Opinion ID: 59773
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Light Work Activity

Text: Hernandez first argues that there is a lack of substantial evidence to support the conclusion that he can perform light work activity, which includes sitting, standing, and/or walking up to six hours of an eight-hour day; unlimited pushing and/or pulling; occasional climbing, kneeling, and crouching; and frequent crawling and balancing. Specifically, he contends that the ALJ failed to make any findings regarding Hernandez’s “ability to lift, bend and stoop,” and that the RFC is inconsistent with the consultative examiner’s functional capacity opinion, which summarized Hernandez’s permanent restrictions as follows: “This patient should consider lite [sic] levels of employment. He has 15 pound lifting restrictions recommended. He should not do activities of repetitive stooping, squatting, twisting, kneeling, and climbing.” Contrary to Hernandez’s argument, however, the ALJ never found that Hernandez could do “unlimited” kneeling. Rather, the ALJ stated that Hernandez could do “occasional” kneeling, and this finding is fully consistent with the consultative examiner’s recommendation against “repetitive” kneeling. 2 The steps include: (1) whether the claimant is presently performing substantial gainful activity, (2) whether the claimant has a severe impairment, (3) whether the impairment meets or equals a listed impairment, (4) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from doing past relevant work, and (5) whether the impairment prevents the claimant from performing any other substantial gainful activity. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), 416.920(a)(4)(i)-(v). 5 No. 07-30816 Moreover, although Hernandez accurately notes a discrepancy between the consultative examiner’s recommended 15-pound lifting restriction and the Social Security regulations—wherein the definition of “light work” requires lifting up to 20 pounds—the ALJ only assigned “more weight” to the consultative examiner’s opinion after reviewing the entire record of medical evidence and the opinions of Hernandez’s treating physicians. The ALJ observed that one of these physicians had previously released Hernandez “back to light duty status,” and that another had given Hernandez a RFC for “work activity which allowed for the lifting/carrying of objects weighing 50 pounds.” Given that it is the responsibility of the ALJ, not the court, to resolve conflicts in the evidence, Martinez v. Chater, 64 F.3d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1995), we find that substantial evidence supports the RFC finding.