Robar v . SSA CV-10-288-PB 7/13/11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Susan Robar v. Civil N o . 10-cv-288-PB Opinion N o .

Michael Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Susan Robar filed a complaint seeking review, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. ' 405(g), of the Commissioner=s decision denying her

application for disability insurance benefits. Robar moves to

reverse the Commissioner=s decision on the grounds that the residual

functional capacity assessment by the Administrative Law Judge

(AALJ@) is not supported by substantial evidence and that the ALJ

erred in not giving Robar=s treating source opinions appropriate

weight. The Commissioner moves to affirm the decision. For the

reasons provided below, I affirm the Commissioner=s decision.

I. BACKGROUND1

Susan Robar was born in 1967 and was forty years old when she

applied for disability insurance benefits. She is a high school

1 The background information is taken from the parties’ Joint Statement of Material Facts. See L.R. 9.1(b). Citations to the Administrative Transcript are indicated by “Tr.” graduate, and she also earned an Associate's Degree in college.

Before she stopped working in March 2007, she was an adolescent

counselor/caseworker, working at night in a residential facility,

the Dover Children's Home. Prior to that, Robar had worked as a police

and fire dispatcher, a salesperson, a sandwich maker, and a security

officer.

A. Medical and Psychological Treatment Records

Robar was first diagnosed with Crohn's disease in 1988. By 1996,

medical records indicate that she was asymptomatic and not taking

medication for Crohn's disease.

In November of 2003, Robar's medical records at Womankind

Counseling Center note that she had been on medication to treat

depression for two and a half years. At that time, her depression

was "healing," and she was feeling good more consistently. In the

spring of 2004, Robar lost her job as a dispatcher, experienced some

depression, recovered, and started working at Dover Children's Home as an adolescent counselor and caseworker. She again had an episode

of feeling tearful, anxious, and irritable, but a month later she

felt better. That fall, she again experienced depression but felt

better by December. During 2005, Robar took medication for

depression and her depression, grief, anxiety, and stress improved,

2 causing her GAF score to be assessed at 55. 2

While playing hockey in January of 2006, Robar noticed that

she was having shortness of breath, but subsequent pulmonary testing

showed normal lung function. She was examined by a chiropractor

in February 2006 because of stiffness in her back and neck after an automobile accident. The chiropractor found a reduced range of

motion in her cervical spine and diagnosed cervical strain or sprain.

By June 2006, Robar no longer was having spasms in her back or neck.

Also in January 2006, Robar was evaluated by her

gastroenterologist, D r . Alain Ades, for her Crohn=s disease. Robar

reported increased diarrhea with some bleeding. D r . Ades thought

that Robar was having a mild recurrence of Crohn=s disease. He

recommended Remicaid infusions to treat that condition and Aher

Althialgias, which are severe.@3 On May 1 8 , 2006, a physician=s

assistant who completed a AChild-Care Person Health Care Form,@ wrote

that Robar=s physical and mental health issues were well controlled

by her medications. 2 AGAF@ stands for the Global Assessment Functioning scale. See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 30 (4th ed. 1994). 3 The parties= Joint Statement of Material Facts does not explain ARemicaid infusions,@ or AAlthialgias.@ Remicaid is also spelled ARemicade@ in the Statement and the administrative record. Based on D r . Ades note in the Administrative Record, AAlthialgias@ should have been Aarthralgias,@ which generally means joint pain.

3 Robar met about once a month beginning in 2006 with Jeanne Allen,

a licensed social worker. In June of 2006, Allen referred Robar

to Dr. Amy Feitelson, a staff psychiatrist at Seacoast Mental Health

Center. Dr. Feitelson noted that Robar said she had been in

intermittent treatment for depression since college and that her

mood fluctuated depending on stress within her family. Dr. Feitelson

reported that Robar was cooperative during the evaluation, that her

mood was anxious and depressed, and that her affect was constricted.

Dr. Feitelson diagnosed dysthemia and noted that bipolar type II,

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, personality disorder, and

learning disabilities would need to be ruled out. She rated Robar's

GAF at 65.4

Also in June 2006, Robar had an appointment with Dr. Sonita

Estrada, who had been treating Robar for inflammatory arthritis

related to Crohn's disease. Dr. Estrada noted that Robar's prior

treatment had either caused problems with her Crohn's disease or had

not helped her arthritis. Dr. Estrada decided to start a new 4 "'A GAF score of 65 . . . reflects "some mild symptoms (e.g. depressed mood or mild insomnia) OR some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning . . . but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships. Brown v. Astrue,

(8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kohler v. Astrue,

(2d Cir. 2008) quoting Am. Psychiatric Ass'n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 34 (4th ed. 2000)); see also Barton v. Astrue, No. 10-cv-151-PB,

, at *1 n.3 (D.N.H. June 14, 2011).

