20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

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

Section 404.1527 calls for considering the treatment relationship, consistency, supporting evidence, specialty, and other factors when weighing an “other” medical source’s opinion.

Murphy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-24

In general, when weighing the opinion of an “other” medical source, an ALJ should consider: the length of time and frequency of Plaintiff’s visits with the source; the consistency of the source’s opinion with other evidence; the evidence and explanations supporting the source’s opinion; the source’s specialty; and any other factors that tend to support or refute the opinion. See Social Security Ruling 06-03p, 2006 WL 2329939, at *5 (Aug. 9, 2006); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527.

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 the listed factors in deciding how much weight the opinion deserves, but does not require the ALJ to recite each factor.

Sanchez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2019-09-25(c)

If the ALJ declines to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must consider a number of factors in determining how much weight the opinion is due, including the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the evidence in support of the opinion; the opinion’s consistency with the record as a whole; whether the opinion was from a specialist; and any other factors that “tend to support or contradict the medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ need not recite each factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to determine whether a treating source opinion deserves controlling weight and, if not, evaluate the listed factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Henderson v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-12(c)(2)-(6)

A treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight when an ALJ determines that the opinion is not well-supported by the medical evidence or is inconsistent with other substantial evidence. See id. §§ 404.1527(c)(2), 416.927(c)(2). If the treating source opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, “the ALJ considers an array of factors to determine what weight to grant the opinion.” ... These factors include: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the evidence in support of the medical opinion; (4) the consistency of the medical opinion with the record as a whole; (5) the medical source’s specialty; and (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(2)-(6), 416.927(c)(2)-(6). An ALJ need not expressly address each factor but must provide “good reasons” for the weight assigned to the treating source’s opinion. ... The ALJ here relied on only one of the listed criteria — that the functional limitations set by Dr. DiVasta were not supported by other evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Vy v. Saul · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

If a treating source’s opinions on the issues of the nature and severity of a claimant’s impairments are well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and are not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record, the ALJ must give it “controlling weight.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 generally requires an ALJ to give greater weight to treating-source opinions and controlling weight when a treating physician's opinion is well-supported and consistent with the substantial evidence.

Snead v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-23(c)(2)

But an ALJ generally should give greater weight to the medical opinions of treating sources—physicians, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists who have “ongoing treatment relationship[s]” with the claimant—because those medical professionals are most able to “provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairments.” See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2), (c)(2); see also Genier v. Astrue, 298 Fed. App’x 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order). In fact, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported [sic] by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must evaluate it using the listed treatment, support, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors, while providing good cause for rejecting it.

Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-03-24(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). “However, the ALJ is not required to explicitly address each of those factors. Rather, the ALJ must provide ‘good cause’ for rejecting a treating physician’s medical opinions.” Lawton v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 431 F. App’x 830, 833 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Vaught v. Commissioner · filed 2020-03-20(c)(2)

The social security regulations require that an ALJ give the opinion of a treating source controlling weight if he finds the opinion “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.”10 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 (4th Cir. 2001); Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 269 (4th Cir. 2017) (noting that “the ALJ is supposed to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent, or inconsistent, with other evidence in the record in deciding what weight to accord the opinion”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the regulatory factors, including how much relevant evidence supports the opinion.

Beauprez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-03-31(c)(3)

The ALJ conducted a faulty § 404.1527(c)(3) analysis when he found that the opinions did not cite objective medical findings, and did not consider any other § 404.1527(c) factor.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion must be weighed using the regulatory factors and the adjudicator must give sufficiently specific good reasons for the weight assigned.

Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-03(c)(2)-(6)

Treating-source opinions must be given “controlling weight” if: (1) the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques”; and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” See 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2); Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *2-3 (Soc. Sec. Admin. July 2, 1996). If the opinion of the treating doctor does not meet these “controlling weight” criteria, this does not mean that the opinion must be rejected; rather, it “may still be entitled to deference and be adopted by the adjudicator.” Soc. Sec. Rul. No. 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188 at *1. If the Commissioner does not give a treating-source opinion controlling weight, then the opinion is weighed based on factors such as the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the treating source’s area of specialty, and the degree to which the opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and is supported by relevant evidence. 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c)(2)-(6); Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 376. ... This was sufficient to comply with the regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires opinion evidence from other sources to be evaluated using factors including the treatment relationship, consistency, supporting evidence, explanation, specialization, and other relevant factors.

Rhodes v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-03-05(c)

The factors for evaluating opinion evidence from “other sources” include: (i) the length of the relationship and frequency of contact; (ii) whether the opinion is consistent with other evidence; (iii) the extent the source provides relevant supporting evidence; (iv) how well the source's opinion is explained; (v) whether claimant's impairment is related to a source's specialty or area of expertise; and (vi) any other supporting or refuting factors. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 06–03p, at *4–5; 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), 416.927(c) (these regulations applicable to claims filed prior to March 27, 2017). ... The ALJ noted at the outset of step four that he considered the opinion evidence in accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 but failed to perform the proper analysis in his one-sentence rejection of her opinion. ... Although the ALJ’s decision need not include an explicit discussion of each factor, the record must reflect that the ALJ considered every factor in the weight calculation.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ weighing a treating-source medical opinion to consider the listed regulatory factors, but failing to explicitly discuss every factor alone does not require remand; the ALJ must still adequately explain the weight assigned.

Contreras, Juan v. Saul, Andrew · filed 2020-04-15(c)

Contreras is right that the ALJ did not explicitly address these factors, but failure to explicitly discuss each regulatory factor is typically not a stand-alone basis for remand. ... More substantively, Contreras contends that the reasons the ALJ gave for discounting Kalra’s opinion weren’t supported by the record evidence. The court agrees in part: the ALJ failed to adequately justify his decision to discount Kalra’s opinion about the frequency of Contreras’s pancreatic pain attacks.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to provide good, sufficiently specific reasons for the weight assigned to a treating source's opinion.

Favazzo v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-14(c)(2)

The court finds that the decision does provide good reasons for the weight assigned to the opinions, and is sufficiently specific to make clear the weight assigned to the treating source’s opinion, and the reasons for that weight.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) gives a treating-source opinion controlling weight only when it is well supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise the ALJ must weigh it using the regulatory factors, without an exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis.

Boone v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-15(c)

As explained above, the treating physician doctrine requires opinions from treating physicians to be given controlling weight when the opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record.” ... But even when a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, an ALJ must still determine how much weight to assign to the opinion by applying ... specific factors set forth in the governing regulations. ... Although the ALJ is directed to consider the factors, the ALJ is not required to provide an “exhaustive factor-by-factor analysis” in her decision.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When evaluating a treating physician’s opinion, an ALJ need not expressly discuss every regulatory factor, but the decision must indicate that the factors were considered.

Rodriguez v. Berryhill · filed 2020-05-07(c)(2)-(6)

An ALJ “is not required to make an express statement that she considered all the factors outlined” in that regulation but rather, her decision need only contain some indication that the factors were properly considered. See Kelly v. Berryhill, 732 F. App’x 558, 562 n.4 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, the ALJ’s opinion contained adequate indications that the regulatory factors were considered in assessing the treating physician’s opinion. The ALJ twice acknowledged Dr. Zaret’s status as Plaintiff’s primary care treating physician. (AR 36, 37.) More importantly, the ALJ explained the supportability and consistency of Dr. Zaret’s opinion compared to the medical record as a whole. (AR 35-37.) Accordingly, reversal is not warranted on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) does not require an ALJ to discuss every treating-source factor separately if the decision as a whole provides the required procedural safeguards and good reasons for the weight assigned.

Gabbard v. Social Security · filed 2020-05-08(c)(2)-(6)

However, the ALJ need not necessarily address each of these factors in order to provide the procedural safeguards required. ... If the ALJ has “met the goal” of providing the “procedural safeguards” of the six factor rule, the error is harmless. ... Therefore, read as a whole, the ALJ’s decision met the procedural safeguards of the treating physician rule.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence, but permits rejection when contradictory medical evidence supports that decision.

Vonnie Alto v. Saul · filed 2020-07-22(c)(2)

Because Dr. Long and Dr. Siemienczuk treated Alto, their opinions are entitled to controlling weight if they are “not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusions that Dr. Long’s and Dr. Siemienczuk’s opinions were unsupported by the medical evidence and contradicted by the opinions of other doctors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires consideration of the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors when weighing a treating-source opinion, but does not require express discussion of every factor.

