Opinion ID: 183961
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. France

Text: Dr. France is a psychologist who examined Mr. Butler on March 31, 2006, and April 15, 2006, to prepare a rehabilitation psychology report dated May 7, 2006. He opined that Mr. Butler had “a chronic pain problem with a concurrent affective component” which, in combination with other impairments, had “rendered him unemployable in his preferred occupation.” Aplt. App. at 271. Dr. France thus classified Mr. Butler as “having a secondary employment limitation.” Id. Mr. Butler contends that the ALJ committed reversible legal error by failing to explain the weight given to Dr. France’s opinion. We agree that the ALJ did not state what weight, if any, Dr. France’s opinion was afforded. But under these circumstances, we do not consider this omission to require reversal. -10- Dr. France was an examining psychologist, not a treating medical source. Therefore, his opinion was not entitled to controlling weight and the process afforded a treating source’s opinion. See Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 763 (10th Cir. 2003). An ALJ is required to “review all of the evidence relevant to [a] claim” and “make findings about what the evidence shows.” 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(c), 416.927(c). But the ALJ’s discussion of Dr. France’s opinion shows that the ALJ obviously considered the opinion, and the decision generally is consistent with the opinion. 2 For example, Dr. France opined that Mr. Butler could not work in his chosen profession; that is, as a plumber. The ALJ agreed. Dr. France also indicated that a secondary employment limitation did not preclude all employment, but instead eroded potential earnings. Moreover, Dr. France’s opinion was rendered while Mr. Butler was still working at Home Depot. In sum, we are not convinced that the ALJ’s failure to assign an explicit weight to Dr. France’s opinion amounts to reversible error.