4 medication. By August 2006, Robar also had changed her medication

for depression to Wellbutrin.

Robar had an appointment with D r . Ades on August 1 0 , 2006.

Dr. Ades thought that Robar was having a flare up of Crohn=s disease

and advised her to discontinue Wellbutrin. Robar was taking Remicaid

and a short-term course of Prednisone. In October of 2006, Robar

reported doing better and decreasing her Prednisone dose. By

December 2006, D r . Ades reported that Robar was better but still

had symptoms that he believed were due to stress.

In January 2007, Dr. Feitelson noted that Robar=s mood was fairly

stable although she had depression on some days. Robar reported

that she was working and was able to play hockey, which she enjoyed.

Dr. Feitelson increased Robar=s medication in March 2007 because she

was having difficulty with attention, focus, and energy.

Robar also saw her primary care physician, D r . Kathleen Kelley,

in March 2007. Robar reported that she was having cognitive

difficulty, including lack of concentration, memory loss, possible

blackouts, and fatigue that was out of proportion to the amount of

sleep she was getting. D r . Kelley noted Robar=s various chronic

problems and that she was applying for medical leave from her work.

Dr. Kelley noted that Robar had chronic Crohn=s disease, fatigue,

malaise, and insomnia and referred her for neuropsychological testing

5 and an MRI. 5

Also in March 2007, Robar told her social worker, Jeanne Allen,

that she felt out of control both physically and emotionally. Robar

continued to meet with Allen for therapy through 2009. During 2009,

Robar reported low energy, Astruggling to get through the day,@ attention problems, memory problems, and fatigue.

Beginning on March 2 9 , 2007, D r . Gina M . Divenuti, an

oncologist/hemotologist, treated Robar for anemia. D r . Divenuti

found that Robar was mildly anemic, which she thought was because

of the effects of Crohn=s disease. On May 2 4 , 2007, after Robar had

received several iron infusions, D r . Divenuti found that Robar had

attained desirable blood levels. Robar later returned to D r .

Divenuti and continued to have iron infusions through 2009.

Craig Stenslie, Ph.D., did a psychological evaluation of Robar

on May 1 0 , 2007. D r . Stenslie found that Robar had a mild cognitive

impairment in auditory attention and working memory, verbal learning

and word initiation and organization, psychomotor speed, and

cognitive flexibility. He also found Asigns of dysthemic disorder,

generalized anxiety disorder that had potential under stress to

5 The Joint Statement of Material Facts does not indicate whether that testing was done. In her motion, Robar states that she was referred to D r . Craig Stenslie who did the neuropsychological testing.

6 become a mild dissociative disorder, and a mild to moderate personality disorder with avoidant and mildly paranoid and/or schizoid features.@ Joint Statement at 8 (Doc. N o . 1 0 ) . Dr. Stenslie concluded that Robar=s cognitive problems were related to anxiety, depression, and fatigue. He recommended that instead of working at night, a more normal daytime schedule would have positive effects.

Dr. Kelley referred Robar to Daniel Kunz, D.O., a rheumatologist, who met with Robar on September 5 , 2007. Robar complained of pain that had been worsening. D r . Kunz thought Robar=s pain was related to Crohn=s disease. He recommended retreatment with Remicaid for her Crohn=s disease and also ordered x-rays of her sacroiliac joints. By December of 2007, Robar reported improvement with Remicaid treatment and rest. D r . Kunz prescribed medication for remaining pain issues. On June 2 , 2008, Robar was still having hand, knee, and back pain, along with morning stiffness. In January 2009, D r . Kunz noted that Robar would be undergoing an MRI and would have follow up with an orthopedic surgeon.

On November 1 0 , 2008, Robar met with D r . Karen Lauze, a neurologist.6 D r . Lauze noted that Robar=s seizures and migraine

6 Although the ALJ relied on D r . Lauze=s notes in reaching his decision, the parties did not include a summary of the notes in the Joint Statement of Material Facts.

