Rescinded

Rescinded by Federal Register Notice Vol. 82, No. 57, page 15263 effective March 27, 2017

SSR 96-2p

EFFECTIVE/PUBLICATION DATE: 07/02/96

SSR 96-2p: POLICY INTERPRETATION RULING
TITLES II AND XVI: GIVING CONTROLLING WEIGHT TO TREATING SOURCE MEDICAL OPINIONS

PURPOSE: To explain terms used in our regulations on evaluating medical opinions concerning when treating source medical opinions are entitled to controlling weight, and to clarify how the policy is applied. In particular, to emphasize that:

  1. A case cannot be decided in reliance on a medical opinion without some reasonable support for the opinion.

  2. Controlling weight may be given only in appropriate circumstances to medical opinions, i.e., opinions on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s), from treating sources.

  3. Controlling weight may not be given to a treating source's medical opinion unless the opinion is well- supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques.

  4. Even if a treating source's medical opinion is well- supported, controlling weight may not be given to the opinion unless it also is "not inconsistent" with the other substantial evidence in the case record.

  5. The judgment whether a treating source's medical opinion is well-supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record requires an understanding of the clinical signs and laboratory findings and what they signify.

  6. If a treating source's medical opinion is well- supported and not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record, it must be given controlling weight; i.e., it must be adopted.

  7. A finding that a treating source's medical opinion is not entitled to controlling weight does not mean that the opinion is rejected. It may still be entitled to deference and be adopted by the adjudicator.

CITATIONS (AUTHORITY): Sections 205(a), 216(i), 223(d), 1614(a)(3), and 1631(d) of the Social Security Act, as amended; Regulations No. 4, sections 404.1502 and 404.1527, and Regulations No. 16, sections 416.902 and 416.927.

PERTINENT HISTORY: Our regulations at 20 CFR 404.1502, 404.1527, 416.902, and 416.927 were revised on August 1, 1991, to define who we consider to be a "treating source" and to set out detailed rules for evaluating treating source medical opinions and other opinions. Among the provisions of these rules is a special provision in 20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) that requires adjudicators to adopt treating source medical opinions (i.e., opinions on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s)) in one narrowly defined circumstance. As we stated in the preamble to the publication of the final rules:

The provision recognizes the deference to which a treating source's medical opinion should be entitled. It does not permit us to substitute our own judgment for the opinion of a treating source on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of an impairment when the treating source has offered a medical opinion that is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence.

56 FR 36932, 36936 (1991).

POLICY INTERPRETATION:

Explanation of Terms

Controlling weight. This is the term used in 20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2) to describe the weight we give to a medical opinion from a treating source that must be adopted. The rule on controlling weight applies when all of the following are present:

  1. The opinion must come from a "treating source," as defined in 20 CFR 404.1502 and 416.902. Although opinions from other acceptable medical sources may be entitled to great weight, and may even be entitled to more weight than a treating source's opinion in appropriate circumstances, opinions from sources other than treating sources can never be entitled to "controlling weight."

  2. The opinion must be a "medical opinion." Under 20 CFR 404.1527(a) and 416.927(a), "medical opinions" are opinions about the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s) and are the only opinions that may be entitled to controlling weight. (See SSR 96-5p, "Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner.")

  3. The adjudicator must find that the treating source's medical opinion is "well-supported" by "medically acceptable" clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques. The adjudicator cannot decide a case in reliance on a medical opinion without some reasonable support for the opinion.

  4. Even if well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, the treating source's medical opinion also must be "not inconsistent" with the other "substantial evidence" in the individual's case record.

If any of the above factors is not satisfied, a treating source's opinion cannot be entitled to controlling weight. It is an error to give an opinion controlling weight simply because it is the opinion of a treating source if it is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or if it is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record. However, when all of the factors are satisfied, the adjudicator must adopt a treating source's medical opinion irrespective of any finding he or she would have made in the absence of the medical opinion.

For a medical opinion to be well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques, it is not necessary that the opinion be fully supported by such evidence. Whether a medical opinion is well-supported will depend on the facts of each case. It is a judgment that adjudicators must make based on the extent to which the opinion is supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and requires an understanding of the clinical signs and laboratory findings in the case record and what they signify.

It is not unusual for a single treating source to provide medical opinions about several issues; for example, at least one diagnosis, a prognosis, and an opinion about what the individual can still do. Although it is not necessary in every case to evaluate each treating source medical opinion separately, adjudicators must always be aware that one or more of the opinions may be controlling while others may not. Adjudicators must use judgment based on the facts of each case in determining whether, and the extent to which, it is necessary to address separately each medical opinion from a single source.

Medically acceptable. This term means that the clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques that the medical source uses are in accordance with the medical standards that are generally accepted within the medical community as the appropriate techniques to establish the existence and severity of an impairment. The requirement that controlling weight can be given to a treating source medical opinion only if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques helps to ensure that there is a sound medical basis for the opinion.