Franco v. Colvin · filed 2020-07-27(c)(2)(i)-(ii),(c)(3)-(c)(6)

An ALJ must consider several factors when deciding whether to override a treating source's opinion. Selian v. Astrue, 708 F.3d 409, 418 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing Burgess v. Astrue, 537 F.3d 117, 129 (2d Cir. 2008)). These factors include "(1) the frequen[c]y, length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) the amount of medical evidence supporting the opinion; (3) the consistency of the opinion with the remaining medical evidence; and (4) whether the physician is a specialist." Id.; see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i)-(ii),(c)(3)-(c)(6) (factors to be considered when not giving treating source's medical opinion controlling weight include (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the extent to which the medical source provides relevant evidence to support a medical opinion; (4) the extent to which the medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole; (5) whether the medical opinion is given by a specialist; and (6) other factors which may be brought to the attention of the ALJ). The failure to consider expressly each factor, however, does not amount to legal error per se. ... Here, the ALJ's decision to find Dr. Liu's assessments unpersuasive is entitled to deference, as it provides good reasons and is supported by substantial evidence. ... In sum, the ALJ applied the proper legal standard in evaluating Dr. Liu's opinion, and his decision to decline to assign it controlling weight is supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Simmons v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-07-30(c)(2)

Closely associated is “‘the good reasons rule,’ which ‘require[s] the ALJ to always give good reasons ... for the weight given to the claimant’s treating source opinion.’” Dixon, 2016 WL 860695, at *4 (alterations in original) (quoting Blakley v. Comm’r Of Soc. Sec., 581 F.3d 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2009)); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). To meet the “good reasons” standard, the ALJ’s determination “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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician's opinion to consider the relevant factors, but the decision need not expressly discuss each factor if it clearly states the weight assigned and the reasons for that weight.

Avila v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-07(c)

The factors in the regulation are: (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, including the treatment provided and the kind of examination or testing performed; (3) the degree to which the physician’s opinion is supported by relevant evidence; (4) consistency between the opinion and the record as a whole; (5) whether or not the physician is a specialist in the area upon which an opinion is rendered; and (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. Id. at 1331. ... Ms. Avila’s only argument for reversal is that the ALJ did not engage in a proper treating physician analysis, neither explicitly considering whether to give the opinion controlling weight at the first step, nor “go[ing] through the factors from 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c)” at the second step. Doc. 18 at 11. The Court rejects this argument. ... Similarly, 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). Rather, the decision need only 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527's treating-source and controlling-weight rules do not apply to opinions from psychologists who performed a one-time evaluation rather than serving as treating physicians.

JEFFERSON v. BERRYHILL · filed 2020-08-31

To the extent she means the February 17, 2016 neuropsychological evaluation conducted by psychologists Martin Meyer, Ph.D. and Julie Uran, Ph.D., Drs. Uran and Meyer were not Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Rather, they conducted a one-time neuropsychological examination of Plaintiff for the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. [ECF No. 9-15 (Ex. 1F)]. Therefore, the treating physician doctrine and associated rules regarding controlling weight do not apply to their opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) and (5) require consideration of the treating relationship and the source's specialization, generally giving greater weight to treating and specialist opinions.

Gilliland v. Saul · filed 2020-09-11(c)(2), (5)

When assessing the limitations from Gilliland’s fibromyalgia, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred by discounting the opinion of treating rheumatologist Dr. Mona Amin without considering Dr. Amin’s treating relationship or specialization. See Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 664 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A] rheumatologist’s specialized knowledge is particularly important with respect to . . . fibromyalgia.”); Trevizo v. Berryhill, 871 F.3d 664, 676 (9th Cir. 2017) (ALJ’s failure to consider the requisite factors “constitutes reversible legal error”); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (5) (generally, a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to greater weight than an opinion from a non-treating source, and a specialist’s opinion is entitled to greater weight than an opinion from a non-specialist).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) gives a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight and otherwise requires weighing it using factors including the treatment relationship and consistency with the record.

Long v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-09-16(c)(2), (5)

The medical opinion of a claimant’s treating provider is given “controlling weight” so long as it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2); see also Revels v. Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648, 654 (9th Cir. 2017). 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(c) requires an ALJ to perform a six-factor analysis before rejecting a treating physician’s opinions when they are supported by the record and not controverted by first-hand medical evidence.

Hawley v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration · filed 2020-11-06(c)(1)-(6)

Because Dr. Chen’s opinions were not controverted by first-hand medical evidence, and were supported by the record, the ALJ was required to perform the six-factor analysis of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1)-(6) before rejecting those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when evaluating a treating source's opinion, but does not require expressly discussing each factor when the ALJ gives good reasons for the weight assigned.

Vazquez v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-11-12(c)

The ALJ’s decision reflects a consideration of the factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) because it included a detailed recitation of the evidence from Dr. López with consideration of Plaintiff’s treatment relationship, the number of visits, and how the evidence from Dr. López compared to the other record evidence. ... “where the ALJ provides good reasons, he is not required to expressly address each of the factors set forth in § 404.1527(c).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires good reasons for the weight assigned to treating-source opinions, but an ALJ need not expressly discuss every listed factor when the analysis addresses relevant factors supporting the weight given.

Furey v. Saul · filed 2020-11-13(c)(2)

Because ALJ Klibaner addressed at least three of the § 404.1527(c)(2) factors—examining relationship, treating relationship, and consistency with the record—he was not required to further detail his analysis or reasons for giving the opinions of Dr. Kleinman and Dr. Acampora less weight. ... His analysis of the relevant evidence, including the treating sources’ opinions, sets forth “good reason” for rejecting those opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a medical opinion to consider the regulatory factors and minimally articulate reasoning supported by the record, although the ALJ need not explicitly discuss and weigh every factor.

Stevenson v. Saul · filed 2021-02-02(c)

The court made that finding in the context of the prior ALJ’s failure to apply the required regulatory framework for evaluating a medical opinion. (Id. at 1131-38 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)).) The newly assigned ALJ considered certain of the Section 1527(c) factors, such as the nature and extent of the treating physician’s relationship with the claimant and the physician’s specialty. (Id. at 980.) Nevertheless, the ALJ largely ignored evidence that supported Dr. Sandhu’s opinions. (See id. at 1133-35); see also Lambert v. Berryhill, 896 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 2018). While an ALJ “need not explicitly discuss and weigh each factor” under Section 1527(c), she must minimally articulate her reasoning in a manner supported by the record. See Collins v. Berryhill, 743 Fed. Appx. 21, 25 (7th Cir. 2018). Here the ALJ’s analysis was undercut by her failure to address evidence that conflicted with her assessment. See Gerstner, 879 F.3d at 261-62.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A treating-source opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight must still be given deference and weighed under the regulatory factors, with specific legitimate reasons required for complete rejection.

Fowler v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2021-02-11(c)(2)-(6)

If the treating source opinion is not given controlling weight, the inquiry does not end. Id. A treating source opinion is “still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527 and 416.927.” Id. ... After considering the factors, the ALJ must give reasons in the decision for the weight he gives the treating source opinion. Id. 350 F.3d at 1301. “Finally, if the ALJ rejects the opinion completely, he must then give ‘specific, legitimate reasons’ for doing so.” Id. ... Thus, the ALJ did not discount Dr. Buhr’s opinion because the record contained no objective evidence of fibromyalgia, but because the opinion was inconsistent with only routine treatment, and with physical examinations which did not show great functional limitations and because the opined limitations are excessive in light of the evidence. These are specific legitimate reasons for discounting Dr. Buhr’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When a treating source’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must consider the factors in § 404.1527 in deciding how much weight to give it; the ALJ need not discuss every factor explicitly but must give a sufficiently specific explanation with good reasons supported by substantial evidence.

Kartchner v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-08-26(c)

If the treating source’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must next consider several factors in determining how much weight to assign the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). Those factors are as follows: “(1) Length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination…; (2) Nature and extent of the treatment relationship…; (3) Supportability…; (4) Consistency…; (5) Specialization…; and (6) Other factors….” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(i)(ii), (c)(3)-(c)(6) (the “§ 404.1527 factors”); see also Watkins v. Barnhart, 350 F.3d 1297, 1300-01 (10th Cir. 2003). An ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor. Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007). However, the ALJ must at least provide an explanation that is “sufficiently specific to [be] clear to any subsequent reviewers.” Langley, 373 F.3d at 1119 (citation omitted). Additionally, “[a]n ALJ is not entitled to pick and choose through an uncontradicted medical opinion, taking only the parts that are favorable to a finding of nondisability.” Haga v. Astrue, 482 F.3d 1205, 1208 (10th Cir. 2007)). Further, the ALJ must “always give good reasons in [the]…decision for the weight [given to a] treating source’s medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2). Finally, the ALJ’s stated reasons for the assigned weight must be supported by substantial evidence. See Doyal, 331 F.3d at 764. Substantial evidence requires that an ALJ discuss uncontroverted evidence she chooses not to rely on, significantly probative evidence she rejected, and the evidence supporting her decision. Clifton v. Chater, 79 F.3d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(5) requires an ALJ weighing a treating physician's opinion to consider the treatment relationship, treatment extent, supportability, consistency with the record, and the physician's specialization.

