless, the ALJ reviewed the medical evidence—including treatment records from Dr. Holvik and Dr. Tariq—and specifically discussed (as described above) how their opinions were inconsistent and not supported by the record. Such is sufficient to show that the ALJ considered the § 404.1527(c)(2) factors.

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 the regulation’s listed factors when deciding what weight the opinion deserves.

Campbell v. Saul · filed 2023-06-08(c)

As such, “[o]nce contrary evidence is introduced,” the opinion “becomes just one piece of evidence” the ALJ considers along with various factors, including: the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; frequency of examination; physician’s specialty; types of tests performed; and consistency with and support for the opinion in the record. Ray v. Saul, 861 Fed. Appx. 102, 105 (7th Cir. 2021); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). ... The ALJ also did not consider the other requisite factors—including the length, nature, and extent of James’s treatment relationship with Dr. Thomas or frequency of examination—even though several suggest that Dr. Thomas’s opinion deserved at least some weight. ... On remand, the ALJ must build a “logical bridge” between the evidence and his conclusion regarding Dr. Thomas’s opinion and revisit the RFC analysis as needed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider factors including the opinion’s consistency with and support in the record.

Regard v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-10-30(c)

The applicable regulation requires the ALJ to consider in part the consistency and supportability of Dr. Rusco’s opinion, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), which she did.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must consider six regulatory factors when deciding how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion.

DOMINICO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2023-12-08(c)(1)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by the medical record, § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) requires the ALJ to consider the listed treatment-relationship, supportability, and consistency factors in deciding how much weight to give the opinion.

Butcher v. Social Security · filed 2024-05-16(c)(2)–(6)

On the other hand, if a treating physician’s opinion is contradicted by the medical record, the ALJ must “consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)–(6) in determining how much weight to afford the treating physician’s medical opinion.” Id. (citations omitted). These factors include the length and frequency of the treating relationship, the “[n]ature and extent” of the treating relationship, the supportability of the treating physician’s opinion by medical evidence, and the consistency of the treating physician’s opinion with the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). ... The magistrate judge does not analyze whether the ALJ considered the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) or whether the ALJ’s reasoning meets the “specific and legitimate reasons” standard. (See ECF No. 22, at 7–8). It is unclear from the R&R whether the ALJ committed reversable error. The court will therefore remand this matter back to the magistrate judge for further analysis, consistent with this order.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s medical opinion to consider the treatment relationship’s length, examination frequency, nature and extent, as well as the opinion’s supportability and consistency with the record as a whole.

Jones v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2024-12-31(c)(2)-(6)

The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[t]he ALJ is required to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) in determining how much weight to afford the treating physician’s medical opinion.” Ghanim, 763 F.3d at 1161. Specifically, an ALJ is required to consider the “length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination by the treating physician,” the “nature and extent of the treatment relationship,” “the supportability of the physician’s opinion with medical evidence,” and “the consistency of the physician’s opinion with the record as a whole.” Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6)) (simplified). Here, the ALJ did not mention the factors under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), which constitutes error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician’s opinion to consider the examining relationship, the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency with the record, and specialization.

Westfall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-09-23(c)

I find further that ALJ Baird considered in his opinion the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. §1527(c). As stated above, those factors are: 1) examining relationship; 2) treatment relationship (including the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship); 3) supportability; 4) consistency with the record as a whole; and 5) specialization. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires a treating source’s opinion to be evaluated under the listed regulatory factors and given deference even when it is not entitled to controlling weight.

Moore v. Barnhart · filed 2004-11-19

However, even if a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is still entitled to deference and must be properly evaluated. See Langley , 373 F.3d at 1119 (listing factors for evaluation as outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial record evidence, but permits discounting it when contrary medical opinions or internal inconsistencies support that choice and the ALJ minimally explains the reasons.

Skarbek, Norbert v. Barnhart, Jo Anne · filed 2004-12-02(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. Gudgel, 345 F.3d at 470; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ may discount a treating physician’s medical opinion if it is inconsistent with the opinion of a consulting physician, Dixon v. Massanari, 270 F.3d 1171, 1178 (7th Cir. 2001), or when the treating physician’s opinion is internally inconsistent, Clifford, 227 F.3d at 871, as long as he “minimally articulate[s] his reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability,” id. at 870.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Annie Bell Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2004-12-02(d)(2)

If the Commissioner finds a treating doctor's opinion regarding impairments "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2). ... Thus, the ALJ was free not to give Dr. Stringfellow's contrary opinion controlling weight.

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) makes a treating physician's opinion controlling when it is well-supported and uncontradicted.

Hollis v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-12-03(d)(2)

Because treating physicians are “most able to provide a detailed longitudinal picture of a claimant’s medical impairment(s)” and accordingly bring a “unique perspective” to the medical evidence, their opinions are controlling if well-supported and uncontradicted. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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 physician's opinion, and failure to do so warrants remand.

Hamilton v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-10(d)(2)

A treating physician's opinion normally is entitled to substantial weight. Dixon v. Barnhart, 353 F.3d 602, 606 (8th Cir.2003). Regardless of how much weight the ALJ affords a treating physician's opinion, however, the ALJ must "always give good reasons" for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (SSA July 2, 1996); accord Dolph v. Barnhart, 308 F.3d 876, 878-879 (8th Cir.2002). Failure to provide good reasons for discrediting a treating physician's opinion is a ground for remand. Snell v. Apfel, 177 F.3d 128, 133 (2d Cir. 1999); see Singh, 222 F.3d at 452-53 (reversing with directions to remand in part because the ALJ failed to give good reasons for rejecting a treating physician's opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to weigh a treating source’s opinion using the listed regulatory factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

Vakas v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-01(d)(2)

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.” ... 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported opinion controlling weight unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence, and requires good reasons for discounting it.

McPherson v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-09(d)(2)

“The [social security] regulations provide that a treating physician’s opinion .will be granted ‘controlling weight,’ provided the opinion is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] record.’ ” ... An ALJ may discount such an opinion if other medical assessments are supported by superior medical evidence, or if the treating physician has offered inconsistent opinions. ... Whether the weight accorded the treating physician’s opinion by the ALJ is great or small, the ALJ must give good reasons for that weighting.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when the opinion is contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record.