7 headaches were under control and cleared her to drive and to work.

Dr. Lauze wrote: ANo contraindications to employment.@ (Tr. 8 4 7 ) .

She indicated that Robar should have a follow up appointment in a

year.

Robar was evaluated by Dr. Roger B . Nowak, an orthopedic surgeon,

on February 2 0 , 2009. Robar explained that she had experienced left

shoulder pain while riding and trying to control her horse. After

examination, D r . Nowak recommended surgery on her left shoulder to

repair a rotator cuff injury and that surgery was performed on March

2 4 , 2009.

Robar continued to have appointments with D r . Ades. In April

of 2009, Robar reported that she had no Crohn=s disease symptoms.

Dr. Ades decided that Robar could delay the next Remicaid treatment.

He recommended that she return in four months.

Robar consulted with D r . Daniel A . Nadeau, an endocrinologist,

in May 2009. She complained of a high pulse and blood pressure every

four to six weeks and dizziness when standing. D r . Nadeau noted

that Robar had chronic problems with hypothyroidism and depression,

which he thought were not well controlled, and a neoplasm adrenal

issue.

8 Robar saw another orthopedic surgeon, D r . Mark Reeder, on

November 5 , 2009, for chronic elbow pain. D r . Reeder noted that

Robar=s pain had become worse after she started coaching ice hockey.

Dr. Reeder recommended physical therapy. At appointments over the

next several months, D r . Reeder found that Robar=s symptoms were

improving.

B. Evaluations Done for Purposes of Robar=s Benefits Application

Michael Schneider, Psy.D., a state agency consultant, reviewed

Robar=s medical and psychological treatment records in July 2007 and

completed a psychiatric review technique form and a mental functional

capacity assessment. Based on his review, D r . Schneider found that

Robar had depression, an anxiety disorder, and a personality disorder

that caused mild to moderate restrictions in Robar=s activities and

functioning. He found no extended episodes of decompensation. Dr.

Schneider concluded that although Robar had a severe psychological

impairment, she was able to understand, remember, and carry out simple

instructions and could maintain a normal work week. He also

concluded that Robar could work with others in an environment that

did not require frequent interaction with the public or overly

critical supervision.

Dr. Hugh Fairley, also a state agency consultant, reviewed

Robar=s medical records and completed an assessment of her physical

9 residual functional capacity in July 2007. He noted that Robar had

Crohn=s disease, anemia, arthritis, migraines, and asthma. As a

result, he concluded that Robar was limited to lifting and carrying

up to twenty pounds occasionally and ten pounds frequently and that

she could sit, stand, or walk with normal breaks for up to six hours

in an eight-hour workday. Dr. Fairley found no manipulative, visual,

or communicative limitations but found that Robar was limited to

doing some postural activities only occasionally. He also found

some environment limitations.

Dr. Feitelson completed a mental impairment questionnaire for

Robar on February 4 , 2010. She diagnosed a single episode major

depressive disorder and a dysthemic disorder and assigned a GAF score

of 6 5 . D r . Feitelson wrote that Robar could understand, remember,

and carry out simple instructions but not detailed instructions and

that she could not deal with the competitive requirements of

semi-skilled or skilled work. Although she found some limitations

in goal setting, interacting with the public, appearance, and

traveling, D r . Feitelson concluded Robar=s abilities were

satisfactory and that her mental condition caused only moderate

difficulty in activities of daily living and social functioning.

Dr. Feitelson, however, found that Robar had marked difficulty in

maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace and had experienced

10 one or two episodes of decompensation.

Robar's social worker, Jeanne Allen, also completed a mental

impairment questionnaire for Robar on February 9, 2010. Allen

assigned a GAF score of 50.7 Allen said that Robar had many

additional symptoms that Dr. Feitelson had not included in the

questionnaire and that Robar would be unable to meet competitive

standards for remembering work procedures; understanding,

remembering, and carrying out even very short and simple

instructions; maintaining attention; maintaining attendance and

punctuality, and performing at a consistent pace. Despite her

limitations, Allen believed that Robar had satisfactory ability to

do certain activities such as sustain a routine, work in coordination

with others, accept instruction and respond appropriately to

criticism, and get along with co-workers. Allen stated, however,

that Robar's ability to deal with unskilled work was seriously limited

but not precluded. Allen found that Robar's mental condition caused

marked difficulty in activities of daily living, social functioning,

and maintaining concentration, persistence, and pace.

