Opinion ID: 2804772
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Rubenfeld

Text: Dr. Rubenfeld, an internist, examined Sanborn on February 19, 2009. He observed that Sanborn failed a leg-raising maneuver with his right leg in both the sitting and supine position, displayed a limited range of motion in the cervical and lumbar spine, and “had difficulty getting on and off the table.” App. 190–91. He also noted, however, that Sanborn had full grip strength in both hands, retained the capacity to perform fine and dexterous movements, and showed a normal gait. After the examination, Dr. Rubenfeld filled out a document assessing Sanborn’s ability to perform work-related activities. He concluded that Sanborn was limited to the occasional lifting of 2-3 pounds, standing or walking for less than an hour in an 8-hour period, and sitting for at most 10 to 15 minutes at a time. App. 187. He also concluded that Sanborn had limited capacity to push and pull with either upper or lower extremities, 8 and was “never” able to perform bending, kneeling, stooping, crouching, or balancing. App. 187–88. Lastly he found that Sanborn’s reaching, handling, and fingering would be affected by his impairments. App. 188. The primary basis for these conclusions was Sanborn’s subjective reports of pain and Dr. Rubenfeld’s observations regarding Sanborn’s limited range of motion. As with Dr. Kaplan, the ALJ attributed little weight to Dr. Rubenfeld’s residual functional capacity assessment because his conclusions were at times inconsistent with his clinical findings as to Sanborn’s objective physical impairments. Sanborn responds that Dr. Rubenfeld’s conclusions were based in large part on Sanborn’s own account of his symptoms, and emphasizes that “pain or other symptoms may not be disregarded solely because they are not substantiated by objective medical evidence.” SSR 96-7p, 1996 WL 374186, at  (July 2, 1996). Here, however, the ALJ had already concluded that Sanborn’s subjective testimony as to the “intensity, persistence[,] and limiting effects” of his symptoms was not credible.1 App. 38. Accordingly, we agree that the ALJ was entitled to discount Dr. Rubenfeld’s conclusions to the extent that they were not fully grounded in his own clinical findings or in Sanborn’s testimony.