Hawkins v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-15(d)(2)

First, while a treating physician’s opinions deserve special treatment, the ALJ is not required to give them controlling weight where, as here, they are contradicted by other substantial evidence in the record.

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 treating physician’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence to receive controlling weight, while also directing consideration of treatment relationship, examination frequency, and objective support.

McDonald v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-28(d)(2)

The ALJ must give “controlling weight” to the opinion of a treating physician, provided that opinion is “well-supported and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.” ... In addition to its consistency with other evidence, the court examines a treating physician’s opinion with several factors in mind, including the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the extent to which the opinion is supported by objective medical evidence.

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) requires an ALJ to give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.

Branum v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2004-09-27(d)(2)

After considering these factors, the ALJ must “give good reasons in [the] notice.of determination or decision” for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating physician’s opinion to have independent support from medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques before it receives controlling weight.

Dumler v. Barnhart · filed 2004-10-19(d)(2)

But it is the SSA regulations themselves that require independent record support before a treating physician’s opinion will be considered controlling — that is what it means for an opinion to be “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) directs adjudicators to give more weight to treating-source opinions because those sources provide a detailed, longitudinal picture and a unique perspective on the claimant’s impairment.

Lowery v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2004-11-02(d)(2)

There is no dispute that the Rule promulgated by the Secretary states that: “more weight [will be given] 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 reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s medical 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.

Ellis v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-03(d)(2)

Generally, an ALJ is obliged to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s medical opinions that are supported by the record. See Randolph v. Barnhart, 386 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Because Dr. Johnson’s opinion that Ellis could only stand for two hours and sit for four hours, and do neither for more than one hour at a time, is not supported by any medical evidence in the record and is contrary to other evidence in the record, the ALJ properly discredited the 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).

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion little weight when it is inconsistent with the medical evidence and unsupported by clinical or laboratory findings, and reserves residual functional capacity determinations to the Commissioner as administrative findings rather than medical opinions.

Cruz-Ramos v. Barnhart · filed 2005-01-11(d) (e)

To the extent appellant contends that her treating psychiatrist's opinion was entitled to controlling weight, her argument fails because the treating physician's opinion is inconsistent with the bulk of the medical evidence and is not ... supported by any progress notes or clinical or laboratory findings. The ALJ was justified in according the treating psychiatrist's report little weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... T o t h e extent appellant suggests that the ALJ should have obtained the testimony of a medical expert to resolve any apparent conflicts between the treating physicians' assessments and the opinions of the state agency physicians, her argument is unavailing because RFC is not a medical assessment, but is instead an administrative finding reserved to the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with the record must receive controlling weight.

Hurley v. Barnhart · filed 2005-02-23(d)(2)

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

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

Collins v. Barnhart · filed 2004-10-27(d)(2)

Treating physician’s opinions are entitled to controlling weight if they are well supported and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... Substantial evidence here supports the ALJ’s decision not to accord controlling weight to the opinions of Collins’ doctors that she was disabled.

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 physician's opinion.

McJAMES v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-08(d)(2)

Regardless of how much weight the ALJ affords a treating physician's opinion, however, the ALJ must "always give good reasons" for the weight given.

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 physician’s evaluation.

Joann Reed v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-03-08(d)(2)

The regulations require that the ALJ “always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to a treating physician’s evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Dolph, 308 F.3d at 878-79. We cannot conclude that the ALJ has done so here.

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 ALJ must always give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.

Brewster v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-09(d)(2)

Regardless of how much weight the ALJ affords a treating physician's opinion, however, the ALJ must "always give good reasons" for the weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5 (SSA July 2, 1996).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Fisher v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-24

The regulation pertaining to the evaluation of opinion evidence states that a treating physician’s opinion 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.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation permits an ALJ to give less weight to a treating physician’s assessment when it is inconsistent with other evidence, including treatment notes and evaluations by examining and nonexamining physicians.

AYALA-FELICIANO v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-03-31(d)(2)-(4)

“The relevant regulations further permit the ALJ to downplay the weight afforded a treating physician’s assessment of the nature and severity of an impairment where, as here, it is ... inconsistent with other evidence in the record including treatment notes and evaluations by examining and nonexamining physicians.” ... “Thus, because it is within the ALJ’s discretion to weigh the evidence, Ayala’s argument lacks merit.”

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 a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record; otherwise, the ALJ may give it less weight based on contradictory evidence and inadequate supporting explanations.

Santiago v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-12(d)(2)

More precisely, the treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight where “the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported [sic] 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(d)(2). “An ALJ may reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, but may afford a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.” ... The ALJ was entitled to afford Dr. Blender’s opinions less weight in view of the lack of support for them and the record evidence to the contrary.

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 medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Wimberly v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-04-18(d)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in the record. Dr. Bridges has treated Wimberly since 1982, and in the absence of other relevant evidence, his opinion that Wimberly was disabled would be entitled to controlling weight. The ALJ noted, however, that Dr. Bridges’s testimony not only conflicted with the views of other doctors and therapists, but was itself internally inconsistent. While we appreciate Wimberly’s argument that differences in the forms filled out by Dr. Bridges contributed to varying assessments, the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Bridges provided inconsistent opinions that conflicted with the diagnosis and treatment plans proffered by other physicians adequately supports the decision not to accord his opinion controlling weight.

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(d) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate it using six specified factors.

Campbell v. Barnhart · filed 2005-04-27(d)

Finally, when an ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the Commissioner prescribes a six-factor analysis for determining what weight to give that physician’s medical opinions. ... 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d)(2004). ... ALJ Jarrett committed a second error by failing to conduct the six-factor analysis to determine how much weight to afford treating physician opinion. ... Since the court itself does not have the prerogative to weigh those factors de novo, this action must be remanded to the Commissioner for that purpose. ... The Commissioner’s decision should be reversed, and the action remanded with instructions that the Commissioner weigh treating physician opinion regarding plaintiffs inability to work on a regular and continuous basis in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d) (2003).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) does not require special weight for a treating physician’s opinion that lacks medical-sign support or is internally or otherwise inconsistently supported.

