Opinion ID: 152879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Weight of Treating Physician

Text: Second, Shaw contends that the ALJ erred by rejecting the opinions of Dr. Naqvi, her treating physician, without giving adequate reasons. The opinion of a treating physician must be given substantial weight unless “good cause” is demonstrated to the contrary. Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1159 (citation omitted). The ALJ may find good cause “exists when the: (1) treating physician’s opinion was not bolstered by the evidence; (2) evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) 1 Thus, even if the ALJ erred in failing to mention every finding made by Dr. Muller, any such error was harmless. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983). 6 treating physician’s opinion was conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records.” Phillips, 357 F.3d at 1240–41 (citation omitted). If the ALJ does not give substantial weight to the treating physician, he must clearly articulate his reasons for doing so. Id. (citation omitted). An opinion on an applicant’s RFC is not a medical opinion, but rather a decision reserved to the Commissioner, to be based on medical sources, and the physician’s opinion in this respect is not entitled to deference. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2): If we find that a treating source’s 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 opinion controlling weight, we apply the factors listed in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii) of this section, as well as the factors in paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(6) of this section in determining the weight to give the opinion. The factors from 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(2)(i) and (ii) include length of treatment, frequency of treatment and the overall nature and extent of treatment. Factors from 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(3)–(6) include supportability from medical signs and laboratory reports, consistency with the record as a whole, specialization of the doctor and other factors as necessary. 7 Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to give Dr. Naqvi’s opinion less weight. (AR at 26–27). To the extent that the ALJ rejected Dr. Naqvi’s opinion because he found that Shaw was disabled and could not work for twelve months, that is a legal conclusion reserved for the agency determination. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e), 416.927(e). To the extent that the ALJ rejected Dr. Naqvi’s opinion concerning the severity of Shaw’s symptoms in some respects, the ALJ properly declined to give full weight to these findings because substantial evidence supported the conclusion that they were in part conclusory or not supported by Dr. Naqvi’s own records. (AR at 429–30, 488–89, 496–97, 501–05, 538). The ALJ found good cause for not giving Dr. Naqvi’s opinions substantial weight, and we affirm in this respect.