PERRIN v. SAUL · filed 2020-11-25(c)(2)-(5)

If the ALJ decides not to give controlling weight to a treating physician's opinion, he is "not permitted simply to discard it." ... Rather, the ALJ is required by regulation to consider the following factors in deciding how much weight to give the opinion: • the "[l]ength of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination," • the "[n]ature and extent of the treatment relationship," • "[s]upportability," • consistency "with the record as a whole," and • whether the treating physician was a specialist in the relevant area. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5); Scrogham, 765 F.3d at 697.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to consider a non-exclusive list of factors in determining the weight of the medical opinions of record.

Read v. Saul · filed 2021-03-16(c)

If an AL] does not give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating ... source, the ALJ must consider a non-exclusive list of factors to determine the weight to be given all the medical opinions of record, including (1) examining relationship; (2) treatment relationship; (3) supportability of the source’s opinion; (4) consistency of the opinion with the record; and (5) specialization of the source.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a medical opinion, but does not require a mechanical recitation of every factor when the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.

Munson v. Saul · filed 2021-04-14(c)

When evaluating any opinion an ALJ is to consider the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) and §416.927(c). ... The Second Circuit does not, however, require a “slavish recitation of each and every factor [of 20 C.F.R. §§404.1527(c), 416.927(c)] where the ALJ’s reasoning and adherence to the regulation are clear.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to discuss every factor expressly, so long as the decision shows that the relevant factors were considered and adequately explains the weight assigned to the treating source's opinion.

DERCOLE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2021-04-14(c)

Although the ALJ did not specifically identify each factor [under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)], all relevant factors were considered throughout the lengthy, detailed opinion. ... Although the ALJ did not explicitly conduct a factor-by-factor analysis, he specifically considered, when explaining the weight assigned to Dr. Schneck’s opinions, the doctor’s examinations of Plaintiff and treatment regimen and also considered Dr. Schneck’s treating relationship with Plaintiff. See R. 18; 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c)(1), (2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 does not treat a function-by-function breakdown as a factor for determining the weight given to a treating-source medical opinion.

Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2021-08-09

But whether a medical source opinion is broken down into a function-by-function analysis is not one of the factors that the Commissioner considers when deciding the weight given to a treating source opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. And even more basically, if the lack of function-by-function analysis in a medical source’s opinion creates a gap in the record, the ALJ must fill that gap by recontacting the source, not simply disregard the opinion to the claimant’s detriment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a treating-source opinion to consider the treatment relationship and the opinion's consistency and supportability, but permits analyzing those factors without marching through a checklist.

Brosman v. Saul · filed 2021-10-01(c)

Moreover, the ALJ adequately accounted for the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) when declining to afford Dr. Jafry’s opinion controlling weight. As noted above, it is sufficient for an ALJ to analyze the factors, even if they do not systematically go through a checklist. Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308. The ALJ explicitly noted that Dr. Jafry had been treating Plaintiff since at least March of 2014 as well as her status as his psychiatrist. R. 679. The ALJ described the notes from Plaintiff’s visits with Dr. Jafry in depth, inherently acknowledging the extent and frequency of the treating relationship. As already discussed, the ALJ also considered the consistency and supportability of Dr. Jafry’s opinion with the record as a whole. R. 687-88.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating source’s well-supported, consistent opinion controlling weight and, otherwise, to weigh it using specified factors.

Burdick v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-01-20

An ALJ must, therefore, give controlling weight to the opinion of a treating source if: (1) the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques,” and (2) the opinion “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ affords less than controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ must still determine the weight it should be afforded. ... In doing so, the ALJ must consider the following factors: (1) length of the treatment relationship and frequency of the examination, (2) nature and extent of the treatment relationship, (3) supportability of the opinion, (4) consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, (5) the specialization of the treating source, and (6) other relevant factors.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating-source opinion to consider the listed factors, including the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, testing, consistency, and supportability.

Gonzalez v. Saul · filed 2022-02-18(c)

In this case, the ALJ has provided sufficient reasons for rejecting Dr. Rubinstein’s opinion after implicitly considering the factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. §404.1527(c) to the extent it was possible based on the record before her.

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 evaluate it using factors including the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency, specialization, and other relevant factors.

McPhail v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · filed 2022-03-01(c)

The Court agrees that the ALJ erred by failing to set forth specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence to assign little weight to Dr. Hatch’s opinion and failed to address the factors set out in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c), particularly the frequency of examination and the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider six listed factors when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion.

STERNKOPF v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-04-14(c)(1)–(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests performed, and the opinion’s consistency and supportability.

Aguilar v. Saul · filed 2022-08-10(c)

“If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the type of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” ... Here, the ALJ noted Dr. Banegas’ status as Claimant’s treating psychiatrist; discussed the “sporadic” nature of her treatment relationship with Claimant; discussed the type of test that Dr. Banegas performed;8 and expressly discussed the consistency and supportability of Dr. Banegas’ opinion. (R. 22-23). Thus, the ALJ properly evaluated Dr. Banegas’ opinion within the applicable regulatory framework.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating source's opinion to consider the treatment relationship, supporting evidence, consistency with the record, and the medical source's specialty.

Costa v. Saul · filed 2022-09-15(d)(2)(i), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5)

When an ALJ “does not credit the treating [source]’s opinion, he must apply the following factors in determining the import of the opinion: (1) knowledge of the claimant’s impairments based on length, nature, and extent of treatment; (2) evidence supporting the opinion; (3) whether the opinion is consistent with other evidence in the record; and/or (4) whether the opinion pertains to medical issues in the physician’s specialty.” ... The ALJ recognized Ms. Kassierer as an acceptable medical source, but found her opinion not persuasive because (1) she treated Plaintiff for a limited time;2 (2) her opinion lacked evidentiary support, “giving very little explanation at all/not citing supporting findings”; (3) it contained internal inconsistencies between mental function and the global assessment functioning score; and (4) it was inconsistent with the medical evidence as a whole that showed “normal objective findings aside from varying moods.” ... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Parker v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(c)

Should an ALJ decide that a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must still determine the appropriate weight to assign the opinion by considering several factors, including whether and to what extent the author of the opinion examined or treated the claimant, the supportability and consistency of the opinion, the author’s specialization, and any other factor that is relevant given the facts and circumstances of the case. Id.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

MARTINIQUE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY · filed 2022-11-01(c)(1)-(6)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to give adequate attention to each of its six factors, including the length, frequency, and nature of the treatment relationship.

Shelton v. Commissioner, Social Security · filed 2023-02-28(c)

The Fourth Circuit explicitly noted that “[m]ere acknowledgement of the regulation’s existence is insufficient,” “an ALJ should give adequate attention to each 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factor.” Id. at *7–8. As in Cannon, the ALJ here failed to adequately address each factor, particularly the length, nature, and extent of the treating relationship, in determining Dr. Adams’s opinion was entitled only to “little weight.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2)(i) and (ii) requires a treating physician’s opinion to be evaluated in light of the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, and the opinion remains entitled to deference even when it is not given controlling weight.

Milkovits v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-07-21(d)(2)(i), (ii)

The Social Security regulations make clear that a treating physician's reports are to be viewed in light of the entire treatment relationship. The weight accorded a treating physician's opinion depends on the length of the treatment relationship, the frequency of visits, and the nature and extent of treatment received. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i), (ii). Even when not accorded controlling weight, a treating physician's opinion is entitled to deference. ... The ALJ’s reasons for rejecting the opinions of treating medical professionals are not legally sufficient and not supported by substantial evidence. For example, he failed to take into account the length of the treatment relationship with Dr. Kim and the physical therapists, the number of visits the plaintiff made to them, and the nature and extent of their treatment. His rejection without more amounts to legal 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). 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 when assigning weight to a treating physician’s opinion.

Reed v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-21(d)(2)

If an ALJ rejects the opinions of a treating physician, the regulations require that the ALJ give “good reasons” for rejecting those opinions.

