Opinion ID: 2306043
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The ALJ's Factual Findings Were Supported by Substantial Evidence

Text: Petitioner argues that the ALJ contradicts himself in describing the evidence, and that the CRB erred by determining that the ALJ's decision was based on substantial evidence. We agree that some portions of the ALJ's opinion are confusing. For example, the ALJ noted that there is no medical evidence that the claimant has ever been diagnosed with or treated for any symptoms ... of the left leg, but he then acknowledged that certain notes from Dr. Ammerman and the physical therapist refer to petitioner's complaints of leg problems. After careful examination, we do not consider these statements to be contradictory. The ALJ's strict use of the term medical evidence is fairly understood to mean that the only notations in the medical records referring to a problem with the left leg are based on subjective complaints from Ms. Golding-Alleyne herself, recorded by her doctor and therapist. There are no medical test results documenting a permanent impairment to the left leg, [4] nor is there any evidence credited by the ALJ linking the pain in the leg to the work-related back injury. We conclude that the ALJ understood the evidence and that his findings of fact are supported by the record as a whole.