Opinion ID: 218138
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mental Impairment

Text: Martise alleges that, after finding Dr. Berland's opinions unclear, the ALJ committed reversible error by not ordering a consultative examination regarding Martise's mental impairments. We reject Martise's argument. While [a]n ALJ should recontact a treating or consulting physician if a critical issue is undeveloped, the ALJ is required to order medical examinations and tests only if the medical records presented to him do not give sufficient medical evidence to determine whether the claimant is disabled. Johnson v. Astrue, 627 F.3d 316, 320 (8th Cir.2010) (quotation, alteration, and citation omitted). Here, in contacting Dr. Berland via the post-hearing letter, the ALJ was providing Dr. Berland the opportunity to provide medical evidence for his opinion. But a lack of medical evidence to support a doctor's opinion does not equate to underdevelopment of the record as to a claimant's disability, as the ALJ is not required to rely entirely on a particular physician's opinion or choose between the opinions [of] any of the claimant's physicians. Schmidt v. Astrue, 496 F.3d 833, 845 (7th Cir.2007). The ALJ chose to credit the opinions of Martise's other treating and examining physicians, none of which indicated that Martise had serious functional restrictions. As the district court pointed out, the ALJ exhaustively reviewed the record medical evidence and made factual findings regarding this evidence. [T]here is no indication that the ALJ felt unable to make the assessment he did and his conclusion is supported by substantial evidence. Tellez v. Barnhart, 403 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir.2005).