Wallace v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-04-28(c)(2)

While Dr. Kieler treated Plaintiff on and off over a long period of time, he was not treating Plaintiff during the relevant time in this case and, thus, his opinion need not be accorded special weight. While Dr. Kieler may believe that Plaintiffs condition did not change from the relevant time in 1998 until the time he saw him, this opinion has no medical evidence supporting it. The ALJ is not bound to accept the opinion of a treating physician if that opinion either lacks sufficient support in terms of medical signs and laboratory findings, or is either internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other credible evidence of record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(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 the other substantial evidence in the case record.

Hickey-Haynes v. Comm Social Security · filed 2004-12-01(d)(2)

Under the treating physician rule, opinions of physicians who have treated the claimant receive controlling weight if they are “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 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(d) directs the ALJ to evaluate medical opinions, give less weight to unsupported or inconsistent opinions, and generally give more weight to treating-physician opinions.

HINCHER v. Barnhart · filed 2005-03-30(d)(2)-(4)

It is the duty of the ALJ to evaluate all medical evidence and to determine what weight to accord such evidence. ... The ALJ is entitled to give less weight to an opinion or any portion of the evidence which is not supported by or is otherwise inconsistent with the other evidence in the record. ... Generally, the ALJ must give more weight to the opinion of a treating physician because that physician is often most able to provide “a detailed, longitudinal picture” of a claimant’s alleged disability.

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) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s medical opinion controlling weight to explain the weight assigned to that opinion.

Orr v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-05(d)(2)

When controlling weight is not given to a treating physician’s medical opinion, the ALJ must explain his reasons for the weight he does assign to that opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Bembery v. Barnhart · filed 2005-07-29(d)(2)

Under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the opinion of a treating physician must be given controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. However, the opinions of Dr. Naseef and Dr. Small, as well as Bembery’s own testimony, clearly demonstrate inconsistencies with Dr. Bazilian’s report. Therefore, the ALJ’s decision to discount the report of Dr. Bazilian was supported by substantial evidence.

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).

A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Ellis v. Barnhart · filed 2005-08-10(d)(2)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 permits an ALJ to discount a treating physician’s opinion when it lacks adequate clinical support or conflicts with substantial evidence, and requires consideration of the physician’s specialty when weighing the opinion.

Konya v. Barnhart · filed 2005-09-27(d)(2), (d)(5)

The ALJ may discount a treating physician’s opinion where it is: (1) not well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques; or (2) inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2)(2003). As interpreted by the Third Circuit, an ALJ may not reject a treating physician’s opinion outright except on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, but may afford a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight depending upon the extent to which supporting explanations are provided. ... As an additional consideration in evaluating a physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider whether the medical opinion relates to the physician’s area of specialty under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(5), 416.927(d)(5) (2003). ... The court holds that the ALJ was fully justified in placing greater weight on the opinions offered by medical expert Dr. Rothkopf than on the opinions made by plaintiffs family practitioner.

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 a treating doctor’s 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.

Tiemann, Barbara J. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2005-10-25(d)(2)

Treating doctors’ views control only when “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and . . . not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give specific, good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion and to consider the required treatment, supportability, consistency, and specialization factors.

Sharp v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-10-26(d)(2)

In refusing to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ must adhere to certain agency-imposed procedural requirements. The ALJ must “evaluate every medical opinion [ ] receive[d]” and must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [ ] give[n]” to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. A treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544. Even when the treating physician’s opinion does not deserve “controlling weight,” the ALJ “must” consider “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.” Id. In other words, “a decision denying benefits ‘must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating [physician’s] medical opinion.’” Id. (emphasis added).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is consistent with the other objective evidence in the record.

Manley, Scott v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2005-11-17(d)(2)

The opinions of treating physicians such as Dr. Kolar are accorded controlling weight, but not if they are inconsistent with the other objective evidence in the record, such as the findings of other examining physicians. White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654, 659 (7th Cir. 2005); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), (5).

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 gives controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion only when it is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence, and it does not make the physician’s conclusion on disability binding on the Commissioner.

Niemasz v. Comm Social Security · filed 2005-11-18(d)(2), (e)(1)

As for Dr. Easton’s opinions, we (like the ALJ) are not sure what to make of his conclusion that Niemasz needed “unrestricted rest.” ... As we are not aware of a single federal or state case that refers to, much less accepts, a limitation of “unrestricted rest,” the ALJ was not required to accept Dr. Easton’s conclusory statement when it lacked elaboration and connection to a specific aspect of Niemasz’s condition. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544 (a treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence”) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). ... Also without merit is the applicant’s reliance on Dr. Easton’s opinion of “permanent disability.” A treating physician’s disability conclusion cannot bind the Commissioner, who retains authority to decide the ultimate issue of disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1).

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) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s opinion on 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.

Frankhauser v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-22(d)(2)

In the instant case, the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Mitchell was able to “disentangle” the effects of Plaintiffs substance abuse from the effects of Plaintiffs other mental impairments, and that Plaintiffs was able to work at a low-stress, unskilled job is not supported by the record and violates the treating physician rule. ... The ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a “treating source’s opinion on the issues(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and in not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 1527(d)(2), and provided the treating source’s opinion is “a medical opinion under this provision’s controlling weight rule.”

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 unless it is inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Jones v. Barnhart · filed 2005-12-23(d)(2)

“An ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s well-supported opinion, so long as it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.” Drapeau v. Massanari, 255 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Upon examination of the record, we conclude the ALJ fully considered the treatment notes of Ms. Jones’ treating physicians. Those notes did not express any opinions about the nature and severity of her impairments or her ability to work.

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 the Commissioner to consider specified factors when determining the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, supporting evidence, consistency, and specialization.

Colegrove v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2005-11-14(d)

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); 416.927(d).

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) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, while inconsistent opinions receive less weight.

Brown v. Barnhart · filed 2005-11-29(d)(2)

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 record, we will give it controlling weight. ... However, “[w]hen other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion ... that opinion will not be deemed controlling. And the less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given.” ... Here, the ALJ improperly substituted his own opinion for the opinions not only of plaintiffs treating physicians, but also the opinions of Sibley.

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(d) requires further analysis of a treating physician’s opinion when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, but that requirement does not apply when the ALJ has not rejected the treating physician’s opinion.

Meyer v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-23(d)

In summary, the ALJ did not reject the opinion of Meyer’s treating physician and the cited regulation requiring further analysis does not apply.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The ALJ must give specific reasons for declining to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight.

