Opinion ID: 4535028
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Other Medical Evidence

Text: According to Bridges, the ALJ failed to adequately discuss evidence from: (1) Nurse Jacob, who, in November 2014, referred R.M.B. for occupational and physical therapy to build core strength, develop gross and fine motor skills, provide protection for her joints, and increase her ability to perform activities of daily living; (2) Dr. Taylor, who, in April 2015, found that R.M.B. did not meet the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, but offered some suggestions that might be helpful to R.M.B. in a school setting; and (3) Dr. Francomano, who, in February 2016, diagnosed R.M.B. with the hypermobility type of EDS, and recommended some specialists Bridges could see to determine whether R.M.B. had a tethered cord and help with pain management. It is well-established that “[t]he ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence.” Wall, 561 F.3d at 1067 (internal quotation marks omitted). “[W]e will generally find the ALJ’s decision adequate if it discusses the uncontroverted evidence the ALJ chooses not to rely upon and any significantly probative evidence the ALJ decides to reject.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the ALJ did not ignore the evidence that R.M.B.: (1) received physical therapy; (2) was diagnosed with the hypermobility type of EDS; and (3) needed some adjustments at school. Nor did he reject any significantly probative evidence because none of the three medical providers offered opinions on R.M.B.’s functional limitations. No further discussion or analysis was necessary. 16