UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CARMEN I. JELITTO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee. No. 12-4087 (D.C. No. 2:11-CV-00235-SA) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before HARTZ , EBEL , and GORSUCH , Circuit Judges.

Claiming disability, Carmen Jelitto s ought supplemental s ecurity benefits. After a hearing, an administ rative law judge (ALJ) conclude d that Ms. Jelitto is able to perform light work despite chronic back pain and depression. Because the types of jobs she can perform exist in significant numbers in the national economy, the ALJ

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 a nd 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### January 31, 2013
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - denied benefits. Ms. Jelitto appealed, but the Social Security Administration upheld the ALJ’s decision and, later, so did the district court. Before us, Ms. Jelitto clai ms the ALJ gave inadequate weight to the testimony of two of her doctors, Dr. Kelton Lundsber g (her primary care physician and treating doctor) and Dr. Gerald Manwill (a psychologi st who performed a si ngle evaluation). Turning first to Dr. Lundsberg’s opinion, a treating doctor’s opinion ordinarily deserves “controlling weight.” See 20 C.F.R. § 416.927 (c)(2 ). Controlling weight, however, is appropriate only if the trea ting doctor’s opinion “i s well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and labor atory diagnostic techniques.” Watkins v. Barnhart , 350 F.3d 1297, 1300 (10th Cir. 2003) (internal quot ation marks omitted). The ALJ held Dr. Lundsberg’s opinion failed to meet this standard and we cannot disagree. As the ALJ noted, Dr. Lundsbe rg’s progress notes showed that he examined Ms. Jelitto’s back only twice in the past four years, and there’s no evidence in the record that Dr. Lu ndsberg conducted any other examinations. The ALJ found this “infrequency of back exam inations” to be “striking.” Aplt. App., Vol. I at 28. Ms. Jelitto replies by arguing that Dr. Lundsberg reviewed and relied on work performed by two other doctors, doctors who conducted a number of tests on her back — including an x-ray, two CT scans, an MRI, and a lumbar discography. The difficulty is, Dr. Lundsberg’s notes only once reference a CT scan and make no mention of the other tests. See Aplt. App., Vol. II at 281. The record thus simply- 3 - does not support Ms. Jelitto’s claim that he based his opinion on the tests other doctors performed. At the very least, Ms. Jelitto says th e ALJ should have given Dr. Lundsberg’s opinion more than the “little weight” he did. In assessing what weight to give a noncontrolling medical opinion, an ALJ usually mu st consider the six factors enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(c). See Watkins , 350 F.3d at 1300-01. Although Ms. Jelitto disagrees with the outcome of this process, it is apparent that the ALJ considered each of the relevant factors before reachi ng a final decision. For example, the ALJ noted that Dr. Lundsberg is not a speciali st, his opinions are inconsistent with each other, his opinions and functional limitatio ns are not supported by his progress notes, and his reports were prepared for anot her agency and don’t demonstrate an understanding of the Social Security disa bility program. We see no error in the process or outcome of th e ALJ’s assessment. Turning to Dr. Manwill, Ms . Jelitto argues the ALJ di dn’t give enough weight to Dr. Manwill’s psychological opinion. Dr. Manwill diagnosed Ms. Jelitto with a major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (P TSD) and concluded she couldn’t work at all. The ALJ re viewed Dr. Manwill’s evaluation and ordered another examination by Dr. Tanya Colledge, also a psychologist. Dr. Colledge agreed that Ms. Jelitto had a major depre ssive disorder, but Dr. Colledge believed the depression didn’t affect Ms. Jelitto’s ability to do work-related activities. Relying on Dr. Colledge’s opinion, the AL J concluded Ms. Jelitto had “slight mental limitations”- 4 - — up to a 10% reduction in her ability to c oncentrate, make comp lex work decisions, and carry out detailed instruct ions. Aplt. App., Vol. I at 22. Ms. Jelitto says the ALJ’s conclusion was wrong and the ALJ s hould have used Dr. Manwill’s opinion instead. We cannot agree. The ALJ evaluated bot h opinions in light of the factors set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 416.927. The ALJ th en concluded Dr. Colledge’s assessment was entitled to more weight and gave co lorable reasons for the decision. For example, Dr. Colledge’s opinion was s upported by more extensive testing and examination — she performed a more detailed mental status examination and administered three tests to Dr. Manwill’s one. Dr. Colledge tested Ms. Jelitto three months after Dr. Manwill, by which time Ms. Jelitto didn’t show any specific symptoms of PTSD and sc ored much higher on the one test Dr. Manwill did administer. Dr. Colledge’s te sts showed Ms. Jelitto was “a ble to remember and carry out simple as well as multi -step instructions” and didn’t indicate Ms. Jelitto had any particular memory difficulties. Aplt. App., Vol. III at 746. One might disagree with the ALJ’s assess ments, but our job is not to reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment fo r the ALJ’s. Only substantial, not compelling or incontrovertib le, evidence is required to sustain an administrative agency’s findings. See Lax v. Astrue , 489 F.3d 1080, 1084 (10t h Cir. 2007). That is- 5 - present here and it is equally clear the ALJ followed the correct legal standards in evaluating the evidence. See id. In these circumstances, we must and do affirm. Entered for the Court

Neil M. Gorsuch Circuit Judge