Opinion ID: 4535028
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Ray

Text: Dr. Ray examined R.M.B. following the administrative hearing. Other than noting hyperextension of R.M.B.’s elbows, fifth digits, and legs, along with mildly elastic and translucent skin, Dr. Ray’s examination findings were normal; nonetheless, Dr. Ray found R.M.B. had physical limitations that “affect[] her ability to function secondary to difficulty standing, walking, lifting and bending.” Aplt. App., Vol. 6 at 851. The ALJ said that he “considered” Dr. Ray’s opinions and that they were “incorporated into the findings that [R.M.B.] had less than marked limitation in health and physical well-being [and] moving [about] and manipulating objects.” Id., Vol. 2 at 34. Bridges maintains that the ALJ was not telling the truth when he said he considered Dr. Ray’s opinions and incorporated them into his findings because “if this were true, R.M.B. would have been found disabled.” Aplt. Opening Br. at 23. We disagree. “Where, as here, the ALJ indicates he has considered all the evidence our practice is to take the ALJ at his word.” Wall v. Astrue, 561 F.3d 1048, 1070 (10th Cir. 2009) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). More to the point, nothing in Dr. Ray’s evaluation requires a finding that R.M.B. is disabled. And in any event, Dr. Ray’s opinion “is not dispositive because final responsibility for determining the ultimate issue of disability is reserved to the [Commissioner].” Castellano v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1029 (10th Cir. 1994); see also 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(1). 15