Bledsoe v. Barnhart · filed 2006-01-31(d)(1)

Bledsoe contends the opinion of Dr. Lin should be given controlling weight because Dr. Lin is a treating physician. The ALJ must give specific reasons for not affording such weight to Dr. Lin’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). The ALJ reasoned that Dr. Lin’s conclusions are “not well supported by the overall evidence of record and are inconsistent with other medical evidence of record.” This is a specific reason for not affording controlling weight to Dr. Lin. Instead, the ALJ credited social security medical consultants Drs. Long and Hughes. The ALJ thus did not violate any procedural right to an adequate explanation of why the ALJ did not credit her 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) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial, sometimes controlling, weight and to reject it only for contradictory medical evidence, not personal credibility judgments or lay speculation.

Rivera v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-01-31(d)(2)

In disability determinations, “opinions of a claimant’s treating physician are entitled to substantial and at times even controlling weight.” Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 43 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). This is so because treating physicians have the most complete overview of a claimant’s medical history, symptoms, and capabilities. Id. An ALJ may only reject a treating physician’s opinion “on the basis of contradictory medical evidence and not due to his or her own credibility judgments, speculation or lay opinion.” Morales v. Apfel, 225 F.3d 310, 317 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require controlling weight for treating-physician opinions that are retrospective and postdate the claimant’s insured period without evidence of actual disability during that period.

Candelario v. Barnhart · filed 2006-02-10(d)(2)

See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating that a treating physician’s 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 claimant’s] case record”). ... The letters significantly post-date the relevant time period. In the absence of evidence of actual disability, a treating physician’s retrospective diagnosis is insufficient to establish a disability. ... Accordingly, the ALJ’s failure to give either letter controlling weight was not error.

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(d) requires an ALJ to consider and weigh six factors before rejecting a treating physician’s medical opinion.

Jessee v. Barnhart · filed 2006-03-03(d)

The Fifth Circuit adheres to the view that before a medical opinion of a treating physician can be rejected, the ALJ must consider and weigh the six factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician's 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.

Sims, Sandra K. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2006-03-23(d)(2)

The ALJ rejected Dr. Midla’s prognosis in favor of the opinions of the three doctors who specialized in psychology, as he was entitled to do. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (treating physician’s opinion entitled to controlling weight only if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence); White v. Barnhart, 415 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2005).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating source's opinion receives 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.

Wisniewski v. Comm Social Security · filed 2006-03-24(d)(2)

It is well settled that, under applicable regulations and the law of this Court, opinions of a claimant's treating physician are entitled to substantial and at times even controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001). More weight is given to a claimant's treating physician because “these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the 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, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Where a treating source's opinion on the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment 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," it will be given "controlling weight." Id.; Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 43.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) gives greater weight to a treating physician’s opinion than to the opinion of a consultative, one-time examiner.

Rease v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-12(d)

The record shows that Dr. Marrinson only saw the claimant twice in consultation, on October 19 and 24, 2000, for an evaluation. The record is devoid of any evidence of ongoing treatment of the claimant by Dr. Marrinson. Therefore, Dr. Marrinson was a consultative physician, and his opinion is not entitled to the great weight that the ALJ must give to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). Indeed, the opinion of a one-time examiner is not entitled to deference.

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) requires controlling weight for a treating source’s well-supported opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and the ALJ must adopt such an opinion.

Stewart v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-04(d)(2)

Under the regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, provided that it is well-supported in the record: ... 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). However, “[w]hen other substantial evidence in the record conflicts with the treating physician’s opinion ... that opinion will not be deemed controlling. And the less consistent that opinion is with the record as a whole, the less weight it will be given.” ... When a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must adopt it. SSR 96-2p; 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Here, both Dr. Mauer and Dr. Cagir provided opinions that were not addressed by the ALJ in his decision. ... Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s determination to deny plaintiffs benefits is inconsistent with the proper application of the treating physician rule.

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).

A treating physician's opinion receives controlling weight only when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Sutton, Rochelle F. v. Barnhart, Jo Anne B. · filed 2006-05-11(d)(2)

Moreover, even if Drs. Piller and Tylkin were considered treating physicians, their opinions would be entitled to controlling weight only if they were “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Hofslien, 439 F.3d at 376. But insofar as they suggest that Sutton cannot work at all, Drs. Piller and Tylkin’s opinions are inconsistent with the record evidence dating from the time of her shoulder injury in 1999 to the middle of 2002.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating physician’s opinion gets controlling weight only 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.

Alvarado v. Barnhart · filed 2006-05-30(d)(2)

Furthermore, the Appeals Council would have been justified in rejecting Dr. Cruz’s opinion that plaintiff could not work until after she had knee surgery, since that conclusory opinion was inconsistent with the other medical evidence in the record, and was not supported by any test results, or indeed by any stated diagnostic techniques.

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 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.

Ochs v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2006-06-29(d)(2)

Generally, an ALJ “may reject a treating physician’s opinion outright only on the basis of contradictory medical evidence, but may afford a treating physician’s opinion more or less weight depending on the extent to which supporting explanations are provided.” ... If the treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of the impairment “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence,” that opinion is given “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(2005); see also Social Security Regulation 96-2P.

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

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider factors such as treatment length, consistency with the record, and specialization, but need not discuss every factor when competing firsthand medical evidence supports another opinion.

Ward v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-02(d)

This court has held, though, that the ALJ need not consider each of the factors where “‘there is competing first-hand medical evidence and the ALJ finds as a factual matter that one doctor’s opinion is more well-founded than another.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation generally gives a well-supported, consistent treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, but permits less weight when the ALJ explains the reasons and considers the listed factors.

David v. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-14(d)

According to Social Security regulations, if an ALJ chooses not to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, she must provide good reasons for the weight given to that opinion and specifically consider length of treatment relationship, frequency of treatment, nature and extent of treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... These statements provide a fair understanding of the weight given to Dr. Giokaris’s findings and a more specific statement is not necessary.

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 a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is medically supported and consistent with other substantial evidence, and permits an ALJ to reduce its weight otherwise.

