Opinion ID: 7354
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged stomach problems (mainly

Text: abdominal bloating and bowel gas) without documentation. Dr. Long noted that x-rays revealed normal (spinal) alignment, normal disc spaces, and . . . joints . . . within normal limits. Processes are intact. There are . . . small anterior marginal osteophytes at L3 and L4 but the lumbar spine is otherwise within normal limits. Before Martinez testified, the medical expert, Dr. Daily, expressed his opinion that, although there was some conflict in the medical evidence, Martinez' medical records indicated that he could perform medium work. After Martinez testified, Dr. Daily qualified his opinion by stating that, considering Martinez' testimony as credible, additional medical tests would be required to determine whether Martinez was capable of medium work. Dr. Daily stated that Martinez' medical records were sufficient for him to express a confident opinion as to all of Martinez' claimed impairments except his complaints of fatigue. Dr. Daily opined that Martinez' diabetes could not cause the extreme symptoms of chronic fatigue that Martinez described. Dr. Daily suggested that Martinez be referred for a consultative 7 examination to determine whether he suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome. Dr. Daily found no musculoskeletal disability or indication of a coronary problem. In response to questions by Martinez' attorney, Dr. Daily qualified his prior testimony by agreeing that Martinez' diabetes could be partially responsible for his complaints of fatigue and poor bladder control; however, Dr. Daily indicated that further testing would be required to resolve the issue. Dr. Moore performed a consultative medical exam which included the tests recommended by Dr. Daily. Dr. Moore reported that Martinez suffered from arthritis of the spine but that he had no significant physical abnormalities nor evidence of functional limitations . . . . He further reported that, although Martinez had a history of non-insulin dependent diabetes with a history of poor control, Dr. Moore found no evidence of end organ damage due to the diabetes. Based on his examination, Dr. Moore determined that Martinez had no impediments to his ability to lift, carry, stand, walk, or sit; that he could climb, crouch, kneel, and crawl occasionally; and that he had no other limitations on his work-related activities. This determination supports the ALJ's finding that Martinez could perform his past relevant work as a sander or fruit picker. Without discussing the results of the follow-up consultative medical examination, Martinez cites Dr. Daily's statement at the hearing that he would not send [Martinez] out today to do medium 8 work, arguing that there is no evidence to show that Martinez can perform medium work. Martinez misses the point and misconstrues Dr. Daily's statement. Dr. Daily did not state that Martinez was incapable of medium work; he stated that without further testing he could not determine whether Martinez was capable of medium work. Thus, Martinez' argument that there is no evidence to support the finding of no disability is incorrect. Martinez also insists that the district court erred by disregarding the evidence of his treating physician, Dr. Yeung Chan. Although not conclusive, an evaluation by the claimant's treating physician should be accorded great weight. Greenspan v. Shalala, 38 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, No. 948717, 1995 WL 156211 (U.S. May 15, 1995). A treating physician's opinion on the nature and severity of a patient's impairment will be given controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with . . . other substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2). Even though the opinion and diagnosis of a treating physician should be afforded considerable weight in determining disability, the ALJ has sole responsibility for determining a claimant's disability status. Moore v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 901, 905 (5th Cir. 1990). `[T]he ALJ is free to reject the opinion of any physician when the evidence supports a contrary conclusion.' Bradley v. Bowen, 809 F.2d 1054, 1057 (5th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Dr. Chan's opinion that Martinez is totally disabled is not 9 entitled to controlling weight because Dr. Chan failed to provide a medical explanation for his opinion, and because Dr. Chan's opinion is inconsistent with the opinions of Drs. Long and Moore, which were based on clinical test results. As substantial evidence supports the determination that Martinez is not disabled, the Commissioner's decision must stand. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Richardson, 402 U.S. at 390; Villa, 895 F.2d at 1021-22. AFFIRMED. 10