Lester v. Chater
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
All 60 flagged citations have been reviewed.
60 later cases cite Lester v. Chater; 60 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Lester v. Chater?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
The court holds that the 2017 Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applies the new persuasiveness standard to Dilbeck’s claim.
Dilbeck v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Previously, the Ninth Circuit recognized “a hierarchy among the sources of medical 2 opinions.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). Those who treated a 3 claimant were treating physicians, those who examined but did not treat the claimant were 4 examining physicians, and those who neither examined nor treated the claimant were 5 nonexamining physicians. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This hierarchy 6 was known as the treating physician rule, which generally afforded greater weight to the 7 opinions of treating physicians. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632; Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 8 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 2001). 9 “In March of 2017, The Social Security Administration amended their regulations to 10 abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 11 Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 12 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844- 13 01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852-57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to claims 14 filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new regulations 15 provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including 16 controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), 17 including those from your medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the amended Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, including this claimant’s applications.
Brisbois v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This hierarchy ... was known as the treating physician rule, which generally afforded greater weight to the ... opinions of treating physicians... “In March of 2017, The Social Security Administration amended their regulations to ... abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” ... Defendant correctly recognizes that the amended regulations apply to this case, and that ... Plaintiff incorrectly analyzed the ALJ’s opinion as if the physician-hierarchy rules applied.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 2017 Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied the new framework to affirm the rejection of the treating physician’s assessment.
Herold v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
23 The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 24 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 25 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician 26 rule.” See Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g 27 (Aug. 9, 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their 28 regulations to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. 1 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. 2 Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical 3 Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new 4 regulations apply to claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 5 416.920c. The new regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific 6 evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior 7 administrative medical finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. 8 §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c... 24 Considering the new regulations set by the Social Security Administration, each 25 medical opinion is on equal ground, regardless of the source. To find the ALJ made a 26 materially harmful error, this Court must find that the ALJ’s reliance on the non-treating 27 physicians’ medical assessments are not supported by and are inconsistent with the medical 28 evidence on record. This Court discerns no materially harmful error.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that later Social Security regulations superseded Lester’s medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, while applying that hierarchy to this earlier-filed claim.
(SS) Lee-Klein v. Commissioner of Social Security · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · filed
For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the weight given to medical opinions 4 depends in part on whether they are proffered by treating, examining, or non-examining 5 professionals. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir. 1995)... The hierarchy of weighted opinion, although 11 superseded by statute, is applicable in the present case because Plaintiff’s claim was filed prior to 12 March 27, 2017. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c(a); David F. M. v. Saul, No. 5:20-CV-013620AFM, 13 2021 WL 2646905, at *15-16 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2021).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the revised Social Security regulations displaced the medical-opinion hierarchy described in Lester for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, eliminating special deference to treating physicians in this October 2018 claim.
Andrews v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Previously, the Ninth Circuit recognized “a hierarchy among the sources of medical 13 opinions.” Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008). Those who treated a 14 claimant were treating physicians, those who examined but did not treat the claimant were 15 examining physicians, and those who neither examined nor treated the claimant were 16 non-examining physicians. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This hierarchy 17 was known as the treating physician rule, which generally afforded greater weight to the 18 opinions of treating physicians. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632; Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 19 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 2001). 20 “In March of 2017, The Social Security Administration amended their regulations to 21 abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 22 Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 23 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 24 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 25 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and apply to both Disability Insurance benefits and 26 Supplemental Security Income benefits claims. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 27 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 28 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 1 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.”1 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a), 2 416.920c(a)... 1 Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit’s rule providing general deference to treating 27 physician opinions is still in effect. (Pl. Br. at 17.) Plaintiff is incorrect. The new regulations eliminate any special deference to treating physician opinions and require the ALJ to 28 evaluate each medical opinion from an equal starting point. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c(a), 416.920c(a).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court recognized that later agency regulations displaced Lester's medical-opinion weighting framework for applications filed after March 27, 2017, while applying the prior framework to Buchanan's 2015 application.
