Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): treating physician’s opinion does not deserve “controlling weight,” the ALJ “must” consider “certain factors — namely, the length of the treatment relationship and the frequency of examination, the nature and extent of the treatment relationship, supportability of the opinion, consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, and the specialization of the treating source — in determining what weight to give the opinion.” Id. In other words, “a decision denying benefits ‘must contain specific reasons for the weight given to the treating [physician’s] medical opinion.’ ” Id. (emphasis added). Generally speaking, if an ALJ’s decision fails to follow these procedural rules, the decision should not be affirmed unless it can be shown that any error was harmless. See, e.g., id. at 547 (<HOLDING>); Heston v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 245 F.3d 528 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that remand was necessary when the alj failed to adhere to  4041527d2s procedural requirements and noting that a de minimis violation of those procedural requirements may qualify as harmless error (B) holding that court had no obligation to inform pro se litigant of procedural requirements due to clear evidence in record including inter alia defendants mention of requirements in summary judgment motion that litigant knew requirements (C) holding that court may not impose procedural requirements on agency decisionmaking that go beyond those of the administrative procedure act (D) holding that courts must strictly adhere to title viis procedural requirements and stating that these requirements are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants (E) holding that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleged to be cause for the procedural default of other claims is itself an independent claim subject to the procedural requirements of exhaustion
Output (English): holding that courts must strictly adhere to title viis procedural requirements and stating that these requirements are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants