The following rules apply to our Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants that we consult in connection with administrative law judge hearings and Appeals Council reviews:
(a) In claims adjudicated by the State agency, a State agency medical or psychological consultant may make the determination of disability together with a State agency disability examiner or provide medical evidence to a State agency disability examiner when the disability examiner makes the initial or reconsideration determination alone (see § 416.1015(c) of this part). The following rules apply:
(1) When a State agency medical or psychological consultant makes the determination together with a State agency disability examiner at the initial or reconsideration level of the administrative review process as provided in § 416.1015(c)(1), he or she will consider the evidence in your case record and make administrative findings about the medical issues, including, but not limited to, the existence and severity of your impairment(s), the existence and severity of your symptoms, whether your impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements for any impairment listed in appendix 1 to this subpart, and your residual functional capacity. These administrative medical findings are based on the evidence in your case but are not in themselves evidence at the level of the administrative review process at which they are made. See § 416.913(a)(5).
(2) When a State agency disability examiner makes the initial determination alone as provided in § 416.1015(c)(3), he or she may obtain medical evidence from a State agency medical or psychological consultant about one or more of the medical issues listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. In these cases, the State agency disability examiner will consider the medical evidence of the State agency medical or psychological consultant under §§ 416.920b, 416.920c, and 416.927.
(3) When a State agency disability examiner makes a reconsideration determination alone as provided in § 416.1015(c)(3), he or she will consider prior administrative medical findings made by a State agency medical or psychological consultant at the initial level of the administrative review process, and any medical evidence provided by such consultants at the initial and reconsideration levels, about one or more of the medical issues listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section under §§ 416.920b, 416.920c, and 416.927.
(b) Administrative law judges are responsible for reviewing the evidence and making administrative findings of fact and conclusions of law. They will consider prior administrative medical findings and medical evidence from our Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants as follows:
(1) Administrative law judges are not required to adopt any prior administrative medical findings, but they must consider this evidence according to §§ 416.920b, 416.920c, and 416.927, as appropriate, because our Federal or State agency medical or psychological consultants are highly qualified and experts in Social Security disability evaluation.
(2) Administrative law judges may also ask for medical evidence from expert medical sources. Administrative law judges will consider this evidence under §§ 416.920b, 416.920c, and 416.927, as appropriate.
(c) When the Appeals Council makes a decision, it will consider prior administrative medical findings according to the same rules for considering prior administrative medical findings as administrative law judges follow under paragraph (b) of this section.
[82 FR 5876, Jan. 18, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2019–2026 · leading case:
Gray v. O'Malley (N.D.N.Y. 2024).
Gray v. O'Malley (N.D.N.Y. 2024).
· cites it 2× “However, when you -- and that certainly gives 5 room for pause, but 20 C.F.R. Section 416.913a, which addresses 6 evidence from Federal or State agency medical psychological 7 consultants, suggests that the existence and severity of 8 impairments about medical issues are…”
Reeves v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2023).
“1513a(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1). The regulations provide that the Commissioner “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 [the claimant’s…”
Sanders v. O'Malley (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2024).
“1513a(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1). The regulations provide that the Commissioner “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 [the claimant’s…”
Denyse Avila v. Andrew Saul (C.D. Cal. 2020).
“” 20 C.F.R.§ 416.913a(b)(1). 6 Reports of non-examining medical experts “may serve as substantial evidence 7 when they are supported by other evidence in the record and are consistent with it.”
Harris v. Berryhill (D. Conn. 2020).
“” 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(2). An ALJ may not decide whether a claimant’s impairment meets a listing requirement without “consideration of a medical judgment about medical equivalence furnished by one or more physicians designated by the Secretary.”
Casanova v. Saul (D. Conn. 2020).
“In doing so, obtain evidence from a medical expert related to the nature and severity of and functional limitations resulting from the claimant’s mental impairments (20 CFR 416.913a(b)(2)). (R. 1351.) ALJ Alger held a second hearing on March 5, 2019.”
Padilla v. Berryhill (N.D. Fla. 2019).
“The Court finds no 6 See 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1) (“Administrative law judges are not required to adopt any prior administrative medical findings, but they must consider this evidence according to §§ 416.”
Atkins v. Saul (D. Minnesota 2021).
“See 20 C.F.R § 416.913a(b); see also Smith v.”
Wilkin-Aloisio (W.D.N.Y. 2026).
“2019) (“terms such as ‘mild’ and ‘moderate’ can constitute substantial evidence where ‘the facts underlying that opinion and the other medical opinions in the record lend the terms a more concrete meaning’”) (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1) (“[s]tate agency medical…”
Jones (M.D. Ala. 2026).
“1513a(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1). The regulations provide that the Commissioner “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 [the claimant’s…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.913a(5) — 1 case
Gray v. O'Malley (N.D.N.Y. 2024).
“However, when you -- and that certainly gives 5 room for pause, but 20 C.F.R. Section 416.913a, which addresses 6 evidence from Federal or State agency medical psychological 7 consultants, suggests that the existence and severity of 8 impairments about medical issues are…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.913a(b) — 1 case
Atkins v. Saul (D. Minnesota 2021).
“See 20 C.F.R § 416.913a(b); see also Smith v.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.913a(b)(1) — 6 cases
Reeves v. Kijakazi (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2023).
“1513a(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1). The regulations provide that the Commissioner “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 [the claimant’s…”
Sanders v. O'Malley (CONSENT) (M.D. Ala. 2024).
“1513a(b)(1); 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1). The regulations provide that the Commissioner “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 [the claimant’s…”
Denyse Avila v. Andrew Saul (C.D. Cal. 2020).
“” 20 C.F.R.§ 416.913a(b)(1). 6 Reports of non-examining medical experts “may serve as substantial evidence 7 when they are supported by other evidence in the record and are consistent with it.”
Padilla v. Berryhill (N.D. Fla. 2019).
“The Court finds no 6 See 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1) (“Administrative law judges are not required to adopt any prior administrative medical findings, but they must consider this evidence according to §§ 416.”
Wilkin-Aloisio (W.D.N.Y. 2026).
“2019) (“terms such as ‘mild’ and ‘moderate’ can constitute substantial evidence where ‘the facts underlying that opinion and the other medical opinions in the record lend the terms a more concrete meaning’”) (citations omitted); 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(1) (“[s]tate agency medical…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 416.913a(b)(2) — 2 cases
Harris v. Berryhill (D. Conn. 2020).
“” 20 C.F.R. 416.913a(b)(2). An ALJ may not decide whether a claimant’s impairment meets a listing requirement without “consideration of a medical judgment about medical equivalence furnished by one or more physicians designated by the Secretary.”
Casanova v. Saul (D. Conn. 2020).
“In doing so, obtain evidence from a medical expert related to the nature and severity of and functional limitations resulting from the claimant’s mental impairments (20 CFR 416.913a(b)(2)). (R. 1351.) ALJ Alger held a second hearing on March 5, 2019.”
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.