Buchanan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 2 (9th Cir. 1995) (superseded by statute on other grounds). For disability benefit applications 3 filed prior to March 27, 2017, treating medical sources are generally given more weight 4 than non-examining sources due to a treating physician’s heightened familiarity with a 5 claimant’s condition. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). If the ALJ declines to give controlling 6 weight to a treating source’s opinion, the ALJ must consider several factors—such as the 7 length of treatment, frequency of examination, and the physician’s specialization—in 8 deciding how to weigh the source’s opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c). The ALJ must 9 thereafter provide an explanation for the weight given to each medical source. 20 C.F.R. 10 § 404.1527(f)(2). If certain evidence contradicts a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ 11 must provide “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence” for 12 rejecting that physician’s opinion. Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) 13 (citing Lester, 81 F.3d at 830 (quoting Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 14 1983))) (internal citation marks omitted). 15 For applications filed after March 27, 2017, new agency regulations instruct an ALJ 16 not to “defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any 17 medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from [a 18 claimant’s] medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the new SSA regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, placing the treating physician’s opinion on equal ground with non-examining opinions.
Roy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 1 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 2 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 3 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 4 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 5 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 6 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 7 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 8 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 9 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 10 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 11 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 12 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” Id... In view of the new SSA regulations on treating physician opinions, Dr. Aliyar’s 1 opinion is on equal ground with non-examining physician opinions. To find the ALJ made 2 a materially harmful error, this Court must find that the ALJ’s reliance on the non-treating 3 physicians’ medical assessments in lieu of Dr. Aliyar’s opinion is not supported by and is 4 inconsistent with the medical evidence on record. This Court finds no materially harmful 5 error.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 2017 SSA regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, while leaving undecided whether the specific-and-legitimate-reasons standard survived.
Thomas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Previously, the Ninth Circuit recognized a hierarchy among the sources of medical 22 opinions. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995)... This hierarchy was known as the treating physician rule, which 26 generally afforded greater weight to the opinions of treating physicians than the opinions of 27 non-treating physicians... In March 2017, the SSA amended its regulations to, among other things, abrogate the 6 treating physician rule. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical 7 Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844, 5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017); Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 8 Admin., No. 18-cv-08317, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020). The new 9 regulations apply to claims, like Plaintiff’s, that were filed on or after March 27, 2017. 10 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court states that the SSA's amended regulations displaced Lester's treating-physician hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, while applying the prior rule to this 2016 claim.
Oropilla v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Those who have treated a claimant are treating physicians, those who have ... examined but not treated the claimant are examining physicians, and those who have ... neither examined nor treated the claimant are nonexamining physicians.2 Lester v. Chater, ... 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). “As a general rule, more weight should be given to the ... opinion of a treating source than to the opinion of doctors who did not treat the claimant.” ... In March 2017, the SSA amended its regulations to, among other things, abrogate the ... treating physician rule... The new ... regulations, however, apply only to claims filed on or after March 27, 2017... The regulations are therefore inapplicable to Plaintiff’s claim, ... which was filed in 2016.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Ninth Circuit held that the 2017 regulations displaced Lester’s medical-opinion hierarchy and specific-and-legitimate-reasons standard for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017.
Woods v. Kijakazi · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · filed
Woods argues that the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Causeya’s opinion by failing to provide “specific and legitimate reasons that are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830–31 (9th Cir. 1996). The government counters that changes to the Social Security regulations in 2017 “eliminate any semblance of a hierarchy of medical opinions and state that the agency does not defer to any medical opinions, even those from treating sources.” We agree with the government. ... The new regulations apply to Woods because she filed her claim on or after March 27, 2017. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844, 5844 (Jan. 18, 2017) (codified at 20 C.F.R. pts. 404 & 416). We must therefore decide whether, as Woods argues, “the ‘specific and legitimate’ standard still applies under the new rules.” Our precedent controls unless its “reasoning or theory . . . is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority,” which in this case is the agency’s updated regulations. Lambert v. Saul, 980 F.3d 1266, 1274 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). While we agree with the government that the “specific and legitimate” standard is clearly irreconcilable with the 2017 regulations, the extent of the claimant’s relationship with the medical provider—what we will refer to as “relationship factors”— remains relevant under the new regulations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court holds that the 2017 Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applies the updated regulations to this claim.
Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
16 The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 17 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 18 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 19 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 20 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 21 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 22 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 23 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 24 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 25 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 26 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 27 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 28 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” Id... 5 Because LAC Hill is a medical source and has provided a medical opinion in the form of a 6 “Mental Medical Source Statement,” (Doc. 16-23 at 76–81), the ALJ properly evaluated 7 her statement as a medical opinion according to the updated regulations. 20 C.F.R. § 8 404.1513(a)(2).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the amended SSA regulations displaced Lester’s preferential weighting of treating medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied equal weighting to the treating and non-treating opinions in Winton’s claim.
Winton v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Courts in this circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, examining 4 physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight to the 5 opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). 6 This distinction was referred to as the “treating physician rule.” See Regula v. Delta 7 Family-Care Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 8 vacated sub nom. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 9 901 (2003). However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate 10 the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 11 No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing 12 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 13 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The amended regulations stipulate that 14 the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling 15 weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including 16 those from … medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. Claims filed on or 17 after March 27, 2017, must adhere to the amended regulations. (Id.) ... Given the amended SSA regulations regarding treating physician opinions, Dr. 23 Bhalla’s medical opinion is of equal weight to non-treating physician opinions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the SSA’s later medical-opinion regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied those regulations to the claimant’s 2018 applications.
Wallis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 26 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 27 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 28 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 1 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 2 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 3 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 4 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 6 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 7 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 8 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 9 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” Id.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 2017 Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s treating/examining/non-examining medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and upheld the ALJ’s application of the new standard.
Mueller v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 25 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 26 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 27 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 28 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 1 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 2 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 3 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 4 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 5 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c. The new regulations provide 6 that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling 7 weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including 8 those from your medical sources.” Id... Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination that Dr. Palmer’s opinion is 23 supported by and consistent with the objective medical evidence. (Doc. 16-3 at 28); see 24 Trevizo, 871 F.3d at 675 (“The ALJ can meet his burden by setting out a detailed and 25 thorough summary of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation 26 thereof, and making findings.”) (quotations omitted). The ALJ used the standard set forth 27 at 20 C.F.R. § 416.920c in evaluating each medical opinion in evidence. (Doc. 16-3 at 28– 28 29).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the revised Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician hierarchy and specific-and-legitimate-reasons requirement for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and upheld rejection of the treating physicians’ opinions under the revised standard.
Nett v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 23 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 24 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 25 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 26 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 27 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 28 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 1 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 2 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 3 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 4 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 5 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 6 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” Id... Thus, an ALJ need not give specific and 8 legitimate reasons for not crediting the medical opinion of a treating physician. Id. at 791... Using the standard set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, the ALJ determined that 15 Plaintiff’s active social life—including weekly Bible studies, housework, time on the 16 computer, meal preparation, car show attendance, weekly church attendance, and daily 17 meals out with friends—is inconsistent with the restrictions articulated in Dr. Silberman’s 18 and Dr. Pandey’s opinions. (Id. at 34.) The Court finds that a reasonable person examining 19 the evidence could draw the same conclusion. The fact that Plaintiff’s daily activities could 20 be interpreted differently has no effect on this Court’s ruling. See Andrews, 53 F.3d at 21 1039–40 (“The ALJ is responsible for determining credibility, resolving conflicts in 22 medical testimony, and for resolving ambiguities. We must uphold the ALJ’s decision 23 where the evidence is susceptible to more than one rational interpretation.”) (citations 24 omitted). Thus, the ALJ did not err by rejecting Dr. Silberman’s and Dr. Pandey’s medical 25 opinions.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the revised Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s preferential medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied those regulations to the claimant’s November 2018 application.
Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 21 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 22 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 23 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 24 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 25 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 26 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 27 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 28 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 1 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 2 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 3 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 4 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” Id.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the revised Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied the new medical-opinion standard to Allen’s claim.
Allen v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 16 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 17 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 18 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 19 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 20 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 21 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 22 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 23 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 24 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 25 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 26 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 27 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” Id... Using the 5 standard set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c, the ALJ determined that Dr. Zuess and Dr. 6 Dupont supported their medical opinions “with a detailed analysis of the evidence of 7 record.” (Doc. 13-3 at 32.)
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 2017 SSA regulations displaced Lester’s preferential medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, including the claim before it.
Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
For disability benefits claims filed prior to March 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit 3 previously recognized “a hierarchy among the sources of medical opinions.” Singer v. 4 Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-01767-PHX-JJT, 2019 WL 9089997, at *2 (D. 5 Ariz. Oct. 11, 2019) (citing Tommasetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2008)). 6 SSA regulations classified medical opinion sources into three types: 1) treating physicians 7 (who treat a claimant), 2) examining physicians (who examine but do not treat a claimant), 8 and 3) non-examining physicians (who do not examine or treat a claimant). Lester v. 9 Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). An ALJ was instructed to give more weight to 10 treating medical sources than non-examining sources due to a treating physician’s 11 heightened familiarity with a claimant’s condition. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2). If the ALJ 12 declined to give controlling weight to a treating physician’s opinion, the ALJ had to provide 13 “specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence” for rejecting that 14 source’s opinion. Murray v. Heckler, 722 F.2d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing McLaughlin 15 v. Sec’y of Health, Educ. and Welfare, 612 F.2d 701, 705 (2d Cir. 1980)). However, in 16 2017, the SSA “amended their regulations to abrogate the treating physician rule, among 17 other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 18 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citation omitted). 19 For disability benefits claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, including the 20 application in the present case, new SSA regulations instruct an ALJ not to “defer or give 21 any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or 22 prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from [a claimant’s] medical 23 sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 2017 SSA regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician hierarchy and medical-opinion rejection standards for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, including Govan’s claim.
Govan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Previously, the Ninth Circuit recognized a hierarchy among the sources of medical 25 opinions. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). Those who treated a 26 claimant were treating physicians, those who examined but did not treat the claimant were 27 examining physicians, and those who neither examined nor treated the claimant were non- 28 examining physicians. Id. This hierarchy was known as the treating physician rule, which 1 generally afforded greater weight to the opinions of treating physicians than the opinions 2 of non-treating physicians. Orn, 495 F.3d at 632. Under the rule, where the treating 3 physician’s opinion was not contradicted by another doctor, it could be rejected by the 4 agency only for “clear and convincing” reasons. Lester, 81 F.3d at 830. Where, on the other 5 hand, the treating doctor’s opinion was contradicted by another doctor, the agency was 6 required to articulate “specific and legitimate reasons,” based on substantial evidence, for 7 rejecting the opinion. Id. 8 In March 2017, the SSA amended its regulations to, among other things, abrogate 9 the treating physician rule. See Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical 10 Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844, 5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017); Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 11 Admin., No. 18-CV-08317, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020). The new 12 regulations apply to claims, like Plaintiff’s, that were filed on or after March 27, 2017. 13 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court holds that the amended SSA regulations displace Lester’s preferential weighting of treating medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applies the supportability-and-consistency framework to uphold the ALJ’s assessment.
Ireland v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Courts in this circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, examining 21 physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight to the 22 opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). 23 This distinction was referred to as the “treating physician rule.” See Regula v. Delta 24 Family-Care Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 25 vacated sub nom. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 26 901 (2003). However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate 27 the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 28 No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing 1 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 2 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, 3 must adhere to the amended regulations. (Id.) These regulations state that the ALJ “will 4 not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any 5 medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from … 6 medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the revised Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s treating and examining physician hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied the new medical-opinion standard to Ramirez’s claim.
Ramirez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
The law previously distinguished between the opinions of treating physicians, 9 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 10 830 (9th Cir. 1995). This distinction was known as the “treating physician rule.” See 11 Edlund v. Massanari, 253 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended on reh’g (Aug. 9, 12 2001). “In March of 2017, [t]he Social Security Administration amended their regulations 13 to abrogate the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. 14 Sec. Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 15 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 16 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). The new regulations apply to 17 claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. The new 18 regulations provide that the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, 19 including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical 20 finding(s), including those from your medical sources.” Id.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 2017 Social Security regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician preference for claims filed after March 27, 2017, including Plaintiff’s claims.
