Opinion ID: 3187989
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr. Gibson

Text: Michel alleges that the ALJ erroneously rejected the opinion of Dr. Gibson, who performed a consultative psychological evaluation of Michel. Dr. Gibson focused on Michel's attention, concentration, and pace limitations. According to Michel, the ALJ should have incorporated something about 'attention, concentration and pace' into the RFC finding based on Dr. Gibson's opinion. As the district court found, [t]he ALJ . . . thoroughly addressed the consultative psychological examination of Michel performed by Dr. Gibson. (Footnote omitted.) The ALJ afforded Dr. Gibson's opinion little weight because while [Michel] continually reported problems with concentration, none of her treating medical sources found any difficulties with concentration on examination (Exhibit 5F; 8F). In support of the ALJ's finding of an inconsistency between Dr. Gibson's opinion and Michel's other treating medical sources, the ALJ cited Exhibits 5F and 8F, which are -18- Michel's medical records from Amundsen and Dr. Odefey. The ALJ's finding of inconsistency with other evidence alone is sufficient for the ALJ to afford little weight to Dr. Gibson's opinion as to Michel's ability to concentrate. See Goff, 421 F.3d at 790–91.