20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c

How we consider and articulate medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings for claims filed on or after March 27, 2017

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

For claims filed (see § 404.614) on or after March 27, 2017, the rules in this section apply. For claims filed before March 27, 2017, the rules in § 404.1527 apply.

(a) How we consider medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings. We will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), including those from your medical sources. When a medical source provides one or more medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings, we will consider those medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings from that medical source together using the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section, as appropriate. The most important factors we consider when we evaluate the persuasiveness of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings are supportability (paragraph (c)(1) of this section) and consistency (paragraph (c)(2) of this section). We will articulate how we considered the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings in your claim according to paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) How we articulate our consideration of medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings. We will articulate in our determination or decision how persuasive we find all of the medical opinions and all of the prior administrative medical findings in your case record. Our articulation requirements are as follows:

(1) Source-level articulation. Because many claims have voluminous case records containing many types of evidence from different sources, it is not administratively feasible for us to articulate in each determination or decision how we considered all of the factors for all of the medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings in your case record. Instead, when a medical source provides multiple medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), we will articulate how we considered the medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings from that medical source together in a single analysis using the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this section, as appropriate. We are not required to articulate how we considered each medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding from one medical source individually.

(2) Most important factors. The factors of supportability (paragraph (c)(1) of this section) and consistency (paragraph (c)(2) of this section) are the most important factors we consider when we determine how persuasive we find a medical source's medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings to be. Therefore, we will explain how we considered the supportability and consistency factors for a medical source's medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings in your determination or decision. We may, but are not required to, explain how we considered the factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(5) of this section, as appropriate, when we articulate how we consider medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings in your case record.

(3) Equally persuasive medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings about the same issue. When we find that two or more medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings about the same issue are both equally well-supported (paragraph (c)(1) of this section) and consistent with the record (paragraph (c)(2) of this section) but are not exactly the same, we will articulate how we considered the other most persuasive factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(5) of this section for those medical opinions or prior administrative medical findings in your determination or decision.

(c) Factors. We will consider the following factors when we consider the medical opinion(s) and prior administrative medical finding(s) in your case:

(1) Supportability. The more relevant the objective medical evidence and supporting explanations presented by a medical source are to support his or her medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s), the more persuasive the medical opinions or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be.

(2) Consistency. The more consistent a medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) is with the evidence from other medical sources and nonmedical sources in the claim, the more persuasive the medical opinion(s) or prior administrative medical finding(s) will be.

(3) Relationship with the claimant. This factor combines consideration of the issues in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (v) of this section.

(i) Length of the treatment relationship. The length of time a medical source has treated you may help demonstrate whether the medical source has a longitudinal understanding of your impairment(s).

(ii) Frequency of examinations. The frequency of your visits with the medical source may help demonstrate whether the medical source has a longitudinal understanding of your impairment(s).

(iii) Purpose of the treatment relationship. The purpose for treatment you received from the medical source may help demonstrate the level of knowledge the medical source has of your impairment(s).

(iv) Extent of the treatment relationship. The kinds and extent of examinations and testing the medical source has performed or ordered from specialists or independent laboratories may help demonstrate the level of knowledge the medical source has of your impairment(s).

(v) Examining relationship. A medical source may have a better understanding of your impairment(s) if he or she examines you than if the medical source only reviews evidence in your folder.

(4) Specialization. The medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding of a medical source who has received advanced education and training to become a specialist may be more persuasive about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than the medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding of a medical source who is not a specialist in the relevant area of specialty.

(5) Other factors. We will consider other factors that tend to support or contradict a medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding. This includes, but is not limited to, evidence showing a medical source has familiarity with the other evidence in the claim or an understanding of our disability program's policies and evidentiary requirements. When we consider a medical source's familiarity with the other evidence in a claim, we will also consider whether new evidence we receive after the medical source made his or her medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding makes the medical opinion or prior administrative medical finding more or less persuasive.

(d) Evidence from nonmedical sources. We are not required to articulate how we considered evidence from nonmedical sources using the requirements in paragraphs (a)-(c) in this section.

[82 FR 5867, Jan. 18, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 744 cases (717 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case: Bacon v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2021 Ohio 4537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bacon v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2021 Ohio 4537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “"15 However, the cases cited by Bacon for the proposition of an evidentiary presumption in favor of the treating physician's opinion were premised on 20 C.”

Medina v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (M.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 8× “5 ~ The plaintiff raises two issues: (1) the law judge failed properly to analyze the plaintiff's pain complaints pursuant to Social Security Ruling 16-3P, and (2) the law judge’s decision failed properly to consider medical opinion evidence using the factors in 20 C.F.R.…”

Peppin v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (N.D.N.Y. 2022). · cites it 7× “For claims made after March 27, 2017, the ALJ is to consider the opinion evidence pursuant to the rules stated in 20 CFR 404.1520c. Pursuant to that regulation, the Social Security Administration “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling…”

Jackson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2020). · cites it 6× “20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(a); 20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(b)(2).”

Rae v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2021). · cites it 6× “The regulations now state (20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(a)): We will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinions(s) or prior administrative □ medical finding(s), including those from your medical sources.”

