Q: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
and she reported being stressed about having to take care of the family and feeling like she was "wearing the pants in the home." Tr. 388, 392, 412, 413. Further, Vang reported to Dr. Hoistad that she engaged in very little social activities because she did not have the time and she was depressed about taking care of her children. Tr. 436. There is nothing in the initial intake report or progress notes by Thersleff that made any mention of the impact of Vang's depression on her ability to engage in daily activities. "A treating physician's opinion does not deserve controlling weight when it is nothing more than a conclusory statement." Hamilton, 518 F.3d at 610 (citing Piepgras v. Chater, 76 F.3d 233, 236 (8th Cir.1996)); see also Thomas v. Sullivan, 928 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, checking a box on a form, without
Holding statements: (A) holding that the weight given to a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements (B) holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations (C) holding that a conclusory opinion may be rejected (D) holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician (E) holding that a treating physicians opinion may be rejected if it is brief conclusory and unsupported by medical evidence
A:
holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations