20 C.F.R. § 404.1527

Evaluating opinion evidence for claims filed before March 27, 2017

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

For claims filed (see § 404.614) before March 27, 2017, the rules in this section apply. For claims filed on or after March 27, 2017, the rules in § 404.1520c apply.

(a) Definitions.

(1) Medical opinions. Medical opinions are statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairment(s), including your symptoms, diagnosis and prognosis, what you can still do despite impairment(s), and your physical or mental restrictions.

(2) Treating source. Treating source means your own acceptable medical source who provides you, or has provided you, with medical treatment or evaluation and who has, or has had, an ongoing treatment relationship with you. Generally, we will consider that you have an ongoing treatment relationship with an acceptable medical source when the medical evidence establishes that you see, or have seen, the source with a frequency consistent with accepted medical practice for the type of treatment and/or evaluation required for your medical condition(s). We may consider an acceptable medical source who has treated or evaluated you only a few times or only after long intervals (e.g., twice a year) to be your treating source if the nature and frequency of the treatment or evaluation is typical for your condition(s). We will not consider an acceptable medical source to be your treating source if your relationship with the source is not based on your medical need for treatment or evaluation, but solely on your need to obtain a report in support of your claim for disability. In such a case, we will consider the acceptable medical source to be a nontreating source.

(b) How we consider medical opinions. In determining whether you are disabled, we will always consider the medical opinions in your case record together with the rest of the relevant evidence we receive. See § 404.1520b.

(c) How we weigh medical opinions. Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive. Unless we give a treating source's medical opinion controlling weight under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, we consider all of the following factors in deciding the weight we give to any medical opinion.

(1) Examining relationship. Generally, we give more weight to the medical opinion of a source who has examined you than to the medical opinion of a medical source who has not examined you.

(2) Treatment relationship. Generally, we give more weight to medical opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source's medical 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. When we do not give the treating source's medical opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (c)(3) through (c)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the medical opinion. We will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source's medical opinion.

(i) Length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination. Generally, the longer a treating source has treated you and the more times you have been seen by a treating source, the more weight we will give to the source's medical opinion. When the treating source has seen you a number of times and long enough to have obtained a longitudinal picture of your impairment, we will give the medical source's medical opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.

(ii) Nature and extent of the treatment relationship. Generally, the more knowledge a treating source has about your impairment(s) the more weight we will give to the source's medical opinion. We will look at the treatment the source has provided and at the kinds and extent of examinations and testing the source has performed or ordered from specialists and independent laboratories. For example, if your ophthalmologist notices that you have complained of neck pain during your eye examinations, we will consider his or her medical opinion with respect to your neck pain, but we will give it less weight than that of another physician who has treated you for the neck pain. When the treating source has reasonable knowledge of your impairment(s), we will give the source's medical opinion more weight than we would give it if it were from a nontreating source.

(3) Supportability. The more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support a medical opinion, particularly medical signs and laboratory findings, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. The better an explanation a source provides for a medical opinion, the more weight we will give that medical opinion. Furthermore, because nonexamining sources have no examining or treating relationship with you, the weight we will give their medical opinions will depend on the degree to which they provide supporting explanations for their medical opinions. We will evaluate the degree to which these medical opinions consider all of the pertinent evidence in your claim, including medical opinions of treating and other examining sources.

(4) Consistency. Generally, the more consistent a medical opinion is with the record as a whole, the more weight we will give to that medical opinion.

(5) Specialization. We generally give more weight to the medical opinion of a specialist about medical issues related to his or her area of specialty than to the medical opinion of a source who is not a specialist.

(6) Other factors. When we consider how much weight to give to a medical opinion, we will also consider any factors you or others bring to our attention, or of which we are aware, which tend to support or contradict the medical opinion. For example, the amount of understanding of our disability programs and their evidentiary requirements that a medical source has, regardless of the source of that understanding, and the extent to which a medical source is familiar with the other information in your case record are relevant factors that we will consider in deciding the weight to give to a medical opinion.