Joanne M. Hacker v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2006-08-25(d)(2)

The regulations specifically require the ALJ to assess the record as a whole to determine whether the treating physicians’ opinions are inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Here, the ALJ did so and diminished the weight given the treating physicians’ opinions for reasons we have approved previously.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to explain the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion by applying the regulatory factors even when the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight.

SCHMEISER v. Barnhart · filed 2006-07-31(d)(2)

Even if denied controlling weight, “treating 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 and 416.927.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) provides a two-step framework: a well-supported and consistent treating physician’s opinion receives controlling weight, and otherwise the adjudicator determines the appropriate weight using specified factors.

Hersch v. Barnhart · filed 2006-04-05(d)(2)

More weight should be given to the claimant’s treating physician’s opinions because they are “most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [one’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... However, such opinions may be flawed or biased. Thus, the regulations provide a two-step process which ALJs may use to determine the amount of weight a treating physician’s opinion is due. If the treating physician’s opinions are “well-supported” by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and are consistent with other substantial evidence, then they are due “controlling weight.” If they are not, the court must determine the amount of weight they should be assigned. ... In the case at bar, the ALJ did not give claimant’s treating physicians’ opinions controlling weight because their diagnoses are not well-supported in the medical record. As mentioned, claimant’s seizures could not be proved by medical testing. (T. 24) The only indicator of claimant’s true impairments came from her own subjective complaints which also lack credibility. Thus, the ALJ gave the treating physician’s opinions “diminished weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When an ALJ rejects a treating physician’s opinion, § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors in weighing it.

Thomas v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-10(d)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is rejected, the A.L.J. must consider such factors as the length of the treatment relationship, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record evidence, any specialization of the opining physician and other factors the plaintiff raises, in determining how to weigh the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6).

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(d) does not require an ALJ to evaluate all six factors when competing first-hand medical evidence supports discounting a treating physician’s opinion.

Undheim v. Barnhart · filed 2007-01-19(d)

Second, the ALJ’s decision to discount Dr. McBride’s opinion was supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ was not required to go through all six factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) in the face of competing first-hand medical evidence.

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 treating-source opinions controlling weight when they are well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and are not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed with factors such as supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Hall v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-02-22(d)(2)

Under the Social Security Regulations and the law of this Circuit, opinions of treating physicians are entitled to substantial, and at times even controlling, weight. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(2). Where a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of an impairment is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it will be given controlling weight. Id; Fargnoli v. Massanari, 247 F.3d 34, 43 (3d Cir. 2001). When a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it is evaluated and weighed under the same standards applied to all other medical opinions, taking into account numerous factors including the opinion’s supportability, consistency and specialization. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(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 the other substantial evidence in the record.

Thompson v. Barnhart · filed 2007-02-28(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is due “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] record.’”

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 ALJ to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion when it is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Kesner v. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-02(d)

The ALJ is required to give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician as long as the opinion is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

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) requires a treating physician’s opinion to receive substantial and considerable weight unless good cause supports giving it less weight, and requires the ALJ to clearly articulate reasons for discounting it.

East v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2006-10-02(d)(2)

These treating physicians’ opinions must be given substantial and considerable weight unless “good cause” is shown to the contrary. ... “This Court has concluded ‘good cause’ exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” ... When the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ applies other factors for determining whether a claimant is “disabled,” such as the length of treatment, the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the relationship, as well as the supportability of the opinion, its consistency with other evidence and the specialization of the physician. ... If the ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, “[t]he 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) requires controlling weight for a treating medical source’s opinion 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.

D'Angelo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-01-22(d)(2)

The agency regulations provide that if the Commissioner finds that a treating medical source’s opinion on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.”

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 the ALJ to assess treating physicians’ opinions against the record as a whole and permits less than controlling weight when an opinion is inconsistent with the medical evidence.

Travis v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2007-02-28(d)(2)

The ALJ is required to assess the record as a whole to determine whether treating physicians’ opinions are inconsistent with substantial evidence on the record. ... “A treating physician’s opinion is generally given controlling weight, but is not inherently entitled to it.” ... An ALJ may elect under certain circumstances not to give controlling weight to treating doctors opinions. ... If the doctor’s opinion is “inconsistent with or contrary to the medical evidence as a whole, the ALJ can accord it less weight.”

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

Pirtle v. Michael J. Astrue, 1 Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2007-03-15(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is due “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] record.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Gonzalez v. Barnhart · filed 2007-03-29(d)(2)

The ALJ is required to give the opinions of the claimant’s treating physicians controlling weight if the opinions are well-supported by the medical evidence in the record as a whole and are not inconsistent with substantial evidence in the record.

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) generally gives greater weight to opinions from sources who have examined or treated the claimant and requires an explanation for the weight assigned to medical opinions.

Herzog v. Saul · filed 2021-06-02(c)

First, absent some more compelling explanation, the decision to favor the opinion of the one doctor who never examined Herzog over the medical consensus of every treating and examining source ignores the settled principle grounded in law and logic that the opinions of those who have the greatest contact with the claimant ordinarily deserve greater weight and consideration than the views of someone who has never met, examined, or treated the claimant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight to apply the listed factors, including supportability and consistency, in deciding how much weight to give it.

Gray v. Saul · filed 2020-05-18(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(6)

However, the ALJ does not need to automatically accept a treating physician’s opinion. If an ALJ opts to not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ must apply the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii) and (c)(3)-(6) in determining how much weight to give the opinion, including supportability and consistency with the medical record as a whole.

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) requires an ALJ to explain why a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight and permits discounting it when it conflicts with objective medical evidence.

Collins v. Astrue · filed 2007-04-16(d)(2)

Finally, to the extent .Collins argues that the ALJ improperly rejected his treating physician’s opinion, this argument is without merit. In his decision, the ALJ set forth a detailed chronology of Dr. Araujo’s treatment of Coffins. (R. 17-18). The ALJ further explained, in compliance § 404.1527(d)(2), the basis for not giving Dr. Araujo’s assessment controlling weight. (R. 18). Because Dr. Araujo’s assessment conflicted with the objective evidence in the medical record, the ALJ’s finding in this regard is supported by substantial evidence.

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 regulation requires controlling weight for a treating physician’s opinion when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with the record’s other substantial evidence.