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 unless it is contrary to medical evidence or inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Sayles v. Astrue · filed 2008-04-28(d)(2)

By regulation, the ALJ was required to give “controlling weight” to this opinion from Ms. Sayles’s treating physician unless it was contrary to medical evidence or inconsistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

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

Section 404.1527(d) requires the Commissioner to consider specified factors when weighing a treating physician's opinion, and the ALJ must explain the reasons for the weight assigned.

Torres v. Astrue · filed 2008-05-05(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). Further, the ALJ must articulate his reasons for assigning the weight that he does accord to a treating physician’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d) makes the weight given to a treating physician’s opinion depend on its support in medical data and consistency with the record.

Bull v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2008-05-29(d)

The weight given a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of impairments depends on whether it is supported by sufficient medical data and is consistent with other evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d); ... If not contradicted by any substantial evidence, a treating physician’s medical opinions and diagnoses are afforded complete deference.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion, but the ALJ need not explicitly discuss every factor if the decision permits meaningful review.

Griner v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-12(d)

If the opinion is not well-supported, or if it is inconsistent with substantial record evidence, an ALJ must weigh the opinion against the factors of 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927 1 and give good reasons for the weight he ultimately assigns. ... “That the ALJ did not explicitly discuss all the factors of 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) [and § 416.927(d)] . . . does not prevent this court from according his decision meaningful review.”

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 physician’s opinion controlling weight to provide good reasons and consider factors including the treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization.

Kidd v. Commissioner of Social Securit · filed 2008-06-25(d)(2)

If the opinion of a treating physician is not accorded controlling weight, the ALJ must “give good reasons” for reaching a different conclusion. Id. When citing “good reasons,” the ALJ should consider certain factors outlined in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), “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[.]” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004). This requirement is a procedural safeguard ensuring that a claimant understands the disposition of his or her case, and that the ALJ provides a record upon which meaningful judicial review may obtain. Id.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give reasons when rejecting a treating physician's opinion.

Crysler v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-27(d)(2)

When a treating physician’s opinions are repudiated, the ALJ must provide reasons for the rejection. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an adjudicator to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using the regulation’s factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned when contradictory evidence exists.

Dunn v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-02(d)(2)

When a treating physician’s opinion is well supported and no evidence exists to contradict it, the administrative law judge has no basis on which to refuse to accept the opinion. ... When, however, the record contains well-supported contradictory evidence, the treating physician’s opinion “is just one more piece of evidence for the administrative law judge to weigh,” taking into consideration the various factors listed in the regulation. ... These factors include how often the treating physician has examined the claimant, whether the physician is a specialist in the condition claimed to be disabling, how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the evidence as a whole, and other factors. ... An administrative law judge must provide “good reasons” for the weight he gives a treating source opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned to a treating physician's opinion when the opinion is not given controlling weight.

Brescia v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-08(d)(2)

“[T]he ALJ must ‘give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision’ for the weight he ultimately assigns the opinion.” Id. at 1301 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)) (alteration omitted). ... But he did reject the functional limitations that Dr. Gardner set forth. In doing so, he indicated that Dr. Gardner’s opinion was based on Ms. Brescia’s subjective allegations, not medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. Thus, he gave a reason supported by the law, see Watkins, 350 F.3d at 1300, SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2, and the record, see Aplt. App. at 142-46. This issue is not a basis for reversal.

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 permits reduced weight when the opinion is unsupported or inconsistent with the record.

Brace v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-14(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 regulations require an ALJ to give “good reasons” for giving weight to statements provided by a treating physician. ... The regulations also require an ALJ to give “good reasons” for rejecting statements provided by a treating physician. ... “Although a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to great weight, it does not automatically control or obviate the need to evaluate the record as a whole.” ... The Court further finds that there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole which supports the ALJ’s determination to give little weight to the opinions of Drs. Broderick and Piburn because their conclusions that Brace is not capable of employment are not supported by objective medical evidence or medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give more weight to a treating physician's opinion, but does not require controlling weight when the opinion conflicts with other record evidence.

Costa v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-17(d)(2)

Under SSA regulations, an ALJ is ordinarily to give “more weight” to treating physicians’ opinions, “since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [a claimant’s] medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). That being said, the ALJ is not required to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling 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 not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Hernandez v. Astrue · filed 2008-05-13(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.

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 supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Elder v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-16(d)(2)

And a treating physician’s opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition is entitled to controlling weight if it is (1) supported by medical findings; and (2) consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to apply six factors when weighing a treating physician’s opinion that is not entitled to controlling weight.

Kirby v. Astrue · filed 2008-06-27(d)(2)

Second, if the ALJ determines the treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ must then determine how much weight to give the opinion by applying the six factors provided in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 and 416.927.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who declines to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified relationship, support, consistency, and specialization factors and explain the weight assigned.

Sachs v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-29(d)(2)

If an ALJ opts not to afford controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must consider: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the extent of the treatment relationship; (3) medical support for the opinion: (4) consistency; and (5) the physician’s specialization, along with any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ’s failure to apply these factors and provide reasons for the weight given to the treating physician’s report is reversible 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). 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 administrative law judge to accept a well-supported treating-source opinion when it is uncontradicted, weigh it with the regulatory factors when contradictory evidence exists, and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Kurth v. Astrue · filed 2008-07-30(d)(2)

Although an administrative law judge must consider all medical opinions of record, he is not bound by those opinions. ... When a treating physician’s opinion is well supported and no evidence exists to contradict it, the administrative law judge has no basis on which to refuse to accept the opinion. ... When, however, the record contains well-supported contradictory evidence, the treating physician’s opinion “is just one more piece of evidence for the administrative law judge to weigh,” taking into consideration the various factors listed in the regulation. ... An administrative law judge must provide “good reasons” for the weight he gives a treating source 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).

When deciding how much weight to give a treating physician's opinion, the Commissioner must always give good reasons in the notice of determination or decision.

Bowie v. Commissioner of Social SEC. · filed 2008-08-22(d)(2)

Section 404.1527(d)(2) promises claimants that the Commission will "always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision" for not giving weight to a treating physician's opinion in the context of a disability determination. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Despite this "good reasons" requirement, the ALJ in Wilson rejected the opinion of the claimant's treating physician without providing any explanation. Wilson, 378 F.3d at 545. This action violated the ALJ's clear explanatory obligation to "give good reasons" for rejecting a treating physician's opinion.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

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

Ketelboeter v. Astrue · filed 2008-12-15(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s injuries receives controlling weight only when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); ... Accordingly, if the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with the consulting physician’s opinion, internally inconsistent, or based solely on the patient’s subjective complaints, the ALJ may discount it.

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

Ketelboeter, Brian L v. Astrue, Michael J. · filed 2008-12-15(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s injuries receives controlling weight only when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Schmidt, 496 F.3d at 842; Skarbek v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 500, 503 (7th Cir. 2004).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives controlling weight to a well-supported, consistent treating-source opinion and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned when controlling weight is not given.

Sanabria v. Commr. of Social Security · filed 2008-12-18(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. ... Thus, under the regulations, the ALJ was not required to give the opinion of Dr. Martinez controlling weight. ... When the opinion of the treating physician is not given controlling weight, the ALJ must give good reasons for the weight given to the opinion. Id.

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 the Commissioner to weigh a treating physician’s opinion using specified factors and explain the weight assigned.

DE MATTIES v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-03(d)(2)

I find that the ALJ’s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. A treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence. ... If an ALJ opts not to afford controlling weight to the opinion of a treating physician, the ALJ must consider: (1) the examining relationship; (2) the extent of the treatment relationship; (3) medical support for the opinion: (4) consistency; and (5) the physician’s specialization, along with any other relevant factors. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An ALJ’s failure to apply these factors and provide reasons for the weight given to the treating physician’s report is reversible 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). 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 well-supported opinion controlling weight when it is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record.

Stanton v. Astrue · filed 2008-09-30(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 Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give good reasons in the decision for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion.

Conkle v. Astrue · filed 2008-10-28(d)(2)

Under the regulations, the agency rulings, and our case law, an ALJ must “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision” for the weight assigned to a treating physician’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also Social Security Ruling 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *5; Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003).

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 well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Medina v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-03(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the alleged impairment is entitled to controlling weight only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

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, including reasons for rejecting it.

Joyner v. Astrue · filed 2008-11-06(d)(2)

The regulations require an ALJ to give “good reasons” for giving weight to statements provided by a treating physician. ... The regulations also require an ALJ to give “good reasons” for rejecting statements provided by a treating physician. ... The Court also finds that the ALJ provided “good reasons” for rejecting Dr. Targoffs opinions. ... Accordingly, even if inconsistent conclusions could be drawn on this issue, the Court upholds the conclusions of the ALJ because they are supported by substantial evidence on the 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).