(d) Medical source opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. Opinions on some issues, such as the examples that follow, are not medical opinions, as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, but are, instead, opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner because they are administrative findings that are dispositive of a case; i.e., that would direct the determination or decision of disability.

(1) Opinions that you are disabled. We are responsible for making the determination or decision about whether you meet the statutory definition of disability. In so doing, we review all of the medical findings and other evidence that support a medical source's statement that you are disabled. A statement by a medical source that you are “disabled” or “unable to work” does not mean that we will determine that you are disabled.

(2) Other opinions on issues reserved to the Commissioner. We use medical sources, including your treating source, to provide evidence, including opinions, on the nature and severity of your impairment(s). Although we consider opinions from medical sources on issues such as whether your impairment(s) meets or equals the requirements of any impairment(s) in the Listing of Impairments in appendix 1 to this subpart, your residual functional capacity (see §§ 404.1545 and 404.1546), or the application of vocational factors, the final responsibility for deciding these issues is reserved to the Commissioner.

(3) We will not give any special significance to the source of an opinion on issues reserved to the Commissioner described in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.

(e) Evidence from our Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants. The rules in § 404.1513a apply except that when an administrative law judge gives controlling weight to a treating source's medical opinion, the administrative law judge is not required to explain in the decision the weight he or she gave to the prior administrative medical findings in the claim.

(f) Opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and from nonmedical sources.

(1) Consideration. Opinions from medical sources who are not acceptable medical sources and from nonmedical sources may reflect the source's judgment about some of the same issues addressed in medical opinions from acceptable medical sources. Although we will consider these opinions using the same factors as listed in paragraph (c)(1) through (c)(6) in this section, not every factor for weighing opinion evidence will apply in every case because the evaluation of an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source depends on the particular facts in each case. Depending on the particular facts in a case, and after applying the factors for weighing opinion evidence, an opinion from a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source or from a nonmedical source may outweigh the medical opinion of an acceptable medical source, including the medical opinion of a treating source. For example, it may be appropriate to give more weight to the opinion of a medical source who is not an acceptable medical source if he or she has seen the individual more often than the treating source, has provided better supporting evidence and a better explanation for the opinion, and the opinion is more consistent with the evidence as a whole.

(2) Articulation. The adjudicator generally should explain the weight given to opinions from these sources or otherwise ensure that the discussion of the evidence in the determination or decision allows a claimant or subsequent reviewer to follow the adjudicator's reasoning, when such opinions may have an effect on the outcome of the case. In addition, when an adjudicator determines that an opinion from such a source is entitled to greater weight than a medical opinion from a treating source, the adjudicator must explain the reasons in the notice of decision in hearing cases and in the notice of determination (that is, in the personalized disability notice) at the initial and reconsideration levels, if the determination is less than fully favorable.

[82 FR 5869, Jan. 18, 2017; 82 FR 15132, Mar. 27, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14,050 cases (5,667 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Brown v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brown v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 20× “For claims — like Brown’s — filed before March 27, 2017, the standards for evaluating medical opinion evidence are set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 . That regulation defines “medical opinions” as “statements from acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the…”

Kanika Revels v. Nancy Berryhill, 874 F.3d 648 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 14× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2). When a treating doctor’s opinion is not controlling, it is weighted according to factors such as the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability, and…”

Anne J. Holohan v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissionerof Ssa, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 16× “1995); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining, physician’s opinion carnes more weight than a reviewing physician’s.”

Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64 (2d Cir. 2022). · cites it 14× “Although the ALJ committed a procedural error when applying the treating physician rule, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c), which applies to claims like Schillo’s that were filed before March 27, 2017, we hold that the error was harmless.”

Lakenisha Dowling v. Comm'r of SSA, 986 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 13× “First, the ALJ erred by failing to consider each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c) before affording only negligible weight to the medical opinion of one of Appellant’s treating physicians.”