Leckenby v. Michael J. Astrue, 1 Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-05-17(d)(2)

The [social security] regulations provide that a treating physician’s opinion regarding an applicant’s impairment will be granted ‘controlling weight,’ provided 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 gives a treating physician’s medical opinion special weight, but opinions on legal conclusions such as the ability to work are reserved to the Commissioner.

Joseph v. Astrue · filed 2007-05-18(e)(1), (e)(3)

Nonetheless, even if the prescription note had been before the ALJ, under this court’s precedent Dr. Wilkinson’s opinion on Joseph’s ability to work would not have been entitled to any special weight. See Frank v. Barnhart, 326 F.3d 618, 620 (5th Cir. 2003); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(3). A treating physician’s medical opinion is entitled to special weight, but the determination of any legal conclusions (such as the ability to work) are reserved to the Commissioner. Frank, 326 F.3d at 620; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). The presence of this particular prescription note does not diminish the substantial evidence supporting a finding of non-disability, nor is this prescription note determinative in the ALJ’s disability inquiry.

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).

Under § 404.1527(d)(2) and (e), the Commissioner may reject a conclusory treating physician opinion that is contradicted by substantial evidence and need not accept an opinion on the ultimate issue of disability.

West v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2007-07-05(d)(2), (e)

The [Commissioner], however, is not bound by treating physicians’ opinions, especially when there is substantial medical evidence to the contrary. ... This is not a specific, medically supported opinion on the nature and severity of West’s impairments; rather it is an assessment on the ultimate issue of whether West could continue to work with his medical condition. ... Moreover, because “the [ultimate] determination of disability is the prerogative of the [Commissioner], not the treating physician,” we need not accept Dr. Coburn’s opinion on this issue.

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 ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to assess whether it merits controlling weight and, if not, to apply the listed factors in deciding what lesser weight it deserves.

Romero v. Barnhart · filed 2007-07-24(d)(2)

In the first step of this analysis, the ALJ should consider whether the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003). If the answer to both these questions is “yes,” he must give the opinion controlling weight. See Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300. But even if he determines that the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must then consider whether the opinion should be rejected altogether, or assigned some lesser weight. He does this by applying the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927. See Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300.

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 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.

Aragon v. Barnhart · filed 2007-07-31(d)(2)

“Under Social Security Administration regulations, the opinion of a treating physician concerning the nature and extent of a claimant’s disability 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 claimant’s] case record.’” Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)); accord 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... But these concerns w ere not diagnoses, supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. Consequently, the A LJ did not err in evaluating Dr. Radecki’s opinions.

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, but permits an ALJ to discount an inconsistent or internally inconsistent opinion if the ALJ minimally explains why.

Schmidt v. Astrue · filed 2007-08-08(d)(2)

Normally, “[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.” ... An ALJ thus may discount a treating physician’s medical opinion if it the opinion “is inconsistent with the opinion of a consulting physician or when the treating physician’s opinion is internally inconsistent, as long as he minimally articulates his reasons for crediting or rejecting evidence of disability.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a well-supported treating physician's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, while an opinion not entitled to controlling weight ordinarily remains entitled to substantial weight.

Samons v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart · filed 2007-08-13(d)(2)

A treating physician's opinion "regarding an applicant's impairment will be granted controlling weight, provided 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." Even if the opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, it "should not ordinarily be disregarded and is entitled to substantial 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 well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Yensick v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-08-16(d)(2)

As a treating physician, Dr. Sepesky’s opinion should have been given controlling weight to the extent that her opinion was “well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and [was] not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence” in Yensick’s case. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 41.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight absent good cause, and recognizes the treating physician’s longitudinal treatment relationship as a reason for giving that opinion greater weight than one-time consultants.

McCants v. Astrue · filed 2007-03-29(d)(2)

Eleventh Circuit case law provides that controlling weight must be given to the opinion, diagnosis and medical evidence of a treating physician unless there is good cause to do otherwise. ... When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must clearly articulate his reasons, which must also be legally correct and supported by substantial evidence in the record. ... Given that Dr. Hudgens had treated Plaintiff over a three year period and had utilized a variety of treatments to address her knee problems, he was clearly better able., to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of her medical impairments and functional limitations flowing therefrom than consultants who examined her on one occasion: 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(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.

Williams v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-04-24(d)(2)

Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), the opinion of a treating physician as to the nature and severity of an impairment 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(d)(2) requires an ALJ rejecting a treating physician's opinion to perform a detailed analysis of that physician's views under the regulation's criteria when reliable medical evidence does not controvert the opinion.

Bedford v. Astrue · filed 2007-06-15(d)(2)

“[A]bsent reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant’s treating specialist, an ALJ may reject the opinion of the treating physician only if the ALJ performs a detailed analysis of the treating physician’s views under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires a treating source's opinion to receive controlling weight when it is supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with other substantial evidence.

Wilson v. Michael J. Astrue, etc. · filed 2007-07-19(d)(2)

It is well settled that a treating source's opinion is to be given controlling weight if the opinion is supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with other substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires the ALJ to assess whether a treating physician’s opinion is well supported and consistent with substantial evidence before deciding whether it receives controlling weight, then consider the regulatory factors if it does not.

Romero v. Astrue · filed 2007-07-24(d)(2)

In the first step of this analysis, the ALJ should consider whether the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. ... If the answer to both these questions is “yes,” he must give the opinion controlling weight. ... But even if he determines that the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must then consider whether the opinion should be rejected altogether, or assigned some lesser weight. He does this by applying the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

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).

A treating physician’s opinion gets controlling weight when it is well-supported by objective medical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Hodges v. Barnhart · filed 2007-09-06(d)(2)

If a treating physician’s opinion is well-supported by objective medical evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, the ALJ must afford it controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Hodges argues that the ALJ disregarded her treating physician’s opinion and gave controlling weight to the opinions of the State Agency physicians. This Court disagrees.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion substantial or considerable weight absent good cause, clearly explain any reduced weight, and consider the findings of non-examining agency consultants.

Good v. Astrue · filed 2007-09-12(d)(2), (f)(2)(i)

The testimony or opinion of a treating physician must be given substantial or considerable weight unless there is “good cause” not to. Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir. 1997); see also MacGregor v. Bowen, 786 F.2d 1050, 1053 (11th Cir. 1986); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). “‘Good cause’ exists where (1) the treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence, (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding, or (3) the treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with his own medical records.” Id. However, the ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so constitutes reversible error. ... Third, the ALJ was required to consider the findings of non-examining agency consultants, which also were inconsistent with Garcia’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i).