Hernandez v. Kijakazi · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · filed
Until 2017, the “treating physician rule” required the ALJ to give greater weight to 16 the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician than to the opinion of a doctor who does not 17 treat the claimant. See, e.g., Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). However, 18 in 2017, the Social Security Administration abrogated the treating physician rule. See 19 Woods v. Kijakazi, 32 F.4th 785, 787 (9th Cir. 2022). For claims filed after March 27, 20 2017—including Plaintiff’s—the ALJ “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary 21 weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) . . . , including those from 22 [the claimant’s] medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the 2017 SSA regulations displaced Lester’s preferential weighting of treating medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied the revised medical-opinion framework to affirm the denial of benefits.
Wallis v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Previously, under the “treating physician rule,” courts in the Ninth Circuit 13 distinguished among treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining 14 physicians, with the greatest weight generally given to the opinions of treating 15 physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); Regula v. Delta 16 Family-Care Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 17 vacated sub nom. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 18 901 (2003). However, in March 2017, the SSA amended their regulations, and among 19 other changes, abrogated the treating physician rule. Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 20 Admin., No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) 21 (citing Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 22 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, at *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Consequently, these amended 23 regulations govern all claims filed on or after March 27, 2017. (Id.) The amended 24 regulations forbid an ALJ to “defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including 25 controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), 26 including those from ... medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court holds that the amended SSA regulations displaced Lester’s preferential medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applies the revised framework to Hill’s claim.
Hill v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Courts in the Ninth Circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, 21 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight 22 to the opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 23 1995). This distinction was referred to as the “treating physician rule.” See Regula v. Delta 24 Family-Care Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 25 vacated sub nom. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 26 901 (2003). However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate 27 the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 28 No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing 1 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 2 2017 WL 168819, *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, 3 must adhere to the amended regulations. (Id.) These regulations state that the ALJ “will 4 not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any 5 medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from … 6 medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The district court holds that the amended SSA regulations displaced Lester’s preferential weighting of treating and examining medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applies the amended framework to this claim.
Woods-White v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Courts in the Ninth Circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, 25 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight 26 to the opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 27 1995)... However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate 3 the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 4 No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing 5 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 6 2017 WL 168819, *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, 7 must adhere to the amended regulations. (Id.) These regulations state that the ALJ “will 8 not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any 9 medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from … 10 medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court holds that the revised SSA regulations for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017 displaced Lester’s preferential weighting of treating and examining medical opinions and applies the revised framework to this claim.
Archunde v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Courts in the Ninth Circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, 20 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight 21 to the opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 22 1995). This distinction was referred to as the “treating physician rule.” See Regula v. Delta 23 Family-Care Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 24 vacated sub nom. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 25 901 (2003). However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate 26 the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 27 No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing 28 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 1 2017 WL 168819, *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, 2 must adhere to the amended regulations. (Id.) These regulations state that the ALJ “will 3 not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any 4 medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from … 5 medical sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the amended SSA regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017.
Saenz v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Previously, under the “treating physician rule,” courts in the Ninth Circuit 12 distinguished among treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining 13 physicians, with the greatest weight generally given to the opinions of treating physicians. 14 See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); Regula v. Delta Family-Care 15 Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, vacated sub nom. 16 Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 901 (2003). 17 However, in March 2017, the SSA amended their regulations, and among other changes, 18 abrogated the treating physician rule. Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18- 19 08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing Revisions to Rules 20 Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, 21 *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Consequently, these amended regulations govern all claims 22 filed on or after March 27, 2017. (Id.) The amended regulations forbid an ALJ to “defer or 23 give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical 24 opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from ... medical 25 sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court holds that the amended SSA regulations displace Lester’s preferential medical-opinion weighting rule for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applies those regulations to Haas’s claim.
Haas v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Courts in the Ninth Circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, 26 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight 27 to the opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 28 1995). This distinction was referred to as the “treating physician rule.” See Regula v. Delta 1 Family-Care Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 2 vacated sub nom. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 3 901 (2003). However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate 4 the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 5 No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing 6 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 7 2017 WL 168819, *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, 8 must adhere to the amended regulations. Id. These regulations state that the ALJ “will not 9 defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical 10 opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from … medical 11 sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court states that 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c displaced Lester’s preferential weight for treating-source opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, while applying the former standard to Plaintiff’s earlier-filed claim.