Charles Gayheart v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 710 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2013). · cites it 15× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (a)(2). Medical opinions are to be weighed by the process set forth in 20 C.”

Burns v. Colvin, 156 F. Supp. 3d 579 (M.D. Penn. 2016). · cites it 23× “2 Chandler’s citation to *590 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (e) is a citation to the current 20 C.”

Jasim Ghanim v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 11× “2001); 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c). “If a treating physician’s 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, [it will be given] controlling weight.”

Shelley Cannon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 61 F.4th 341 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 14× “Beale’s opinion, the ALJ is required to address each of the six 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c) regulatory factors to determine the appropriate weight it should be afforded.”

Rabbers v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 582 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “In Wilson , this court held that an ALJ's failure to give "good reasons" for not crediting the opinion of a treating physician, as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d)(2), was not harmless and would almost always require reversal and remand to the Commissioner.”

Esin Arakas v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec., 983 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2020). · cites it 7× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c)(2). Accordingly, the treating physician rule requires that ALJs give “controlling weight” to a treating physician’s opinion on the nature and severity of the claimant’s impairment if that opinion is (1) “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical…”

Ortiz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 309 F. Supp. 3d 189 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 19× “Weight of the Opinions and Duty to Develop the Record Ortiz argues that the ALJ failed to provide a sufficient explanation, using the factors in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527 (c), 416.927(c), for the weight given to the *202 medical opinions in the record.”

Show all 14,050 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(0)(2) — 1 case

Noble v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Or. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(1) — 1 case

DeCaro v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ohio 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(3) — 1 case

Torres v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2021).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(C)(1) — 1 case

Bowers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.N.J. 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a) — 2 cases

Lackey v. Barnhart, 127 F. App'x 455 (10th Cir. 2005).

Clark v. Berryhill (D. Minnesota 2018).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(1) — 11 cases

Pugh v. Saul (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2020).

Anderson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2020).

Brumbaugh v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ind. 2020).

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

Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) — 22 cases

Robert Ellis v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.., 392 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2005).

Stadler v. Barnhart, 464 F. Supp. 2d 183 (W.D.N.Y. 2006).

Jorge Martinez v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 660 F. App'x 787 (11th Cir. 2016).

Steficek v. Barnhart, 462 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D.N.Y. 2006).

Stauffer v. Internal Revenue Serv., 285 F. Supp. 3d 474 (D.D.C. 2017).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(b) — 22 cases

Weidman v. Colvin, 164 F. Supp. 3d 650 (M.D. Penn. 2015).

Dowell v. Colvin, 232 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017).

Moreno v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2020).

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

Genie Marie Buchanan v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (C.D. Cal. 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) — 155 cases

Lakenisha Dowling v. Comm'r of SSA, 986 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2021). “First, the ALJ erred by failing to consider each of the factors listed in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c) before affording only negligible weight to the medical opinion of one of Appellant’s treating physicians.”

Durden v. Colvin, 191 F. Supp. 3d 429 (M.D. Penn. 2016).

Burns v. Colvin, 156 F. Supp. 3d 579 (M.D. Penn. 2016). “2 Chandler’s citation to *590 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (e) is a citation to the current 20 C.”

Wallace v. Colvin, 193 F. Supp. 3d 939 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Kane v. Astrue, 942 F. Supp. 2d 301 (E.D.N.Y 2013).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1) — 14 cases

Shelley Cannon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 61 F.4th 341 (4th Cir. 2023). “Beale’s opinion, the ALJ is required to address each of the six 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c) regulatory factors to determine the appropriate weight it should be afforded.”

Reed v. Saul (S.D. Ind. 2019).

Green v. Saul (S.D. Ind. 2019).

Moody v. Saul(consent) (M.D. Ala. 2020).

Zlotoff v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2) — 125 cases

Anne J. Holohan v. Larry G. Massanari, Acting Commissionerof Ssa, 246 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2001). “1995); see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (d). Generally, a treating physician’s opinion carries more weight than an examining physician’s, and an examining, physician’s opinion carnes more weight than a reviewing physician’s.”