Section 404.1527 provides that a physician’s statement that a claimant is disabled does not control the disability determination, and a treating physician’s opinion controls only when well-supported and consistent with the record.

Griffin v. Commissioner Social Security · filed 2009-01-02(d)(2), (e)(1)

The determination of disability is a conclusion of law for the Commissioner; a physician’s statement that a claimant is “ ‘disabled’ or ‘unable to work’ does not mean that we will determine that [the claimant] is disabled.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1). A treating physician’s opinion is only controlling when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [claimant’s] record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Where, as here, the treating physician’s opinion is conclusory, lacking explanation, and inconsistent with other medical evidence in the record, the ALJ may choose not to defer to 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). 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 well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s record.

Bonanno v. Comm Social Security · filed 2009-01-14(d)(2)

Although the treating physician’s opinion is generally given controlling weight, that opinion is entitled to 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 claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... The ALJ determined that Dr. Mariano’s opinion did not warrant controlling weight because it was undermined by other medical evidence indicating that Bonanno’s condition improved within a short period of time after treatment. ... Thus, the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Mariano’s prognosis was incompatible with Bonanno’s rapid improvement was based on substantial evidence, and the ALJ correctly concluded at step three that Bonanno’s impairments did not meet or equal a listed impairment.

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 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; otherwise, it generally receives more weight than other medical opinions.

Hash v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-02-10(d)(2)-(6)

Under SSA regulations, the opinion of a treating physician like Dr. Koford is entitled to controlling weight if such opinion (1) “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and (2) “is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” Meece v. Barnhart, 192 F. App’x 456, 460 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Even if not entitled to controlling weight, the opinion of a treating physician is generally entitled to more weight than other medical opinions.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Robinson v. Astrue · filed 2009-02-11(d)(2)-(5)

If a treating physician’s opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ considers several factors in determining the weight to give the opinion, including: the length of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, nature and extent of the treatment relationship, the degree to which the opinion is supported by medical signs and laboratory findings, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and whether the opinion was from a specialist. 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). 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 when declining to give a treating source’s opinion controlling weight, but it does not require treating-source opinions to receive greater weight than consulting opinions.

Pacheco v. SSA · filed 2009-02-24(d)(2)

Generally, we give more weight to opinions from [the claimant’s] treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of [the claimant’s] medical impairment(s) . . . When we do not give the treating source’s opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed [in this section] in determining the weight to give the opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion. ... Importantly, however, there is no per se rule requiring the ALJ to give greater weight to the opinion of a treating physician than that of a consulting physician.

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 the treating opinion receives controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

Addison White, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-02-24(d)(2)

Under the “treating source” rule, the ALJ must “‘give good reasons’ for not giving weight to a treating physician in the context of a disability determination.” Wilson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). Pursuant to this rule, “if the opinion of the treating physician as to the nature and severity of a claimant’s conditions is ‘well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in [the] case record,’ then it will be accorded controlling weight.” Rogers, 486 F.3d at 242 (quoting Wilson, 378 F.3d at 544). “When the treating physician’s opinion is not controlling, the ALJ, in determining how much weight is appropriate, must consider a host of factors, including the length, frequency, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship; the supportability and consistency of the physician’s conclusions; the specialization of the physician; and any other relevant factors.”

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) identifies factors an ALJ may consider when deciding the weight of a treating physician’s opinion, and the ALJ need not discuss every factor if the reasons given permit meaningful review.

Marshall v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-10(d)

Relevant factors the ALJ may consider are set forth in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d) and 416.927(d). These factors include: ... (1) the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; ... (6) other factors brought to the ALJ’s attention which tend to support or contradict the opinion. ... Although the ALJ’s discussion could and should have been more thorough, we conclude that he stated adequate reasons for rejecting Dr. McCollum’s opinion. ... The ALJ’s failure to discuss each factor does not prevent us from conducting a meaningful review. ... As discussed above, Dr. McCollum’s decision lacked consistency with the record as a whole. Furthermore, because her opinion is “brief, conclusory, and unsupported by medical evidence,” we conclude the ALJ did not err in rejecting it.

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 unless substantial evidence contradicts it or it is not well-supported.

Salmon v. Astrue · filed 2009-01-16(d)(2)

The opinion of a treating physician is entitled to controlling weight unless contradicted by substantial evidence or not well-supported.

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 consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to consider specified treatment and opinion factors.

Moss v. Astrue · filed 2009-02-05(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion about the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment is normally given controlling weight so long as it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is consistent with substantial evidence in the record. ... If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.

Law changed since 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 a treating physician’s opinion to be denied controlling weight when it conflicts with other substantial evidence in the record.

Corson v. Astrue · filed 2009-03-04(d)

However, the opinion of a treating physician is not afforded controlling weight where the treating physician’s opinions contradict other substantial evidence in the record, such as the opinions of other medical experts.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise to weigh it using specified factors and give good reasons.

Lalime v. SSA · filed 2009-04-13(d)(2)-(6)

When making disability decisions, ALJs are required to give a treating physician’s opinion “controlling weight” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence” in the record. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... When a treating physician’s opinion is not given controlling weight, the ALJ is next required to determine the appropriate level of weight that it should be given. Factors to consider include the length of the treatment relationship and frequency of examination; the nature and extent of the relationship; the extent to which the evidence, and the physician’s explanation of that evidence, supports the opinion; the consistency of the opinion in the context of the record as a whole; whether the treating physician is a specialist in the field; and any other factors that tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). The factors are, no doubt, malleable, but ALJs are required to “always give good reasons” explaining the weight given to a particular physician’s opinion. Id. § 404.1527(d)(2).

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 in the case record.

McQueen v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-04-23(d)(2)

Although the opinion of a treating physician generally is given controlling weight, this controlling weight is only given when the opinion “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ noted that Dr. Elamir’s assessment was “not supported by any treatment notes nor provided with any reasonable explanation, and overall, is inconsistent with the evidence of record.” Based on the conclusory nature of Dr. Elamir’s diagnosis, the indecipherable notes in Dr. Elamir’s report, and the lack of supporting explanations for Dr. Elamir’s conclusions, the ALJ was entitled to give the diagnosis of McQueen’s treating physician less weight and to credit the opinions of other doctors.

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

Johnson v. Astrue · filed 2009-04-28(d)(2)

Although an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) must give deference to an applicant’s treating physician, that opinion is controlling only 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), 416.927(d)(2). The 2005 report, however, was not supported by any explicit findings and seems to contradict earlier reports by the same doctor.

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).

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

Pate-Fires v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-06(d)(2)

Social security regulations require an ALJ to give "controlling weight" to the opinion of a treating physician on the issue of the nature and severity of a claimant's impairment if that opinion "is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant's] case record." 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). The ALJ concluded Dr. Erby's opinion was not entitled to any controlling weight because: (1) it failed to address Pate-Fires's long history of substance abuse and non-compliance with recommended medications and treatment; and (2) it was contradicted by other evidence, notably the opinion of Dr. DeRoeck and the more recent opinions of Dr. Erby himself. First, the ALJ rejected Dr. Erby's opinion based on the ALJ's own opinion Pate-Fires had a long "history of substance abuse and non-compliance with recommended medications and treatment...." Add. at 10. This is an improper basis to reject a treating physician's opinion.

Law changed since Since March 27, 2017, § 404.1527 applies to claims filed before that date; § 404.1520c governs evaluation of medical opinions for later claims (82 FR 5844). The 2012 rule moved the former treating-source provisions from § 404.1527(d) to (c) (77 FR 10651).

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating physician’s well-supported and consistent medical opinion controlling weight.

Collins v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-07(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion regarding an applicant’s physical restrictions is entitled to controlling weight if it is well supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to assess the record as a whole when determining whether a treating physician’s opinion is entitled to controlling weight.

Cook v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-12(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. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not require the ALJ to apply its detailed treating-physician criteria when reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverts the treating specialist’s opinion.

Thibodeaux v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-14(d)(2)

Even if Roy’s opinion as to the severity of Thibodeaux’s symptoms should have been accorded greater weight as a specialist, Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 211 (5th Cir. 1994), the medical opinion of Jaffri was still reliable medical evidence from a treating or examining physician controverting the claimant’s treating specialist, meaning that the ALJ was not required to apply 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 an administrative law judge to weigh a treating physician's opinion using factors such as examination frequency, specialization, and consistency, give controlling weight when the opinion is well supported and uncontradicted, and provide good reasons for the weight assigned.

Goble v. Astrue · filed 2009-05-22(d)(2)

Although an administrative law judge must consider all medical opinions of record, she is not bound by those opinions. ... When a treating physician’s opinion is well supported and no evidence exists to contradict it, the administrative law judge has no basis on which to refuse to accept the opinion. ... 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). When, however, the record contains well supported contradictory evidence, the treating physician’s opinion “is just one more piece of evidence for the administrative law judge to weigh,” taking into consideration the various factors listed in the regulation. ... These factors include the number of times the treating physician has examined the claimant, whether the physician is a specialist in the allegedly disabling condition and how consistent the physician’s opinion is with the evidence as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). An administrative law judge must provide “good reasons” for the weight she gives a treating source opinion, ... and must base her decision on substantial evidence and not mere speculation.

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 only when it is well supported by acceptable clinical and laboratory techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence.

Clevenger v. Social Security Administration · filed 2009-06-04(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is due controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), but an ALJ need not accept the opinion if it does not meet those criteria. ... We conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision not to follow Dr. Carter’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation gives a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well supported and consistent with the record, but permits the ALJ to reject it when those conditions are unmet.

Clevenger v. SSA · filed 2009-06-04(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is due controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2), but an ALJ need not accept the opinion if it does not meet those criteria.

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 controlling weight to a treating source’s opinion 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.

Blanchette v. SSA · filed 2009-06-09(d)(2)

Moreover, “[i]f [the Commissioner] find[s] that a treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of [a claimant’s] impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record, [the Commissioner] will give it controlling weight.” ... Here, the ALJ correctly determined that D r . Van der Laan’s opinion was inconsistent with those of Drs. Nault and Gupta. That supports the ALJ’s decision to diminish the weight he gave Dr. Van der Laan’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404 1527(d)(4).

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 a well-supported and consistent treating-source opinion controlling weight, otherwise weigh it using specified factors and explain any reduced weight, while opinions on the ultimate disability determination receive no special treating-source significance because that determination is reserved to the Commissioner.

Shird v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-10(d), (d)(2), (e)

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). ... When a treating physician’s opinion does not warrant controlling weight, the ALJ must nevertheless weigh the medical opinion based on the (1) length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination; (2) the nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (3) the medical evidence supporting the opinion; (4) consistency with the record as a whole; (5) specialization in the medical issues at issue; (6) other factors which tend to support or contradict the opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d). ... The ALJ is required to review all of the medical findings and other evidence that supports a medical source’s statement that a claimant is disabled. However, the ALJ is responsible for making the ultimate determination about whether a claimant meets the statutory definition of disability. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e). The ALJ is not required to give any special significance to the status of a physician as treating or non-treating in weighing an opinion on whether the claimant meets a listed impairment, a claimant’s residual functional capacity (20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545 and 404.1546), or the application of vocational factors because that ultimate determination is the providence of the Commissioner. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when supported by objective medical evidence and consistent with other substantial evidence, and to explain its rejection by identifying conflicting objective medical evidence.

Nocks v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-15(d)(2)

As plaintiffs treating physician, Hosny’s opinion is entitled to special significance and, when supported by objective medical evidence of record and consistent with other substantial evidence of record, is entitled to controlling weight. ... The ALJ cannot disregard the opinion of a treating physician without explaining the reasoning for rejecting the opinion and referencing objective medical evidence conflicting with 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). 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 not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.

Rupard v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-16(d)(2)

The opinions of a treating physician are entitled to controlling weight where the physician’s opinion on the issues of 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 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 give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Brihn v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-16(d)(2)

An ALJ must give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion “only when it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is consistent with substantial evidence in the record.” Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); SSR 96-2p.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ to give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the substantial evidence.

McClean v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-30(d)(2)

As mentioned above, the opinion of the treating physician must 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(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) gives a treating source's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and not inconsistent with substantial evidence; otherwise, the opinion is weighed using specified factors, and the Commissioner must give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Letson v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-17(d)(2)

When a treating source's opinion is not controlling, it is weighed by the same factors as any other medical opinion: the examining relationship, the treatment relationship, supporting explanations, consistency, specialization, and other factors. ... The Commissioner "will always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight [given to the] treating source's opinion." ... In the instant case, the ALJ determined to give Dr. Crow's opinions neither controlling weight nor much deference because his opinions were not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. ... Thus, the ALJ did not err in according Dr. Crow's opinions little weight.

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 supported by medical findings and consistent with substantial evidence in the record.

Nicholson v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-18(d)(2)

The regulations require that the ALJ give opinions by treating physicians controlling weight, but only if the opinions are supported by medical findings and consistent 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).

When a treating physician's opinion is given controlling weight, the ALJ need not perform a detailed analysis of the factors in § 404.1527(d).

Dominguez-Herrera v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-22(d)

Moreover, because these treating physicians’ opinions were given controlling weight, the ALJ was not required to perform a detailed analysis of their views under the criteria set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors in deciding the weight it deserves.

Wilson v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-03(d)(2)

Where an ALJ elects not to accord controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, he “must consider various ‘factors’ to determine how much weight to give to the opinion[,]” Halloran, 362 F.3d at 32 (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)), such as “(i) the frequency of examination and the length, nature and extent of the treatment relationship; (ii) the evidence in support of the treating physician’s opinion; (iii) the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole; (iv) whether the opinion is from a specialist; and (v) other factors brought to the Social Security Administration’s attention that tend to support or contradict the opinion.’ ” Id. (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an adjudicator who declines to give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to consider specified factors, including the treatment relationship, evidentiary support, specialization, consistency, and other relevant factors.

Nasca v. Colvin · filed 2016-10-27(d)

Because the ALJ elected not to give any of the treating opinions controlling weight, he was required to consider several factors in determining how much weight the opinions should receive. Those factors include the frequency of examination and the length and nature of the treating doctor’s relationship with the patient, the extent to which medical evidence supports the doctor’s opinion, whether the doctor is a specialist, the consistency of his opinion with the rest of the medical record, and any other factors which tend to support or contradict the treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d), 416.927(d).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires the adjudicator to state the weight given to a treating physician's opinion and discuss the listed weighting factors; failing to do so is legal error warranting remand.

Preston v. Berryhill · filed 2017-06-05(c)(2)-(6)

Although the hearing officer was not obligated to place controlling weight on Dr. Jobson’s reports, the hearing officer was obligated to specify the weight given to Dr. Jobson’s opinion and the reasons for such weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6). In describing that rationale, the hearing officer must make reference to the various factors described in the rule. Id. Failure to discuss those factors is legal error warranting remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to evaluate it using the listed factors and explain the rationale for the weight assigned.

Welch v. Colvin · filed 2018-04-05(c)(2)

If the ALJ does not give the treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the ALJ cannot simply disregard it without further evaluation. O’Neill v. Colvin, No. 13 C 50062, 2014 WL 7051730, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2014) (citing Campbell, 627 F.3d at 308). Instead the ALJ must specifically determine what weight, if any, the opinion should be given. Id. To make this determination, the ALJ must apply the checklist of factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ evaluating a treating physician’s opinion to consider the regulatory factors relevant to the weight assigned, including the treatment relationship, the source’s expertise, consistency with the record, and supporting evidence.

Rainey v. Berryhill · filed 2018-04-23(c)(2)-(5)

The ALJ does not explain why he discounted Dr. Rosenstein’s opinion, and he fails to address the factors identified by the regulations to determine how much weight to give a treating physician’s opinion. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(5) (stating relevant factors include whether medical source examined claimant, length of treatment relationship, medical source’s expertise, the opinion’s consistency with the record, and evidence the medical source provides supporting their opinion).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ who does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialty, tests performed, and the opinion’s consistency and supportability.

McNeal v. Berryhill · filed 2018-03-21(c)

“If an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, the regulations require the ALJ to consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to explicitly consider and address the listed factors when re-evaluating and reweighing a treating physician's opinions.

Aksoy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-01-28(c)

On remand the ALJ is required to re-evaluate and reweigh Dr. Kaymakcalan’s opinions based on a proper interpretation of their contents and by explicitly considering and addressing the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to consider the listed factors when weighing a treating-source opinion but does not require an explicit factor-by-factor discussion if the ALJ explains the reasoning and weight assigned.

