Holding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to discount a treating physician's opinion because it was inconsistent with his treatment notes, unsupported by the medical evidence, and appeared to be based primarily on the claimant's subjective complaints
Holding "that the ALJ made a reasonable decision to reject [claimant's] subjective testimony, articulating, in detail, the contrary evidence as his reasons for doing so"
Holding that claimant's ability to do basic daily activities did not support the ALJ's finding that her pain was not so disabling as to reduce her residual functional capacity
Holding that the medical opinions, in combination with claimant's testimony about his ability to carry out daily activities, provided substantial evidence to support the ALJ's decision
Holding so long as the ALJ's findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive and the reviewing court must defer to the ALJ's decision even if the evidence may preponderate against it
Holding that ALJ did not neglect this duty as there was nothing presented at the hearing to indicate that retrospective assessments would have revealed any useful information or that the physicians were prepared to undertake such assessments