Opinion ID: 749825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consultative Examinations

Text: 11 Brachtel next argues that the ALJ failed to include in the hypothetical certain impairments noted by particular consultative psychiatrists and psychologists. Brachtel claims that the ALJ erred because he offer[ed] no cogent reason for characterizing these reports [made by consultative psychiatrists and consultative psychologists] as enlightening, and then failing to incorporate the precise restrictions that the reports themselves contained. Appellant's Br. at 27. 12 First, the precise meaning of the ALJ's reference to the examination reports as most enlightening is not entirely clear. See Admin. Tr. at 470 (ALJ Decision Upon Remand). But given the context of the statement, it appears most likely that the ALJ characterized the reports as most enlightening because they illustrated Brachtel's history of dishonest and manipulative statements regarding his alleged disabilities. See id. Second, and more important, it is properly left to the fact-finder to weigh the evidence provided by examining professionals. See Onstad v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 1232, 1234 (8th Cir.1993). These examining professionals disagreed on the extent to which Brachtel was disabled. The resolution of this conflicting evidence is within the province of the ALJ. It was certainly not error for the ALJ to make findings of fact more consistent with the report of one doctor, while finding the reports of other doctors useful in some respects.