(a) Factors which support greater weight. Evidence will generally be given more weight if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

(1) The residual functional capacity evaluation is based upon functional objective tests with high validity and reliability;

(2) The medical evidence shows multiple impairments which have a cumulative effect on the employee's residual functional capacity;

(3) Symptoms associated with limitations are consistent with objective findings;

(4) There exists an adequate trial of therapies with good compliance, but poor outcome;

(5) There exists consistent history of conditions between treating physicians and other health care providers.

(b) Factors which support lesser weight. Evidence will generally be given lesser weight if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

(1) There is an inconsistency between the diagnoses of the treating physicians;

(2) There is inconsistency between reports of pain and functional impact;

(3) There is inconsistency between subjective symptoms and physical examination findings;

(4) There is evidence of poor compliance with treatment regimen, keeping appointments, or cooperating with treatment;

(5) There is evidence of exam findings which is indicative of exaggerated or potential malingering response;

(6) The evidence consists of objective findings of exams that have poor reliability or validity;

(7) The evidence consists of imaging findings which are nonspecific and largely present in the general population;

(8) The evidence consists of a residual functional capacity evaluation which is supported by limited objective data without consideration for functional capacity testing.

[63 FR 7542, Feb. 13, 1998]