Stanley v. O'Malley Commissioner of Social Security · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · filed
“As a general rule, more weight should be given to the opinion of a treating source than to 13 the opinion of doctors who do not treat the claimant.” Lester, 81 F.3d at 830; but see 20 C.F.R. 14 § 404.1520c (precluding such deference for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the amended SSA regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied the new medical-opinion framework to DeFazio’s claims.
DeFazio v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
In evaluating medical opinions, the Ninth Circuit previously employed the “treating 27 physician rule,” which distinguished between treating physicians, examining physicians, 28 and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight to the opinions of 1 treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). However, in 2 March 2017, the SSA amended their regulations to abrogate the treating physician rule, 3 among other changes, and all claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, must adhere to these 4 amended regulations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the amended SSA regulations displaced Lester’s preferential weighting of treating and examining medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied the new medical-opinion framework to Plaintiff’s 2020 claim.
Christian Josiah Guinan Henry v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
27 Courts in the Ninth Circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, 28 examining physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight 1 to the opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 2 1995). This distinction was referred to as the “treating physician rule.” See Regula v. Delta 3 Family-Care Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, 4 vacated sub nom. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 5 901 (2003). However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate 6 the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 7 No. CV-18-08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing 8 Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01 9 2017 WL 168819, *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, 10 must adhere to the amended regulations. Id. These regulations state that the ALJ “will not 11 defer or give any specific evidentiary weight including controlling weight, to any medical 12 opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from . . .medical 13 sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c. 14 In addition to the abrogation of the “treating physician rule,” as of March 20, 2017, 15 the amended SSA regulations specify that the ALJ must “consider all medical opinions 16 according to several enumerated factors, including, whether the opinion is supported by 17 objective medical evidence and whether the opinion is consistent with the evidence from 18 other sources.” Alonzo, 2020 WL 1000024, at *3. Supportability and consistency are the 19 “most important factors,” and the ALJ must explain how she considered the evidence in 20 light of these two factors for a medical source’s opinions. 20 C.F.R § 404.1520c(b)(3).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the March 2017 SSA regulations displaced Lester’s preferential weighting of treating medical opinions for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied the amended framework to Solle’s September 2021 claim.
Solle v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Previously, under the “treating physician rule,” courts in the Ninth Circuit 26 distinguished among treating physicians, examining physicians, and non-examining 27 physicians, with the greatest weight generally given to the opinions of treating physicians. 28 See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995); Regula v. Delta Family-Care 1 Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. granted, vacated sub nom. 2 Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability & Survivorship Plan, 539 U.S. 901 (2003). 3 However, in March 2017, the SSA amended their regulations, and among other changes, 4 abrogated the treating physician rule. Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-18- 5 08317-PCT-JZB, 2020 WL 1000024, *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing Revisions to Rules 6 Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 Fed. Reg. 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819, 7 *5852–57 (Jan. 18, 2017)). Consequently, these amended regulations govern all claims 8 filed on or after March 27, 2017. (Id.) The amended regulations forbid an ALJ to “defer or 9 give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical 10 opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from . . . medical 11 sources.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c, 416.920c.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court holds that the amended SSA regulations displace Lester’s treating-physician medical-opinion hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applies the amended framework to Arce’s claim.
Arce v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
Courts in the Ninth Circuit previously distinguished among treating physicians, ... examining physicians, and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight ... to the opinions of treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir... 1995). This distinction was referred to as the “treating physician rule.” ... However, “in March of 2017, the [SSA] amended their regulations to abrogate ... the treating physician rule, among other changes.” Alonzo v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., ... Claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, ... must adhere to the amended regulations. Id.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court held that the SSA’s amended medical-opinion regulations displaced Lester’s treating-physician hierarchy for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, and applied those regulations to Rosales’s claim.
Rosales v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration · United States District Court for the District of Arizona · filed
In evaluating medical opinions, the Ninth Circuit previously employed the “treating 14 physician rule,” which distinguished between treating physicians, examining physicians, 15 and non-examining physicians, generally giving the greatest weight to the opinions of 16 treating physicians. See Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). However, in 17 March 2017, the SSA amended their regulations to abrogate the treating physician rule, 18 among other changes, and all claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, must adhere to these 19 amended regulations.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lester v. Chater and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace