Opinion ID: 166346
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Residual Functional Capacity Assessment

Text: Plaintiff claims that in determining that she could perform light work requiring only occasional stooping, the ALJ incorrectly assessed her RFC. The determination of RFC is an administrative assessment, based upon all the evidence of how the claimant’s impairments and related symptoms affect her ability to perform work-related activities. See Soc. Sec. Rul. 96-5p, 1996 WL 374183, at , . The final responsibility for determining RFC rests with the Commissioner, based upon all the evidence in the record, not only the relevant medical evidence. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(e)(2); 404.1545(a)(3); 404.1546(c). According to Plaintiff, the RFC assessment is in error because the ALJ failed to include all the physical limitations set out in the opinions of her treating physicians and the report of the examining physician, Dr. Charles T. Marrow. We have already rejected Plaintiff’s claim that the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinions of her treating physicians. And contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the ALJ carefully discussed Dr. Marrow’s report of his examination, including his final impression that “although claimant was unsuitable for ‘heavy manual work’ she was a suitable candidate for vocational training” in “‘sedentary type work.’” Supplemental App. at 261 (quoting Marrow report, Aplt. App., Tab 4 at 177). As the ALJ explained, “Dr. Marrow was not asked to provide a specific functional capacity analysis,” it was “uncertain what he meant by the term ‘sedentary,’” and -8- there was “no compelling evidence upon which to conclude that Dr. Marrow ruled out claimant for ‘light’ work.” Id. See also S.S.R. 96-5p, at . (“Adjudicators must not assume that a medical source using terms such as ‘sedentary’ and ‘light’ is aware of our definitions of these terms.”). Having reviewed the evidence concerning Plaintiff’s severe impairments, including her lower back pain, we conclude that the ALJ’s RFC determination is supported by substantial evidence. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Harris L Hartz