Court Opinion

ID: 9490658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:50:40.554302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:14.348474
License: Public Domain

BEEZER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Davis argues that the district court erred in affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits. Davis maintains that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s finding that her “allegations [of pain] are not credible to the extent alleged.”
A plethora of physicians have examined and treated Davis. These experts reached conflicting conclusions regarding Davis’s pain, disability and residual functioning capacity. One examining physician concluded that Davis was totally disabled. On the other hand, Dr. Leventhal stated that Davis’s pain was “out of proportion to all of her physical findings.”
Although unable to perform some work after her 1975 accident, Davis had been em*676ployed in a number of different capacities prior to her 1992 fall. Three neurologists that examined Davis determined that the injuries she sustained before the 1992 fall were the likely cause of her discomfort. They made no conclusions respecting whether Davis was totally disabled.
The ALJ considered Davis’s testimony, testimony offered by Davis’s family and friends, and the range of medical opinions introduced into evidence. “We therefore are presented with the not uncommon situation of conflicting medical evidence. The trier of fact has the duty to resolve that conflict.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 399, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1426, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971). Although the ALJ acknowledged that Davis suffered pain, he found that Davis’s allegations were not credible to the extent she alleged.
Substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings. I would affirm the decision of the district court.