Durden v. Colvin, 191 F. Supp. 3d 429 (M.D. Penn. 2016).

Deborah Turk v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 647 F. App'x 638 (6th Cir. 2016).

Staymate v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 681 F. App'x 462 (6th Cir. 2017).

Diaz v. Berryhill, 388 F. Supp. 3d 382 (M.D. Penn. 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(2017) — 1 case

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

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(i) — 8 cases

Stamper v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2021).

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

Melinda Grisier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (6th Cir. 2018).

Torres v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2021).

Hansen v. Berryhill (N.D. Ill. 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(2)(ii) — 4 cases

Robert Filus v. Michael Astrue, 694 F.3d 863 (7th Cir. 2012).

Matthew Allen v. Comm'r of Soc. Securit, 498 F. App'x 696 (9th Cir. 2012).

Vallecillo v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Iowa 2019).

Stamper v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2021).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3) — 31 cases

Tahir v. Berryhill (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Stamper v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2021).

Box v. Saul (D. Utah 2021).

Rick Johnson v. Kilolo Kijakazi (9th Cir. 2022).

Woods v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r (N.D. Ala. 2021).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(4) — 25 cases

Conkle v. Astrue, 487 F. App'x 461 (10th Cir. 2012).

Griffin v. Saul (S.D. Ala. 2020).

Todd v. Kijakazi (S.D. Ala. 2023).

Earley v. Colvin (S.D. Ala. 2017).

Tahir v. Berryhill (N.D. Cal. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(5) — 9 cases

Melinda Grisier v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (6th Cir. 2018).

Sisemore v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2021).

Torres v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2021).

Zumpone v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Colo. 2020).

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

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(6) — 2 cases

Edward Ellars v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 647 F. App'x 563 (6th Cir. 2016).

Vericker v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2021).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) — 127 cases

Dogan v. Astrue, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ind. 2010).

Allen R. Prosch v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 201 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2000).

Ealy v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 594 F.3d 504 (6th Cir. 2010).

House v. Astrue, 500 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2007).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1) — 17 cases

Noto v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 632 F. App'x 243 (6th Cir. 2015).

Dogan v. Astrue, 751 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Ind. 2010).

Samuel v. Barnhart, 295 F. Supp. 2d 926 (E.D. Wis. 2003).

Samuel v. Barnhart, 316 F. Supp. 2d 768 (E.D. Wis. 2004).

Brandon v. Colvin, 129 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (D. Colo. 2015).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) — 125 cases

Tommaso Fargnoli v. Larry G. Massanari, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 247 F.3d 34 (3rd Cir. 2001).

Schillo v. Kijakazi, 31 F.4th 64 (2d Cir. 2022). “Although the ALJ committed a procedural error when applying the treating physician rule, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527 (c), which applies to claims like Schillo’s that were filed before March 27, 2017, we hold that the error was harmless.”

Robert J. Lauer v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pardee v. Astrue, 631 F. Supp. 2d 200 (N.D.N.Y. 2009).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(2004) — 1 case

Soupal v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Mich. 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(6) — 1 case

Rhodes v. Apfel, 40 F. Supp. 2d 1108 (E.D. Mo. 1999).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(i) — 4 cases

Sito v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 229 F. Supp. 3d 633 (N.D. Ohio 2017).

Simms v. Astrue, 599 F. Supp. 2d 988 (N.D. Ind. 2009).

Hersch v. Barnhart, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (D. Utah 2006).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)(ii) — 1 case

Joe L. Mills, Jr. v. Michael J. Astrue, 226 F. App'x 926 (11th Cir. 2007).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(3) — 14 cases

Robert J. Lauer v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2001).

Katherine Rollins v. Michael Astrue, Comm'r, 464 F. App'x 353 (5th Cir. 2012).

O'DELL v. Astrue, 736 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D.N.H. 2010).