Not inconsistent. This is a term used to indicate that a well-supported treating source medical opinion need not be supported directly by all of the other evidence (i.e., it does not have to be consistent with all the other evidence) as long as there is no other substantial evidence in the case record that contradicts or conflicts with the opinion.

Whether a medical opinion is "not inconsistent" with the other substantial evidence is a judgment that adjudicators must make in each case. Sometimes, there will be an obvious inconsistency between the opinion and the other substantial evidence; for example, when a treating source's report contains an opinion that the individual is significantly limited in the ability to do work-related activities, but the opinion is inconsistent with the statements of the individual's spouse about the individual's actual activities, or when two medical sources provide inconsistent medical opinions about the same issue. At other times, the inconsistency will be less obvious and require knowledge about, or insight into, what the evidence means. In this regard, it is especially important to have an understanding of the clinical signs and laboratory findings and any treatment provided to determine whether there is an inconsistency between this evidence and medical opinions about such issues as diagnosis, prognosis (for example, when deciding whether an impairment is expected to last for 12 months), or functional effects. Because the evidence is in medical, not lay, terms and information about these issues may be implied rather than stated, such an inconsistency may not be evident without an understanding of what the clinical signs and laboratory findings signify.

Substantial evidence. This term describes a quality of evidence. Substantial evidence is "...more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." (Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971), SSR 71-53c, C.E. 1971-1975, p. 418.) The term is intended to have this same meaning in 20 CFR 404.1527(d)(2) and 416.927(d)(2). It is intended to indicate that the evidence that is inconsistent with the opinion need not prove by a preponderance that the opinion is wrong. It need only be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion that is contrary to the conclusion expressed in the medical opinion.

Depending upon the facts of a given case, any kind of medical or nonmedical evidence can potentially satisfy the substantial evidence test. For example, a treating source's medical opinion on what an individual can still do despite his or her impairment(s) will not be entitled to controlling weight if substantial, nonmedical evidence shows that the individual's actual activities are greater than those provided in the treating source's opinion. The converse is also true: Substantial evidence may demonstrate that an individual's ability to function may be less than what is indicated in a treating source's opinion, in which case the opinion will also not be entitled to controlling weight.

When a Treating Source's Medical Opinion is not Entitled to Controlling Weight

Adjudicators must remember that a finding that a treating source medical opinion is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the case record means only that the opinion is not entitled to "controlling weight," not that the opinion should be rejected. Treating source medical opinions are still entitled to deference and must be weighed using all of the factors provided in 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927. In many cases, a treating source's medical opinion will be entitled to the greatest weight and should be adopted, even if it does not meet the test for controlling weight.

Also, in some instances, additional development required by a case--for example, to obtain more evidence or to clarify reported clinical signs or laboratory findings--may provide the requisite support for a treating source's medical opinion that at first appeared to be lacking or may reconcile what at first appeared to be an inconsistency between a treating source's medical opinion and the other substantial evidence in the case record. In such instances, the treating source's medical opinion will become controlling if, after such development, the opinion meets the test for controlling weight. Conversely, the additional development may show that the treating source's medical opinion is not well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques or may create an inconsistency between the medical opinion and the other substantial evidence in the case record, even though the medical opinion at first appeared to meet the test for controlling weight. Ordinarily, development should not be undertaken for the purpose of determining whether a treating source's medical opinion should receive controlling weight if the case record is otherwise adequately developed. However, in cases at the administrative law judge (ALJ) or Appeals Council (AC) level, the ALJ or the AC may need to consult a medical expert to gain more insight into what the clinical signs and laboratory findings signify in order to decide whether a medical opinion is well-supported or whether it is not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the case record.

Explanation of the Weight Given to a Treating Source's Medical Opinion

Paragraph (d)(2) of 20 CFR 404.1527 and 416.927 requires that the adjudicator will always give good reasons in the notice of the determination or decision for the weight given to a treating source's medical opinion(s), i.e., an opinion(s) on the nature and severity of an individual's impairment(s). Therefore:

When the determination or decision:

  • is not fully favorable, e.g., is a denial; or

  • is fully favorable based in part on a treating source's medical opinion, e.g., when the adjudicator adopts a treating source's opinion about the individual's remaining ability to function;

the notice of the determination or decision must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating source's medical opinion, supported by the evidence in the case record, and must be sufficiently specific to make clear to any subsequent reviewers the weight the adjudicator gave to the treating source's medical opinion and the reasons for that weight.

When the determination or decision is fully favorable and would be even without consideration of a treating source's medical opinion, the notice of the determination or decision must contain an explanation of the weight given to the treating source's medical opinion. This explanation may be brief.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ruling is effective on the date of its publication in the Federal Register.

CROSS-REFERENCES: SSR 96-5p, "Titles II and XVI: Medical Source Opinions on Issues Reserved to the Commissioner;" Program Operations Manual System, sections DI 22505.001, and DI 24515.001-24515.003; Hearings, Appeals, and Litigation Law manual, sections I-2-530, I-2-532, I-2-534, I-2-539, I- 2-540, I-2-825, I-3-111, I-3-712, I-3-812, and Temporary Instruction 5-310.

Back to Table of Contents