Opinion ID: 1302959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Michaelson's Opinion

Text: Between January 2005 and January 2006, Wildman visited a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Michaelson, three times. During each visit, Dr. Michaelson conducted a mental status exam and recommended changes in Wildman's medications to Dr. Burstain. On Wildman's first visit, Dr. Michaelson also noted Wildman's history of liver and pancreatitis problems and explained that [Wildman] at this point is markedly limited by her multiple medical problems but there are a couple of things that could be considered. Dr. Michaelson then recommended changes in her depression medication to prevent increased blood sugar and hypertension. While the ALJ cited Dr. Michaelson's notations regarding Wildman's mental status in his decision, he did not specifically discuss Dr. Michaelson's statement that Wildman was markedly limited by her medical problems. Wildman argues that the ALJ erroneously ignored Dr. Michaelson's reports. We disagree. Although required to develop the record fully and fairly, an ALJ is not required to discuss every piece of evidence submitted. Black v. Apfel, 143 F.3d 383, 386 (8th Cir.1998). Moreover, [a]n ALJ's failure to cite specific evidence does not indicate that such evidence was not considered. Id. Given the ALJ's specific references to findings set forth in Dr. Michaelson's notes, we find it highly unlikely that the ALJ did not consider and reject Dr. Michaelson's statement that Wildman was markedly limited. Id.