Opinion ID: 620395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Physical Limitations

Text: Murphy also contends that the ALJ failed to properly accept her treating physician Dr. Woodard’s opinion regarding her physical limitations. The ALJ accepted most of Dr. Woodard’s assessment of Murphy’s physical limitations, but did reject one important finding: that although performing a job that permitted her to shift positions at will, Murphy could sit, stand, and walk for no more than a total of two hours a day. In rejecting this finding, the ALJ relied on the state agency physicians’ reports which reviewed Dr. Woodard’s opinion and concluded that this two‐hour limitation was based on Murphy’s subjective complaints and not on objective medical evidence. In his ruling, the ALJ also cited the objective medical evidence that supported the state agency physicians’ reports, which included normal x‐rays, normal CT scans, and an unremarkable consultative examination with Dr. Villaneuva. Further, the two‐ hour limitation was inconsistent with Murphy’s part‐time work as a CNA for 15 hours every weekend for almost two years, and with Murphy’s claim that she was seeking full‐time work. It was not erroneous for the ALJ to reject the two‐hour limitation of Dr. Woodard’s opinion, even though he was Murphy’s treating physician. “A treating physician’s opinion concerning the nature and severity of a claimant’s injuries receives controlling weight only when it is ‘well‐supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques’ and is ‘consistent with substantial evidence in the record.’” Ketelboeter v. Astrue, 550 F.3d 620, 625 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)). On this particular issue, because Dr. Woodard’s opinion was inconsistent with objective medical evidence and Murphy’s part‐time work as a CNA, it was not erroneous for the ALJ to discount Dr. Woodard’s opinion and to rely on that of the state agency physicians. See id. (explaining that No. 10‐3779 Page 7 “if the treating physician’s opinion is inconsistent with the consulting physician’s opinion, internally inconsistent, or based solely on the patient’s subjective complaints, the ALJ may discount it”). Similarly, Murphy also argues that ALJ erred by not accepting Dr. Woodard’s findings that Murphy required the ability to miss three days of work per month. But this finding was not supported by any objective medical evidence, and was inconsistent with Murphy’s own testimony and her record of steady part‐time employment. Because there was adequate evidence supporting the finding that Murphy had no limitation requiring her to miss work each month, we must defer to the ALJ’s decision. See Schmidt, 201 F.3d at 972.