Opinion ID: 3055511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Luterman’s Claims

Text: On appeal, Luterman argues that the ALJ erred (1) at the fourth step by failing to include Dr. Coleman’s one-step tasks and nonproduction work setting 2 The parties consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge. 14 Case: 12-15001 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 15 of 18 limitations into the RFC ,and (2) at the fifth step by relying on vocational expert testimony in response to a hypothetical question that omitted those same limitations. 3 RFC is a medical assessment of what the claimant can do in a work setting despite any mental, physical, or environmental limitations caused by the claimant’s impairments or related symptoms. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a), 416.945(a). RFC includes mental abilities, such as the ability to understand, remember, and carry out instructions or respond appropriately to supervision, coworkers, and work pressure. Id. §§ 404.1545(c), 416.945(c). The RFC is based on all the relevant evidence in the record, including any medical evidence, and is used in steps four and five of the evaluation process to determine what work the claimant can do. Id. §§ 404.1545(a)(1), (5), 416.945(a)(1), (5); see also Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). In assessing the claimant’s RFC, the ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons therefor. Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987). The ALJ also must consider any findings of a state agency medical or psychological consultant, who is considered 3 Our review is limited to whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence and based on the proper legal standards. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). “Substantial evidence is more than scintilla and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Under this limited standard, we may not make findings of fact, reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the Commissioner. Id. 15 Case: 12-15001 Date Filed: 05/02/2013 Page: 16 of 18 an expert, and must assign weight and give explanations for assigning weight the same way as with any other medical source. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2), 416.927(e)(2); SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180 (Jul. 2, 1996). In determining how much weight to give a medical opinion, the ALJ considers factors such as the examining or treating relationship, whether the opinion is well-supported, whether the opinion is consistent with the record, and the doctor’s specialization. See 20