What kinds of evidence is the SSA required to consider for my SSI SSDI disability claim?

• All forms of evidence.

• 20 C.F.R. §404.1527; 20 C.F.R. §416.927 sets forth how medical opinion evidence must be considered and weighed. The regulation points out that the Agency will consider every opinion it gets, that it will make findings about all opinion evidence and that it will give “good reasons” for crediting and rejecting all opinion evidence. The “good reasons” clause is found in subsection (d)(2) of the regulation. The Sixth Circuit issued a very helpful decision, relying on this subsection, to hold SSA must always give a reason for rejecting opinion evidence and it must be a good reason. See Wilson v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 378 F.3d 541, 544-45 (6th Cir. 2004).Subsection (d) is also important because it sets out the five factors the Agency considers in weighing medical opinion evidence:
  • (1) examining relationship;
  • (2) treatment relationship;
  • (3) supportability;
  • (4) consistency;
  • (5) specialization; and
  • (6) catchall.

• Subsection (d)(2) also states “if we find that a treating source’s opinion on the issue of the nature and severity of your impairment 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.” This may be the most persuasive argument a practitioner will ever have that a client is disabled. If your client’s doctor has opined that he or she is disabled and that opinion is entitled to controlling weight, you win!  Contrast this though with subsection (e)(1) that states an opinion that your client is disabled is one that is an issue reserved to the Commissioner [of SSA] and can never be entitled to controlling weight. (That means your client’s doctor should spell out what your client can and cannot do in terms of sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, etc. because those are medical opinions. Statements like “he can’t work” will always be deemed an opinion reserved to the Commissioner.)

• The medical opinion of the treating physician is to be given substantial deference -- and, if that opinion is not contradicted, complete deference must be given. [citations omitted] The reason for such a rule is clear. The treating physician has had a greater opportunity to examine and observe the patient. Further, as a result of his duty to cure the patient, the treating physician is generally more familiar with the patient's condition than are other physicians. [citation omitted] It is true, however, that the ultimate decision of disability rests with the administrative law judge. Walker v. Secretary of Health and Human Services., 980 F.2d 1066, 1070 (6th Cir. 1992); See also Farris v. Secretary of Health and Human Services., 773 F.2d 85, 90 (6th Cir. 1985); Harris v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir.1985); Hurst v. Schewiker, 725 F.2d 53, 55 (6th Cir. 1984); Stamper v. Harris, 650 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir. 1981); Branham v. Gardner, 383 F.2d 614, 634 (6th Cir. 1967).