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) 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 consistent with other substantial evidence.

Pisciotta v. Astrue · filed 2007-09-13(d)(2)

When evaluating the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must follow a sequential analysis. In the first step of this analysis, he should consider whether the opinion is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with the other substantial evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the answer to both these questions is “yes,” he must give the opinion controlling weight. See id. But even if he determines that the treating physician's opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must then consider whether the opinion should be rejected altogether or assigned some lesser weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally gives controlling weight to opinions of treating physicians, but an ALJ need not give controlling weight to a physician’s assessment when other doctors were equally treating sources and some opinions were more recent.

Cruse v. Comm Social Security · filed 2007-09-24(d)(2)

In general, we have held that the opinions of treating physicians are entitled to controlling weight. See Walters v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 127 F.3d 525, 529-30 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1997)). ... From this evidence, we cannot say that the ALJ erred by not giving Dr. Gordon’s initial assessment, performed on January 11, 2003, controlling weight over the opinions, some more recent than Dr. Gordon’s, of the number of other doctors who were as much treating physicians as was Dr. Gordon.

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 only when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Shubert v. Astrue · filed 2007-09-26(d)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion only when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(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 treating physician's opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight to receive deference and be weighed using all the factors specified in the section.

Lingenfelter v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-04(d)(2)

Moreover, even if a treating physician's opinion "is no longer entitled to controlling weight" because there is "substantial evidence in the record" contradicting the opinion, id. at 632 (internal quotation marks omitted), the opinion is "still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all the factors provided in 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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is consistent with other substantial evidence.

Lasich v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-30(d)(2)

Additionally, the ALJ is required to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion only when it is consistent with other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Because there was conflicting evidence from a number of medical sources, the ALJ permissibly decided to credit the opinions of Drs. Grady, Otani, and Goyal.

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 medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, including when the opinion addresses residual functional capacity.

Oakes, Tonya v. Astrue, Michael J. · filed 2007-12-20(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to 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 record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... The treating-physician rule determines how the ALJ must weigh the opinion of the treating source. If the opinion of the treating physician is supported by acceptable medical evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, it must be given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... But here the ALJ asserted that the opinion of the treating physician—Dr. Chambers—was to be given “no special weight” because it concerned Oakes’s residual functional capacity. This understanding of the governing legal standard is wrong.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) allows an ALJ to give a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is supported by record medical findings, but permits rejection for good reasons such as substantial contradictory evidence.

Otts v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2007-10-05(d)(2)

While an ALJ may afford controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician that is supported by record medical findings, see Rosa v. Callahan, 168 F.3d at 78-79; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2), he may also reject such an opinion upon the identification of good reasons, such as substantial contradictory evidence in the record, see Halloran v. Barnhart, 362 F.3d at 32.

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).

A treating physician's opinion should receive controlling weight when it is well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Munday v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-29(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairments should be given controlling weight by the Commissioner if well supported by clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and if it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires controlling weight for a treating physician's opinion only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with substantial evidence.

Townsend v. Astrue · filed 2007-10-02(d)(2)

The ALJ is only required to give the opinion of a treating physician controlling weight if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.”

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) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to explain the reasons and consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Fisk v. Barnhart · filed 2007-11-09(d)(2)

The opinions of treating physicians generally receive considerable, though not always controlling, weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ must “give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [it] give[s] [a] treating source’s opinion.” Id. When an ALJ does not give controlling weight to a treating physician, the ALJ “must” consider a number of factors, including the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency with the record as a whole and any specialization of the treating source. Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ’s explanation “must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source’s medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.” Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5. When an ALJ fails to follow these procedural rules, we will reverse and remand unless the error is harmless. See Wilson, 378 F.3d at 547.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Michael v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-18(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.” ... Thus, I find the ALJ erred in giving no weight to exhibit 11F because it was prepared on behalf of plaintiffs counsel or because Dr. Iskander was not objective. I am not suggesting, however, that exhibit 11F is entitled to controlling weight; only that it should have been considered along with the other evidence in the record, and weighed according to the support (or lack thereof) by the medical findings and its consistency (or lack thereof) with other evidence.

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(d) requires an ALJ to assess the weight of a treating physician's opinion by applying the listed evaluation factors, even when the opinion concerns an issue reserved to the Commissioner.

Wade v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-23(d)

However, the ALJ was still required to assess the weight of Dr. Herndon’s opinion, applying the factors in § 404.1527(d). See SSR 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at *3 (“[O]pinions from any medical source on issues reserved to the Commissioner must never be ignored.”).

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) requires an ALJ to assess a treating physician’s opinion against the record as a whole and give it controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence.

Prenosil v. Astrue · filed 2008-01-31(d)(2)

An ALJ is required to “assess the record as a whole to determine whether treating physicians’ opinions are inconsistent with substantial evidence on the record.” ... The opinion of a treating physician: ... should not ordinarily be disregarded and is entitled to substantial weight. A treating physician’s opinion regarding an applicant’s impairment will be granted controlling weight, provided 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(d)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with the record; otherwise, the ALJ weighs it using specified factors.

Anderson v. SSA · filed 2008-02-04(d)(2)

A treating physician's opinion is entitled to 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(d)(2); see also Sitar v. Schweiker, 671 F.2d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1982) (balancing weight given treating physician against the entire record). If the treating physician's opinion is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ will consider all the evidence, including the results of consultant examinations, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), and will weigh the treating physician's opinion based on: (i) the length, nature and extent of treatment; (ii) how much the opinion is supported by objective medical findings (e.g. laboratory tests); and (iii) how consistent the opinion is with the entire record, among other factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1-6) (listing factors affecting weight given to medical evidence). ... Applying these factors to the final decision before me, it is apparent that the ALJ gave substantial weight to claimant's treating physicians, but simply reached the opposite result from what claimant wanted.

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 controlling weight for a well-supported treating-physician opinion that is consistent with substantial evidence and requires the ALJ to explain the weight assigned.