Dr. Kelly completed a physical residual functional capacity

questionnaire also in February 2010. Dr. Kelly indicated on the

7 A GAF score between 45 and 50 "indicat[es] serious symptoms or serious impairment in functioning . . . ." Campbell v. Astrue,

(7th Cir. 2010).

11 form that Robar could only stand or walk for less than two hours

and sit for about two hours in an eight-hour day and would need to

change between sitting and standing at will. She also wrote that

Robar could lift ten pounds occasionally and twenty pounds rarely

and could use her hands, fingers, or arms for only twenty-five percent

of a workday. D r . Kelley also wrote that Robar would be likely to

miss more than four days of work per month.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robar applied for disability insurance benefits on May 2 , 2007,

alleging disability beginning on March 8 , 2007. After her

application was denied at the initial level and on review, Robar

requested a hearing before an ALJ.

A. Hearing

A hearing was held on February 1 1 , 2010. Robar was represented

by counsel and testified at the hearing. She described her previous

work at the Dover Children=s home and explained that her Crohn=s

disease was active at the end of the time she worked there. She

said that at the time of the hearing, her Crohn=s disease had been

fairly under control for a while and that she had been an assistant

hockey coach for a team of young girls since September 2009.

12 Robar testified that she could not work at a sedentary job

because of stiffness that caused back and neck pain and arthritis

in her hands and fingers. She also said that she experienced fatigue

and drowsiness caused by some of her medications. She said that

she had some depression about not being able to do her former work.

She also said that her epilepsy was under control with medication.

She was then living with her parents and her brother=s family and

was able to do some housework.

A vocational expert also testified at the hearing. The

vocational expert explained the skill levels and exertional

requirements of Robar=s previous jobs. In response to a hypothetical

question by the ALJ, the vocational expert testified that someone

with Robar=s age, education, and work experience, who was limited

to unskilled light work, able to stand or walk for six hours in an

eight-hour day, and had other postural and environmental limitations

could do Robar=s previous work as a sandwich maker but not any of

her other previous jobs. The vocational expert testified that

Robar=s limitations would cause only minimal erosion of the light

work base so that there would be a significant number of light work

jobs available. He further testified that a change to sedentary

jobs would preclude all of Robar=s past work but that unskilled

sedentary jobs existed that she could d o .

13 B. ALJ=s Decision

The ALJ issued a decision on February 2 6 , 2010, denying Robar=s

application for disability insurance benefits. In making the

decision, the ALJ found that Robar had severe impairments of Crohn=s

disease, seizure disorder, depression, anxiety, personality disorder, status post rotator cuff repair, anemia, and asthma.

Despite her impairments, the ALJ concluded that Robar retained the

residual functional capacity to perform light work with limitations

to only occasionally climb ramps or stairs and never to climb ladders,

ropes, or scaffolds. The ALJ also found that Robar could

occasionally balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, or crawl and that she

should avoid certain environmental conditions such as extreme

temperatures and air contaminants. In addition, the ALJ found that

Robar was limited to work that involved remembering and carrying

out only simple instructions but that she could adapt to routine

workplace changes.

Based on Robar=s residual functional capacity and the testimony

of the vocational expert, the ALJ found that Robar was capable of

returning to her work as a sandwich maker, that the Medical-Vocational

Rules would support a finding that she was not disabled, and,

alternatively, that other jobs existed in significant numbers that

Robar could d o . The ALJ=s decision became the final decision of the

14 Commissioner when the Decision Review Board failed to complete its

review within the time allowed.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under 42 U.S.C. ' 405(g), I am authorized to review the pleadings submitted by the parties and the transcript of the administrative

record and enter a judgment affirming, modifying, or reversing the

Afinal decision@ of the Commissioner. Review is limited to

determining whether the ALJ used the proper legal standards and found

facts based upon the proper quantum of evidence. Ward v . Comm=r of

Soc. Sec.,

5 2 , 655 (1st Cir. 2000).

The findings of fact made by the ALJ are accorded deference

as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence to support factual findings exists A>if a

reasonable mind, reviewing the evidence in the record as a whole,

could accept it as adequate to support his conclusion.=@ Irlanda

Ortiz v . Sec=y of Health & Human Servs.,

(1st Cir.

