Opinion ID: 3165140
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard Treatment

Text: Stephenson’s first issue on appeal is that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s excluding from his residual functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment of Stephenson’s need to elevate her left leg throughout the day, the standard treatment for lymphedema. The Commissioner responds that substantial evidence does support the ALJ’s RFC assessment. The ALJ determines a claimant’s RFC based on evidence such as medical records, doctor’s opinions, and the claimant’s descriptions of her symptoms. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529(a). The ALJ considers the “extent to which [the claimant’s] symptoms can reasonably be accepted as consistent with the objective medical evidence and other evidence.” Id. Objective medical evidence supports the conclusion that Stephenson did not need to elevate her left leg throughout the day. Medical exams showed no evidence that Stephenson had deep vein thrombosis or valvular insufficiency. (R. 12 at PageID 337, 343, 331). Doctor’s reports stated that treatment and 9 Case No. 14-4154, Stephenson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. compression stocking helped control her symptoms. (Id. at 332, 331, 360, 373). Additionally, no doctor instructed Stephenson to regularly elevate her leg. Stephenson argues that objective medical evidence demonstrates her need to elevate her leg. She asserts that the websites Mayoclinic.org and WebMD declare elevation of the limb above the heart to be the standard treatment for lymphedema. Neither website actually states that elevation is the standard treatment for lymphedema, however. Mayoclinic suggests elevation to prevent lymphedema after surgery, and WebMD states elevation “can help ease the drainage.” Stephenson has not pointed to any evidence in the record that notes the requirement to elevate her leg throughout the day. We agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s RFC assessment.