Campbell v. Astrue, 713 F. Supp. 2d 129 (N.D.N.Y. 2010).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(4) — 1 case

Gary Alan Frederick v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 53 F.3d 342 (10th Cir. 1995).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(5) — 4 cases

Neumeister v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D.N.Y 2022).

Sells v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Or. 2020).

Bonsanto v. Astrue, 749 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (M.D. Fla. 2010).

Francisca Marquez v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 21 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 1994).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(l) — 1 case

Antonio Tillman v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 559 F. App'x 975 (11th Cir. 2014).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e) — 32 cases

Todd v. Kijakazi (S.D. Ala. 2023).

(SS) Sanchez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2020).

(SS) Madrid v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Paula D. Gotlibowski v. Nancy A. Berryhill (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Shaun Eric Haynes v. Nancy A. Berryhill (C.D. Cal. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1) — 17 cases

Neva SPELLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donna E. SHALALA, M.D., Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., Defendant-Appellee, 1 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 1993).

Sharp v. Comm Soc. Sec., 152 F. App'x 503 (6th Cir. 2005).

Paulin v. Astrue, 657 F. Supp. 2d 939 (M.D. Tenn. 2009).

Griffies v. Astrue, 855 F. Supp. 2d 257 (D. Del. 2012).

Sokolovskaya v. Colvin, 187 F. Supp. 3d 324 (D. Mass. 2016).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(1)(3) — 4 cases

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

Higginson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Mich. 2021).

Miller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D. Ky. 2025).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2) — 13 cases

Tommaso Fargnoli v. Larry G. Massanari, Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 247 F.3d 34 (3rd Cir. 2001).

Deborah A. Garred v. Michael J. Astrue, 383 F. App'x 820 (11th Cir. 2010).

Smith v. Saul (D. Del. 2019).

Yarrusso v. Berryhill (D. Del. 2019).

Groeger v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (W.D.N.Y. 2021).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(i) — 5 cases

Goodman v. Colvin, 233 F. Supp. 3d 88 (D.D.C. 2017).

Sutherland v. Berryhill, 271 F. Supp. 3d 710 (D. Del. 2017).

Sherman v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2021).

Doerr v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Windsor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D. Ohio 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(ii) — 1 case

Vicki Lockwood v. Carolyn Colvin, 627 F. App'x 575 (8th Cir. 2015).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2)(iii) — 1 case

O'Neil v. Kijakazi (S.D. Cal. 2022).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(l)(3) — 2 cases

Betancourt v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.N.J. 2022).

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

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f) — 30 cases

Kaddo v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 238 F. Supp. 3d 939 (E.D. Mich. 2017).

Dube v. Astrue, 781 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.N.H. 2011).

Quigley v. Barnhart, 224 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Mass. 2002).

McEaney v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 536 F. Supp. 2d 252 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).

Sullivan v. Astrue, 825 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Ill. 2011).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(1) — 4 cases

Bologna v. Kijakazi (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Burns v. Saul (S.D. Ind. 2020).

Naumann v. Saul (E.D. Mo. 2022).

Schimanskey v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Wash. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2) — 3 cases

Moore v. Saul (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Masoumian v. Kijakazi (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Leduc v. Bisignano (9th Cir. 2026).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(I) — 1 case

Leech v. Comm Soc. Sec., 177 F. App'x 225 (3rd Cir. 2006).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(i) — 3 cases

Coggon v. Barnhart, 354 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D. Mass. 2005).

Doerr v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (M.D. Fla. 2021).

Mesa v. Barnhart, 253 F. Supp. 2d 934 (W.D. Tex. 2003).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(ii) — 2 cases

Gutierrez-Gonzalez v. Astrue, 894 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (N.D. Ill. 2012).

Gonzalez v. Barnhart, 491 F. Supp. 2d 329 (W.D.N.Y. 2007).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(f)(2)(iii) — 2 cases

Madison v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Glass v. Barnhart, 158 F. App'x 530 (5th Cir. 2005).

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.