Opinion ID: 857216
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Assessment of the Information

Text: Pepper first argues that the ALJ’s RFC determination was “erroneous” as a whole because the ALJ “merely summarized some of the medical evidence without assessment or discussion specifying how the medical and other evidence supported his conclusions,” and there22 No. 12-2261 fore, it did not satisfy the requirements of S.S.R. 96-8p. We disagree. After setting forth his RFC determination, the ALJ provided a lengthy discussion of Pepper’s testimony regarding all her impairments and the information in the medical records. The ALJ described Pepper’s jaw, foot, chest, neck, and shoulder pains; her fear of nearfainting episodes; her respiratory issues; her mental impairments (mainly, depression); her migraines; her weight gain and obesity; and her vision problems. After doing so, he concluded that each of the impairments or ailments supported the light work limitation. This is consistent with our repeated assertion that “an ALJ’s ‘adequate discussion’ of the issues need not contain ‘a complete written evaluation of every piece of evidence.’ ” McKinzey, 641 F.3d at 891 (quoting Schmidt, 395 F.3d at 744). The ALJ’s discussion here was adequate. To the extent Pepper argues that the decreased range of motion in her neck and her ability to sit for only a short period of time are inconsistent with the ALJ’s RFC assessment, this argument is unconvincing. The only doctor to offer an opinion about Pepper’s abilities that arguably could be inconsistent with her capacity to do light work was Pepper’s cousin, Dr. Kafka, in 2003. But even Dr. Kafka did not explicitly opine that Pepper’s impairments, individually or in the aggregate, prevented her from completing the central tasks of “light work:” lifting, walking, standing, and pushing and pulling with one’s arms and legs. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1567(b); see also Diaz v. Chater, 55 F.3d 300, 306-07 (7th Cir. 1995) (describing the evidence the ALJ considered in determining the claimaint had the RFC to do light and No. 12-2261 23 sedentary work, including evidence of one doctor’s opinion that the claimaint’s impairments “affected his ability to reach, push, and pull”). The ALJ has the responsibility of resolving any conflicts between the medical evidence and the claimaint’s testimony. See Shauger v. Astrue, 675 F.3d 690, 698 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 936 (8th Cir. 2006)). He did that. Our task is to determine whether substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC conclusion. We believe that it does.