Opinion ID: 4535028
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Six Domains of Functioning

Text: Finally, Bridges argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence because there was other evidence in the record from which the ALJ could have found R.M.B. disabled. This argument also lacks merit. Our review is confined to whether the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Lax, 489 F.3d at 1084. We have already determined that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards, which leaves only the question of substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See id. at 1084. Once we determine the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and the correct legal standards were applied, our inquiry is complete. See id. (“We may not displace the agency’s choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Recall that every medical expert other than Dr. Maqbool—Drs. Krishnamuathi, Maxwell, Fisher, Nicol, and Posey—all opined that R.M.B. did not have “extreme” or “marked” limitations in any of the six domains. These opinions are evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the ALJ’s conclusion that R.M.B. was not disabled. 17