Barry Boone appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits after a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). For reversal, Boone argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and in particular, that (1) the ALJ’s finding that Boone could perform his past relevant work (PRW) as an exterminator and quality-assurance worker is not supported by substantial evidence, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of Boone’s treating physician, Samuel Burchfield, M.D.

Following careful de novo review, we conclude that substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the denial of Boone’s application. See Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 927-31 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We agree with Boone that substantial evidence does not support a finding that he could perform his PRW as an exterminator and quality-assurance worker, but Boone cannot show that the ALJ would have decided his case differently if the error had not occurred: the ALJ continued the sequential evaluation to find, based on the testimony of a vocational expert, that there were other jobs that a person with Boone’s residual functional capacity and environmental restrictions could perform. See Byes v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 913, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2012). *703 Further, we conclude that the AL J properly discounted Dr. Burchfield’s opinion based on its inconsistency with the physician’s medical-examination findings and with other medical evidence in the record as a whole. See Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897-98 (8th Cir. 2011).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.