Peterson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D.N.Y. 2022). · cites it 6× “For claims made after March 27, 2017, the ALJ is to consider the opinion evidence pursuant to the rules stated in 20 CFR 404.1520c. Pursuant to that regulation, the Social Security Administration “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling…”

Burleson v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.S.C. 2022). · cites it 6× “See §20 C.F.R § 404.1520c; see also 82 Fed. Reg.”

Andrews v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2025). · cites it 6× “20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(a) (emphasis added); 20 C.”

Hallback v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2021). · cites it 5× “20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(a), 416.920c(a); 20 C.”

Gray v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2022). · cites it 5× “20 CFR 404.1520c (b) (2). However, if two or more medical opinions are both equally well-supported, then the other factors should also be considered.”

Lyde v. Kijakazi (M.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 5× “Kresser pursuant to the provisions of 20 CFR 404.1520c. As appropriate, the Administrative Law Judge may request the medical sources provide additional evidence and/or further clarification of the opinions (20 CFR 404.”

Anthony Key v. Martin O'Malley (8th Cir. 2024). · cites it 4× “Consideration of the opinion evidence of record in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1520c is required. A.R. at 196 (emphases added).”

Show all 744 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(1) — 2 cases

Babcock v. Kijakazi (D. Del. 2022).

Kennedy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.N.J. 2023).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(2) — 5 cases

Babcock v. Kijakazi (D. Del. 2022).

Williford v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2022).

Valentine v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.S.C. 2024).

Tammy Renee Henderson v. Frank Bisignano, Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.S.C. 2025).

Mary S. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Mich. 2026).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(2017) — 1 case

Nichols v. Kijakazi (W.D. Pa. 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a) — 111 cases

Wilkins v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Ark. 2021).

Green v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Yancy v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Ark. 2022).

Janiga v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2024).

Pace v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(a)(2017) — 1 case

Peterson v. Saul (N.D. Ill. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b) — 25 cases

Munguia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Fisher (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Christina Stephens v. Kilolo Kijakazi (9th Cir. 2023).

Anthony Key v. Martin O'Malley (8th Cir. 2024). “Consideration of the opinion evidence of record in accordance with 20 CFR 404.1520c is required. A.R. at 196 (emphases added).”

Light v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r (N.D. Ala. 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(1) — 4 cases

Shoop v. Saul (D. Alaska 2020).

Majors v. Saul (D. Alaska 2021).

Hague v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Mich. 2022).

Harding v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ohio 2025).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(1)(c)(3) — 1 case

Knittle v. Saul (M.D. Penn. 2021).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2) — 167 cases

Holt v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Ark. 2023).

Creamer v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Colo. 2021).

Medina v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (M.D. Fla. 2020). “5 ~ The plaintiff raises two issues: (1) the law judge failed properly to analyze the plaintiff's pain complaints pursuant to Social Security Ruling 16-3P, and (2) the law judge’s decision failed properly to consider medical opinion evidence using the factors in 20 C.F.R.…”

Rae v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2021). “The regulations now state (20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(a)): We will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling weight, to any medical opinions(s) or prior administrative □ medical finding(s), including those from your medical sources.”

Caudle v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ill. 2023).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(2017) — 1 case

Sturgill v. Saul (W.D.N.C. 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(b)(3) — 19 cases

Ireland v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2022).

Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2025).

Winton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2022).

Freyhagen v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c) — 19 cases

(SS) Dubord v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(SS) Page v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Janiga v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(1) — 76 cases

Bacon v. Ohio Dept. of Medicaid, 2021 Ohio 4537 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “"15 However, the cases cited by Bacon for the proposition of an evidentiary presumption in favor of the treating physician's opinion were premised on 20 C.”

Jackson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2020). “20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(a); 20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(b)(2).”

Peterson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D.N.Y. 2022). “For claims made after March 27, 2017, the ALJ is to consider the opinion evidence pursuant to the rules stated in 20 CFR 404.1520c. Pursuant to that regulation, the Social Security Administration “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling…”

Peppin v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (N.D.N.Y. 2022). “For claims made after March 27, 2017, the ALJ is to consider the opinion evidence pursuant to the rules stated in 20 CFR 404.1520c. Pursuant to that regulation, the Social Security Administration “will not defer or give any specific evidentiary weight, including controlling…”

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2) — 68 cases

Flood v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Or. 2023).

Winter v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Or. 2023).

Mckinney v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2022).

Parsons v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2023).

Garcia v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D. Conn. 2023).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(3) — 10 cases

Plott v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2023).

Ashley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2023).

(SS) Nunez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Kolish v. O'Malley (D. Haw. 2024).

Solberg v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Pa. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(3)(i) — 10 cases

Spindel v. Kijakazi (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Hampton v. Kijakazi (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Mendoza Sanchez v. Kijakazi (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Sturgill v. Saul (W.D.N.C. 2022).

Antillon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Cal. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(3)(ii) — 1 case

Denise N. v. Frank Bisignano, Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.N.J. 2026).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(3)(v) — 1 case

Regan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2023).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(5) — 8 cases

Vasquez v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.N.M. 2021).

Hughes v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Andrews v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2025). “20 C.F.R. 404.1520c(a) (emphasis added); 20 C.”

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(d) — 15 cases

(SS) Dubord v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(SS) Rummel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Rosalio Olivares Rodriguez v. Kilolo Kijakazi (C.D. Cal. 2023).

(SS) Evans v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.