Dzafic v. Berryhill · filed 2019-09-16(c)

Although the ALJ did not explicitly discuss all of the factors listed in § 404.1527(c) in evaluating Dr. Farzana’s opinion, he was not required to do so. See Nishke v. Astrue, 878 F.Supp.2d 958, 984 (E.D. Mo. 2012) (ALJ’s failure to perform a factor-by-factor analysis of the 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors was not erroneous where the ALJ “stated that he had considered those factors and explained his rationale in a manner that allows the [court] to follow his line of reasoning, including stating the amount of weight given to this evidence”); Derda v. Astrue, No. 4:09-CV-01847 AGF, 2011 WL 1304909, at *10 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2011) (“While an ALJ must consider all of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527[c], he need not explicitly address each of the factors”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ to weigh all medical opinions using factors including examination, treatment relationship, supportability, consistency, and specialization when a treating opinion is not given controlling weight.

Court v. Saul · filed 2019-09-16(c)

If the ALJ determines that a treating physician’s opinion should not be considered controlling, the ALJ must then analyze and weigh all of the medical opinions in the record, taking into account the following non-exclusive list: (1) whether the eayecian has examined the applicant, (2) the treatment relationship between the physician and the applicant, (3) the supportability of the physician’s opinion, (4) the consistency of the opinion with the record, and (5) whether the physician is a specialist. Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 654 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) does not require an ALJ to explicitly address every listed factor when evaluating a medical opinion, so long as the decision adequately explains the weight assigned and reasons for it.

Smith v. Saul · filed 2019-09-30(c)

An ALJ need not address every regulatory factor in evaluating a medical opinion. ... Neither the length of treatment nor Dr. Cotter’s specialty were pertinent to the reasons the ALJ decided not to give his opinion controlling weight, and the ALJ did not commit legal error in failing to explicitly address them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2)-(6) requires an ALJ weighing a treating practitioner’s opinion to consider the treatment relationship, nature and extent of treatment, consistency, specialization, and other applicable factors.

Lacy v. Berryhill · filed 2019-10-01(c)(2)-(6)

This explanation is insufficient, because in determining the weight to give a treating practitioner’s opinion the ALJ must consider the factors in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). These factors include the practitioner’s relationship with the plaintiff, the nature and extent of his treatment, the consistency of his treatment and his area of specialization. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)-(6).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ who does not give a treating source's opinion controlling weight to consider the treatment relationship, examination frequency, specialization, testing, consistency, and supportability, and explicit failure to apply those factors can warrant remand.

Pryor v. Saul · filed 2019-10-08(c)

Because the ALJ did not give controlling weight to Dr. Hentati’s opinions, he had to “consider the length, nature, and extent of the treatment relationship, frequency of examination, the physician’s specialty, the types of tests performed, and the consistency and supportability of the physician’s opinion.” Moss, 555 F.3d at 561; see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). An ALJ’s failure to explicitly apply the checklist can be grounds for remand.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) makes an opinion's consistency with the medical record a relevant factor for an ALJ to consider when evaluating it.

Rodriguez v. Kijakazi · filed 2019-09-11(c)(4)

The consistency of an opinion with the medical record in general is a relevant factor for an ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4). However, a review of the record shows that the ALJ’s analysis is not supported by substantial evidence.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (c) permits an ALJ to consider an opinion's supportability and consistency with examination findings and the record as a whole.

Deal v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2020-04-28(c)

An ALJ may legitimately consider the supportability and consistency of an opinion with exam findings and the record as a whole. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with the record as a whole and permits less weight for an inconsistent opinion.

Jackson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-07(c)(4)

Thus, the ALJ reasonably concluded Dr. Reddy’s opinion was not consistent with the evidence as a whole, and an ALJ may accord less weight to an opinion that is inconsistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(4), 416.927(c)(4) (an ALJ must consider whether an opinion is consistent with the record as a whole); Raymond v. Astrue, 621 F.3d 1269, 1272 (10th Cir. 2009) (ALJ reasonably discounted treating physician opinion which was inconsistent with other medical evidence).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) gives more weight to medical opinions that are well explained and consistent with the record as a whole.

Fliss v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-07-17(c)(3)-(4)

The ALJ’s failure to account for or explain his rejection of this limitation is especially problematic given that (1) Dr. Draper provided a supporting explanation for his finding, and (2) Dr. Draper’s opinion was consistent with both objective medical evidence and the other medical opinions of record, both of which served as bases for according Dr. Draper’s opinion more weight. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3)-(4), 416.927(c)(3)-(4) (providing that “more weight” is given to opinions that are well explained and/or consistent with the record as a whole).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether a medical opinion is supported by and consistent with the record.

Wroda v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-09-09(c)(3)-(4)

The Court finds that the ALJ’s determination as to the sitting and standing limitation is supported by law, as an ALJ must consider whether an opinion has support in and is consistent with the record. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider its consistency with the record as a whole.

Chavez v. Social Security Administration · filed 2020-10-20(c)(4)

Although the ALJ was required to consider the consistency of the CE’s findings with the record as a whole, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4), she was not permitted to “mischaracterize or downplay” that record in the process.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) permits an ALJ to consider an opinion's supportability and consistency when evaluating medical evidence.

Hyatt v. Saul · filed 2020-12-22(c)

It is appropriate for an ALJ to consider the supportability and consistency of an opinion. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). However, as this claim is being remanded for the reevaluation of other medical evidence, the ALJ shall also reconsider Dr. Schreiber’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) requires an ALJ weighing a medical opinion to consider its supportability and consistency with the record as a whole, and permits assigning less weight when the opinion or the subjective statements underlying it lack objective support or conflict with the overall record.

Large v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-01-05(c)

Again, an ALJ may assign a lower weight to a psychological CE’s opinions if those opinions, or if the subjective statements upon which they relied, find less support in the objective evidence and are inconsistent with the overall record. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) (providing that an ALJ weighing medical evidence must consider, among other things, the “supportability” of an opinion and its “consistency” with “the record as a whole”); Houston, 180 F. Supp. 3d at 888.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) requires an ALJ to consider whether an opinion is consistent with the longitudinal treatment record and other medical opinions when weighing it.

Carlson v. Saul · filed 2021-02-22(c)(4)

Moreover, the ALJ has provided the requisite consideration of the post-DLI FCE here. To wit: the ALJ observed that this one-time evaluation was inconsistent with the longitudinal treatment record prior to the date last insured, noting, for example, that Plaintiff did not always have anantalgic gait and a June 2012 orthopedic exam showed mild tenderness of the right knee but well-maintained range of motion, her left knee had tenderness but no significant effusion, and she was neurovascularly intact. [R 406, 409, 455, 1330.] ... See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) (consistency). Finally, the ALJ explained she gave Mr. Gavino’s opinion no weight because it was also inconsistent with the record medical opinions from the two medical experts (“ME”) in this case and the two state agency physicians, all of which she afforded great weight. [R 1330-31.] See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(4) permits an ALJ to evaluate medical opinions for consistency with the record as a whole and to consider improvement in symptoms with treatment.

Robinson v. Saul · filed 2020-11-17(d)(4)

An ALJ may evaluate medical opinions based on their consistency with the record as a whole and may consider the improvement of symptoms with treatment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) directs an ALJ evaluating medical opinions to consider the applicable regulatory factors, including supportability and consistency; when no treating, examining, or specialist opinions are in the record, those are the relevant factors.

Benedict v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2021-08-05(c)

The first two evaluative factors in this regulation govern how an ALJ should weigh distinct opinions where the authors have different degrees of examination or treatment of the patient. The third criteria is “supportability” and the fourth is “consistency”. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3)-(4). The fifth listed criteria is that a doctor who opines on an area in which they specialize deserves greater weight than an opinion on the same issue by a doctor who is not a specialist in that area. The ALJ did not compare the opinions of consulting physicians to those of a treating or examining physician, or to a specialist, because such opinions were not in the record. The only two relevant factors were, therefore, supportability and consistency.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(2) and (3) require provider opinions to be well-supported by objective medical and laboratory findings.

Johnson v. Social Security Administration · filed 2021-10-14(c)(2), (3)

And even if Dr. McMahon had opined that Johnson actually possessed the specified limitations—instead of merely speculating that she “likely” manifested those limitations—Johnson has failed to show that the ALJ would have considered those opinions to be well-supported since the MRI results upon which they were based are not included with his report or found elsewhere in the AR. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2), (3) (requiring that provider opinions be well-supported by objective medical and laboratory findings).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 404.1527(c)(4), the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight the ALJ gives it.

Webb v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2022-09-23(c)(4)

“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 requires an ALJ to consider a medical opinion’s supportability, including supporting medical signs and laboratory findings, and its consistency with the record as a whole.