1991) (per curiam) (quoting Rodriguez v . Sec=y of Health & Human

Servs.,

1 8 , 222 (1st Cir. 1981)). If the substantial

evidence standard is met, factual findings are conclusive even if

the record Aarguably could support a different conclusion.@ Ortiz,

.

15 Findings are not conclusive, however, if they are derived by

Aignoring evidence, misapplying the law, or judging matters entrusted

to experts.@ Nguyen v . Chater,

1 , 35 (1st Cir. 1999).

The ALJ is responsible for determining issues of credibility and

for drawing inferences from evidence on the record. Ortiz,

. It is the role of the ALJ, not the court, to resolve conflicts

in the evidence.

IV. ANALYSIS

Robar contends that the ALJ=s residual functional capacity

(“RFC”) assessment that she retained the ability to do work at the

light exertional level with certain other limitations was not

supported by substantial evidence. She also contends that the ALJ

erred by not according controlling weight to D r . Kelly=s opinions

and by giving little weight to the opinions of D r . Feitelson and

Jeanne Allen. The Commissioner moves to affirm the decision.

Because the weight given to the medical opinions could affect review

of the ALJ=s RFC assessment, I begin with that issue.

A. Weight of Opinions

A treatment provider=s opinions will be given controlling weight

if the Atreating source=s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and

severity of [the applicant=s] impairment(s) is well-supported by

16 medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques

and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in [the]

case record.@ 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527(d)(2). When a treating source=s

opinion is not entitled to controlling weight, the ALJ determines

the amount of weight based on factors that include the nature and

extent of the source=s relationship with the applicant, whether the

source provided evidence in support of the opinion, whether the

opinion is consistent with the record as a whole, and whether the

source is a specialist in the field. 20 C.F.R. ' 404.1527(d)(1-6).

In addition, the ALJ must give reasons for the weight given to treating

source opinions. Id.; see also Soto-Cedeno v . Astrue,

-2 (1st Cir. 2010).

1. Dr. Kelly=s Opinions

Dr. Kelly indicated on the questionnaire that Robar was limited

to standing and walking for less than two hours, could sit for only

two hours in an eight-hour work day, had to be able to change positions

at will, and could lift ten pounds only occasionally and rarely lift

twenty pounds. D r . Kelly also stated that Robar could use her

fingers, hands, and arms only twenty-five percent of a work day and

that she would miss four days of work each month. The ALJ concluded

that Dr. Kelly=s opinion was entitled to little weight Aas it is wholly

inconsistent with the evidence on record.@ (Tr. 1 5 ) . As examples,

17 the ALJ noted that Robar was able to "suit up" and skate with her

hockey team during practices and that she was able to use a treadmill

for ninety minutes at a time.

As Robar's medical records and her testimony about her activities

demonstrate, Dr. Kelly's opinions are not supported by the evidence.

Robar's treatment for orthopedic issues do not indicate any need to

limit use of her hands, arms, and fingers in February of 2010. In

fact, the treatment note by Dr. Reeder at Integrated Orthopaedics,

dated January 7, 2010, states: "The patient denies any neck pain,

numbness, tingling or weakness. She states that her elbows are 'much

better.' She feels she is nearly done with physical therapy and is

overall much improved." (Tr. 1102) . The medical treatment records

show that Robar's last visit to Dr. Kelly's office, before February

2010, was in April 2009 for a rapid heartbeat, and the physician's

assistant reported "no apparent distress" and "extremities appear

normal." Therefore, the ALJ correctly decided not to give Dr. Kelly's opinions about the severity of Robar's limitations controlling

weight. See

(d)(3)-(4).

2. Jeanne Allen's Opinion and Dr. Feitelson's Opinion

Jeanne Allen and Dr. Feitelson gave opinions about the limiting

effects of Robar's mental condition, which included an inability to

meet competitive standards in a work environment and a likely absence

18 rate of four days each month. The ALJ gave the opinions little weight

because they were contradicted by the medical evidence that Robar's

depression and anxiety were well controlled by medication. The ALJ

also noted that contrary to the opinions of Allen and Dr. Feitelson,

Robar was able to coach an ice hockey team "which necessarily required

maintaining attendance at practices, dealing with some stress, and

remembering procedures, rules, drills, and plays." (Tr. 15).

As a licensed social worker, Jeanne Allen is not an acceptable

medical source who can provide evidence to establish an applicant's

impairment. See

(a); see also Bliss v. Comm'r

of Soc. S e c ,

(2d Cir. 2011); McGee v.

Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, the

ALJ correctly discounted her opinion.

Although Robar cites to medical evidence that her depression

and anxiety were not under control during the entire period between

March 2007 and the hearing date, the record also includes substantial

evidence that Robar's mental condition was controlled by medication,

particularly as time progressed. Further, Dr. Feitelson's more

negative opinions are contradicted to some extent by her own GAF

score assessment of 65. The ALJ, not the court, is charged with

resolving conflicts in the evidence. Ortiz,

.

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ's basis for giving Dr.

19 Feitelson's opinion little weight, that finding is entitled to

deference.

B. Residual Functional Capacity

An individual's RFC is ordinarily that individual’s “maximum

remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary

work setting on a regular and continuing basis,” and any RFC

assessment “must include a discussion of the individual's abilities

on that basis." SSR 96-8p,

, at *2 (July 2, 1996);

see also

. In making that assessment, the ALJ

"will consider all of [the applicant's] medically determinable

impairments of which [the ALJ is] aware, including [the applicant's]

medically determinable impairments that are not 'severe' . . . ."

(a)(2).

The ALJ found that Robar retained the ability to do less than

a full range of light work, with limitations for certain climbing

activities, environmental factors, and simple instructions. The ALJ reviewed the medical evidence that supported his finding and

noted Robar's daily activities, which showed her ability to coach

hockey, work out at a gym, and assist with work around the house

and yard. The evidence demonstrated, the ALJ found, that Robar had

more than enough energy to work full time. Robar faults the ALJ's

assessment of her residual functional capacity because he relied

20 on the opinions of the state agency consultants, because other

evidence suggests greater limitations caused by medications and her

mental and physical health, and because her daily activities were

not as robust as the ALJ suggested.

Robar argues that the ALJ erred in giving controlling weight

to the opinions of the state agency consultants, Dr. Schneider and

Dr. Fairley, over the opinions of Dr. Kelly, Dr. Feitelson, and Jeanne

Allen. Relying on Social Security Ruling 96-6p, Robar contends that

state agency consultants' opinions are not entitled to controlling

weight because they were not based on the entire record.8

SSR 96-6p provides that state agency consultants' opinions

can be given weight only insofar as they are supported by evidence in the case record, considering such factors as the supportability of the opinion in the evidence including any evidence received at the administrative law judge and Appeals Council levels that was not before the State agency, the consistency of the opinion with the record as a whole, including other medical opinions, and any explanation for the opinion provided by the . . . consultant. SSR 96-6p,

, at *2 (July 2, 1986). In addition,

consultants' opinion "may be entitled to greater weight that the

opinions of treating or examining sources" in some circumstances,

8 D r . Schneider and D r . Fairly reviewed the record and provided their opinions in July 2007, several years before the hearing in February 2010.

21 including but not limited to a situation when the opinion is based

on a review of a more complete case record than what was available

to the treating or examining source. See

at * 3 .

The ALJ gave the opinions of Dr. Schneider and Dr. Fairley Agreat

weight@ based a review of the entire record, which showed that the

opinions were Aconsistent with the totality of the medical evidence

on record.@ (Tr. 1 5 ) . Although Robar disagrees with that

assessment, she has not shown what later medical evidence undermines

the opinions of D r . Fairley and D r . Schneider. The ALJ also relied

on the opinion of D r . Lauze in November 2008 when she opined in her

treatment notes that Robar was cleared to drive and work and that

she found no contraindications for Robar=s employment, which are

consistent with the consultants= opinions.

Finally, Robar contends that she was suffering from more fatigue

than the ALJ took into consideration and notes that some of her

medications could cause fatigue. She also emphasizes her treatments

for anemia. The ALJ cites evidence that shows Robar=s activities

and medical treatment notes do not support the level of impairment

Robar claims. Although Robar points to evidence that suggests she

was more limited by her impairments than the ALJ ultimately found,

the record also includes substantial evidence to support the ALJ=s

RFC assessment.

22 V. CONCLUSION

The ALJ=s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the

record. Therefore, I lack the authority to overturn i t . Plaintiff=s

motion for an order reversing the Commissioner=s decision (Doc. N o .

8 ) is denied. The Commissioner=s motion for an order affirming the

decision (Doc. N o . 9 ) is granted.

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

July 1 3 , 2011

cc: D. Lance Tillinghast, Esq. T . David Plourde, Esq.

23