Ferguson v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-06(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 the medical findings and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record. ... “Medical evidence may be discounted if it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with other evidence.” ... Under the applicable regulations, the Social Security Administration is required to explain the weight it gives to the opinions of treating physicians. ... In conclusion, the ALJ adequately articulated his reasons regarding the weight he gave to the opinion of Dr. Toivonen.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the medical portions of a treating physician’s opinion about a claimant’s impairments, symptoms, prognosis, and functional restrictions even when the opinion also addresses disability or ability to work.

Stephens v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-07(d) and (a)(2)

The ALJ correctly notes that whether a claimant is disabled is an issue that is reserved to the Commissioner. However, the ALJ erred by failing to consider the remaining portions of Dr. Thigpen’s and Dr. Wilfong’s opinions. Under Social Security regulations, medical opinions are “statements from physicians ... that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of [the claimant’s] impairment(s), including [the claimant’s] symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what [the claimant] can still do despite impairment(s), and [his or her] physical or mental restrictions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(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). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) and (d)(5) identify a treating physician’s relationship with the claimant and a specialist’s expertise as characteristics deserving more weight, but the ALJ may still discount those opinions for stated reasons.

Berger v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-08(d)(2) & (d)(5)

Although Dr. Sakrison was Berger’s physician for some time and Dr. Paul was a neurosurgeon, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) & (d)(5) (listing these characteristics as deserving “more weight”), the ALJ showed that he was aware of the roles these doctors played in Berger’s treatment, but he nonetheless decided to discount their medical opinions for the reasons listed above. This was not error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) and (d)(5) identify a treating relationship and specialization as factors favoring more weight, but an ALJ may still discount those opinions for articulated reasons.

Berger, John v. Astrue, Michael J. · filed 2008-02-08(d)(2) & (d)(5)

Although Dr. Sakrison was Berger’s physician for some time and Dr. Paul was a neursurgeon, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) & (d)(5) (listing these characteristics as deserving “more weight”), the ALJ showed that he was aware of the roles these doctors played in Berger’s treatment, but he nonetheless decided to discount their medical opinions for the reasons listed above. This was not error.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to always give good reasons for the particular weight assigned to a treating physician’s evaluation.

Davis v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-19(d)(2)

In addition, “whether the ALJ grants a treating physician’s opinion substantial or little weight, the regulations also provide that the ALJ must ‘always give good reasons’ for the particular weight given to a treating physician’s evaluation.”

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).

A treating source’s opinion receives controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable evidence and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence; otherwise, the decisionmaker considers specified factors in weighing it.

Gladden v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-02-29(d)(2)

The “treating physician’s rule” is a series of regulations set forth by the Commissioner in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 detailing the weight to be accorded a treating physician’s opinion. Specifically, the Commissioner’s regulations 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 diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight. ... Further, the regulations specify that when controlling weight is not given a treating physician’s opinion (because it is not “well supported” by other medical evidence), the Court should consider the following factors in determining the weight to be given such an opinion: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence that supports the treating physician’s report; (4) how consistent the treating physician’s opinion is with the record as a whole; (5) the specialization of the physician in contrast to the condition being treated; and (6) any other factors which may be significant.

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) requires an ALJ to always give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion.

Barton v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-10(d)(2)

Whether the ALJ grants a treating physician's opinion substantial or little weight, the regulations provide that the ALJ must "always give good reasons" for the particular weight given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); Prosch v. Apfel, 201 F.3d 1010, 1012-13 (8th Cir.2000).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a rejected treating physician’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Singleton v. Astrue · filed 2008-03-31(d)(2)-(6)

If a treating physician’s opinion is rejected, the A.L.J. must consider such factors as the length of the treatment relationship, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the supportability of the opinion, the consistency of the opinion with the record evidence, any specialization of the opining physician and other factors the plaintiff raises, in determining how to weigh the physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) - (6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Franson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-04-11(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight if it is not “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” or is “inconsistent with the 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(d)(2) requires an ALJ to consider specified factors when deciding the weight to give a treating source's opinion, but failure to expressly refer to those factors may be harmless when the ALJ gives adequate, record-supported reasons.

Guinn v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-04-11(d)(2)

When the treating physician’s opinion does not deserve controlling weight, the ALJ must consider “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.” ... The ALJ’s failure to follow this procedural requirement may qualify as harmless error. ... Contrary to Plaintiffs argument, the ALJ provided adequate reasons for rejecting Dr. Bullard’s RFC. His decision was sufficiently clear that his failure to refer to the § 404.1527(d) factors was harmless.

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

When determining whether a claimant’s condition equals a listed impairment, the treating physician’s opinion must be considered but is not entitled to controlling weight.

Prange v. Astrue · filed 2008-02-13(e)(2)

Therefore, the ALJ was required to consider Dr. Branyas’s opinion; however, in determining whether a claimant’s condition equals a Listing impairment, a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(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). 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 the Commissioner to give a treating physician's opinion considerable weight unless good cause supports giving it less weight.

Stewart v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-10(d)(2)

The opinion of a claimant’s treating physician must be accorded considerable weight by the Commissioner unless good cause is shown to the contrary.

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)(i) directs the adjudicator to consider the type and frequency of contact between a medical source and claimant when weighing a treating-source opinion.

Harrison v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-19(c)(2)(i)

The ALJ’s first reason for discounting Dr. Roberts’ opinion was that she saw the claimant on a “limited, on-and-off basis, for seven months.” (AR 27.) However, the ALJ should consider the type and frequency of the contact between the medical source and the claimant. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i). The record reflects Petitioner was referred to Dr. Roberts by Dr. Halversen, had his first appointment on July 31, 2015, and saw Dr. Roberts a total of eight times over the course of seven months. (AR 551.) It is not clear to the Court how eight visits over the course of seven months equates to a “limited, on-and-off basis.”13 The ALJ failed to provide any explanation regarding the support for her conclusion, nor is her conclusion supported by the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3) makes the length of the treatment relationship a factor in evaluating a treating source’s medical opinion.

Bradley v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-23(c)(3)

Although, as Plaintiff points out, Dr. Miller presumably had access to the earlier notes from Bradley’s nurse practitioner and other treatment notes, the fact that Dr. Miller was not actually treating or examining Bradley during much of the relevant period was a reasonable factor to consider. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3), 416.927(c)(3) (the “length of the treatment relationship” is one factor to be considered in evaluating a treating source’s opinion).