Langdon v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-09-29(d)(3), (d)(4)

Specifically, federal regulations highlight the importance of “supportability” and “consistency” of medical opinions. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(3), 416.927(d)(3) (emphasis on medical signs and laboratory findings that support the opinion); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(4), 416.927(d)(4) (emphasis on consistency of opinion with record as a whole). This Court’s review asks whether the record contains “‘sufficien[t] evidence” to support the agency’s factual determinations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) accords more weight to medical opinions consistent with the record as a whole than to opinions that are not.

Rayborn v. Commissioner Social Security Administration · filed 2023-03-22(c)

Generally, medical opinions that are consistent with the record as a whole are accorded more weight than those that are not. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527 treats supportability as the medical signs and laboratory findings supporting a medical opinion, and consistency as corroboration by other record evidence.

Shepheard v. Social Security Administration, Commissioner of · filed 2024-03-13(c)(3)–(4)

In finding Dr. Goewey’s opinion persuasive, the ALJ considered the factors of consistency and supportability. The factor of supportability refers to evidence that supports the medical opinion, “particularly medical signs and laboratory findings.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. Consistency refers to evidence otherwise on the record that corroborates the medical opinion. Id. The ALJ noted that Dr. Goewey’s “report documents clinical abnormalities that support the limitations he specified” which goes to the factor of supportability [Tr. 25]. The ALJ also noted that Dr. Goewey’s opinion “is reasonably consistent with substantial other evidence of the record. . . which does not support great limitation” which pertains to the consistency factor [Id.]. Therefore, the Court finds that the ALJ’s RFC was supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)-(4) permits an ALJ to consider contradictions between a medical source’s opinion and the source’s own clinical notes and observations.

Cody v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2025-04-18(c)(3)-(4)

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an argument that shows error in this reasoning. Contradictions between a medical source’s opinion and her own clinical notes and observations is an appropriate fact for an ALJ to consider. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c)(3-4), 416.927(c)(3-4); Valentine, 574 F.3d 685 at 692–93.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ must consider whether a medical opinion is consistent with other medical evidence.

Graham · filed 2025-12-22(c)(4)

An ALJ must evaluate, among other factors, whether a medical opinion is consistent with other medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527. ... Although Plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ’s conclusions regarding the supportability and consistency factors, the ALJ sufficiently analyzed them.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c) makes the supportability of medical opinions and their consistency with the record as a whole relevant to the weight they receive.

Burke v. Bisignano · filed 2025-12-30(c)

The fact that the consultants did not review any evidence beyond May 2016 does not undermine the ALJ’s assessment because the ALJ found their opinions supportable and consistent with the record as a whole. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c); 416.927(c).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(3)–(4) permits an ALJ to give less weight to a medical opinion when it lacks support and is inconsistent with the record as a whole.

Caulkins v. Kijakazi · filed 2022-06-01(c)(3), (c)(4)

“Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4). ... Despite Dr. Connolly’s “specialization” as a psychologist, the ALJ reasonably discounted her opinion evidence in the record based on shortcomings in the “supportability of the physician’s opinion” and “the consistency of the opinion with the record.” Johnson, 434 F.3d at 654 (citing 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527). ... Therefore, under agency regulations, the ALJ properly declined to assign these opinions controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3), (4).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(c)(4) directs an ALJ to give greater weight to a medical opinion that is more consistent with the record and permits less weight when the opinion is inconsistent with the medical evidence.

Dzafic v. Saul · filed 2022-06-01(c)(4)

She noted that Dr. Herman’s opinion that plaintiff could not return to work in May 2018 inconsistent with his findings and with the medical evidence overall. She found Dr. Al-Saraf’s opinion that plaintiff could lift up to ten pounds occasionally and push/pull up to twenty pounds occasionally somewhat persuasive, but not completely supported by findings of normal motor strength and gait in repeated examinations. (R. 22). Those are appropriate reasons for giving medical opinions less weight. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4); Prill v. Kijakazi, 23 F.4th 738, 751 (7th Cir. 2022); Zoch v. Saul, 981 F.3d 597, 601 (7th Cir. 2020); Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An ALJ may discount examining physicians’ opinions when they conflict with the physicians’ own findings and observations and other record evidence.

Morse v. Astrue · filed 2008-08-29(d)(4)

The ALJ did not erroneously disregard evidence from Morse’s examining physicians. To the contrary, the ALJ provided “specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence,” Ryan, 528 F.3d at 1198 (internal quotation marks omitted) — namely, that the opinions were at odds with the doctors’ own medical findings and observations, as well as other record evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4); see, e.g., Morgan v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 603 (9th Cir.1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(1) gives greater weight to an examining physician’s opinion, although the ALJ may discount it when it is based only on the claimant’s self-reported symptoms.

Ziegler v. Astrue · filed 2009-07-07(d)(1)

First, Ziegler is correct that the opinion of an “examining physician” is entitled to greater weight, see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1), but the ALJ was entitled to give Dr. Bohon’s opinion less weight because it was based only on Ziegler’s self-reported symptoms.

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 well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic evidence and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

LAZU v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-18(d)(2)

An ALJ is required to afford controlling weight to the opinions of treating physicians, only insofar as those opinions are: (1) well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic evidence; and (2) not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires an ALJ to give a treating physician's well-supported and consistent opinion controlling weight and to give good reasons for the weight assigned to it.

Mitchell v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-06-02(d)(2)

Generally, an ALJ must give the opinion of the claimant’s treating physician controlling weight if the ALJ finds that the opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). This is because the opinion of the treating physician “bring[s] a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone.” Id. To protect the claimant, the regulations require that the Commissioner “always give good reasons in [his] notice of determination or decision for the weight [he] give[s] [the claimant’s] treating source’s opinion.” Id.

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 a treating physician's opinion controlling weight when it is well-supported and consistent with the record, and requires good reasons when the ALJ discounts it.

Carpenter v. Astrue · filed 2009-06-10(d)(2)

When considering medical evidence, the opinions of treating physicians are given controlling weight if the opinion is “well-supported by medically accepted clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... When an ALJ does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight, he is required to “give good reasons” why the treating physician’s opinion was discounted.

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 is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record.

Brace v. Astrue · filed 2009-08-27(d)(2)

Under the SSA’s regulations, an ALJ must give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight if it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2). If the opinion fails to meet these criteria, however, the ALJ need not accept it.

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 claimant's record, and requires the ALJ to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Tilley v. Astrue · filed 2009-09-01(d)(2)

A treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight if it “is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [a claimant’s] case record.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2); see also SSR 96-2p, 1996 WL 374188, at *2 (Social Security Administration, July 2, 1996) (When a treating source renders a medical opinion that is well supported by medically acceptable diagnostic techniques and consistent with the other substantial evidence in the claimant’s record, “the adjudicator must adopt a treating source’s medical opinion irrespective of any finding he or she would have made in absence of the medical opinion.”). The record must be evaluated as a whole to determine whether the treating physician’s opinion should control. Reed, 399 F.3d at 920. The regulations require the ALJ to “always give good reasons” for the weight afforded to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). ... Dr. Ragland’s opinion that Tilley cannot perform light work is consistent with the evidence in the administrative record. ... An incomplete description of Tilley’s activities provided the sole basis for the ALJ’s dismissal of Dr. Ragland’s opinion. ... We conclude that the treating physician’s opinion was improperly discredited and that the finding that Tilley can perform her past work as a food service worker is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) generally requires controlling weight for a well-supported treating-source opinion that is not inconsistent with substantial evidence, and otherwise requires the ALJ to weigh it under specified factors and give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Blakley v. Commissioner of Social Security · filed 2009-09-24(d)(2)

The ALJ “must” give a treating source opinion controlling weight if the treating source opinion is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques” and is “not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the] case record.” ... If the ALJ does not accord controlling weight to a treating physician, the ALJ must still determine how much weight is appropriate by considering a number of factors, including 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. ... Closely associated with the treating physician rule, the regulations require the ALJ to “always give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision for the weight” given to the claimant’s treating source’s opinion.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 404.1527(d)(2) does not give a treating physician’s opinion controlling weight when it conflicts with the medical record, allowing the ALJ to choose which conflicting opinion to credit.

Casillas v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-08(d)(2)

SSA regulations acknowledge that the opinions of treating physicians are not entitled to controlling weight if their assessments conflict with the medical record. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527, 416.927.

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 and consistent with the substantial record evidence, and requires the Commissioner to give good reasons for the weight assigned.

Burgin v. Astrue · filed 2009-10-08(d)(2)

Under the relevant regulations, a treating physician’s opinion is given controlling weight when it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial [record] evidence.” ... The regulations require that the Commissioner “give good reasons in [the] notice of determination or decision” for the weight assigned to the treating source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2).