Opinion ID: 2979604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oliver’s Physical Functioning

Text: Oliver next contends that the ALJ failed to account adequately for the effect of her continued physical ailments in determining Oliver’s RFC. Oliver points, in particular, to her pain, and lowerback and carpal-tunnel problems. In support of this argument, Oliver directs us to one piece of evidence: a catalogue of her prescriptions since 2001. (See Admin. R. 214-17.) This list does not bear the weight Oliver places on it. To be sure, the list contains various pain medications that Oliver was taking, but there is nothing in the list substantiating the extent and intensity of her symptoms. The ALJ explained that Oliver’s description of “the intensity, persistence, and limiting effects of [her physical] symptoms are not entirely credible.” (Id. at 25.) In so concluding, the ALJ relied on numerous pieces of evidence. First, she pointed to Oliver’s ability to perform semi-skilled and unskilled work, her activities, including “raking,” and other such inconsistencies in her reported physical limitations. (See id. at 25-26.) The activities Oliver performed during this period confirmed this observation. (Id. at 26.) Also, as the ALJ pointed out, -8- No. 09-2543 Oliver v. Commissioner of Social Security Oliver herself “stated that she only uses Midrin, Excedrin, and Motrin for headaches, which helps.” (Id. at 26.) As to her back pain, Oliver’s treating physician, Dr. Hoffman, indicated in 2006 and 2007 that it might be “psychosomatic” and related to her general deconditioning and frequent smoking. (Id. at 341-45, 358, 374.) And 2007 back x-rays showed no abnormalities or trauma substantiating Oliver’s pain, (id. at 349), while a 2007 back MRI revealed only “mild broad based disc bulge . . . without significant deformity,” (id. at 672). Oliver’s medical history shows the same possible causes—largely smoking—and the absence of another physiological explanation for her chest pain. (See, e.g., id. at 363, 379, 502, 569.) Finally, the ALJ explained that the evidence in the record indicated that Oliver “had been doing a lot with her right hand and it was not slowing her down,” and that her carpal-tunnel issues were improving post-surgery. (Id. at 26; see id. at 265, 272, 276.) Oliver points to our opinion in Rogers v. Commissioner of Social Security, 486 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2007), to ground her argument that the ALJ erred. In Rogers, we found that an ALJ erred in discounting a claimant’s complaints. Id. at 248. We rejected the ALJ’s determination that the claimant was “fairly active” because the claimant only performed “somewhat minimal daily functions” and because the record did not support the ALJ’s determination. Id. at 248-49. We believe Rogers is inapposite to this case, however, for Rogers dealt with the ALJ’s decision to credit non-treating sources over treating sources without adequately explaining this decision, and with the unique condition of fibromyalgia. Id. at 244-45. The ALJ here relied on Oliver’s own treating physicians’ reports and testing to find that Oliver’s complaints do not merit credence on this issue; and her complaints related to diseases unlike fibromyalgia. The inconsistency between Oliver’s -9- No. 09-2543 Oliver v. Commissioner of Social Security testimony and the record thus establishes that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to discount her testimony in part. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 423(d)(5)(A), 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i); 20 C.F.R. § 416.929; White, 572 F.3d at 287; Jones v. Sec. of Health and Human Servs., 945 F.2d 1365, 136970 (6th Cir. 1991). In sum, we find the ALJ’s conclusion as to Oliver’s physical limitations supported by substantial evidence.