Opinion ID: 165245
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mental Impairment Analysis.

Text: In accordance with 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520a(d) and 416.920a(d), the ALJ completed a Psychiatric Review Technique form (PRT) in which he evaluated the functional limitations caused by plaintiff’s mental impairments. As summarized by the ALJ in his decision, in the PRT, the ALJ concluded that: (1) “[t]he degree of limitation with respect to [plaintiff’s] activities of daily living are found to be ‘slight’”; (2) “[plaintiff’s] difficulties in maintaining social functioning are found to be ‘moderate’”; (3) “[plaintiff’s] deficiencies of concentration, persistence, or pace resulting in failure to complete tasks in a timely manner . . . are found to be ‘seldom’”; and (4) “there is no evidence of any episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like settings.” Aplt. App., Vol. I at 19. -7- According to §§ 404.1520a(c)(4) and 416.920a(c)(4), the ALJ was required to discuss in his decision “the significant history, including examination, laboratory findings, and functional limitations that [were] considered in reaching [the] conclusions [in the PRT].” In his decision, the ALJ complied with this requirement, as the ALJ’s decision contains a detailed discussion of the pertinent medical and other evidence in the administrative record that supports his decision that plaintiff is not disabled as a result of his mental impairments. See Aplt. App., Vol. I at 19-21. In particular, the ALJ discussed the medical records and/or reports of Dr. Cordy (a treating psychiatrist), Dr. Sangal (a treating psychiatrist), Dr. Koduri (a consultative examining psychiatrist retained by the Commissioner), and Dr. Varghess and Dr. Pearce (non-examining consultative physicians retained by the Commissioner). Id. We see no error in the ALJ’s mental impairment analysis, and we conclude that the analysis is supported by substantial evidence in the record.