However, an ALJ's explanation for discounting a physician's opinion may be succinct yet still supported by substantial evidence. Compare Pashia v. Berryhill, No. 4:16-cv-1267-ACL, 2017 WL 4310433, at *1, 8 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 28, 2017) (finding an ALJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence when the ALJ offered a cursory explanation for discounting the opinion of a treating psychiatrist who was the only physician to evaluate the severity of the claimant's mental impairments and whose opinion was supported by detailed narrative explanations, treatment notes, and other medical history), with Derryberry v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-3-JAR, 2017 WL 1194458, at *1, 7 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2017) (concluding that "while the ALJ's consideration of [the psychiatrist's opinion] was succinct, accounting for only one sentence of the ALJ's opinion, the ALJ gave adequate attention to the report, and instead gave greater weight to [the claimant's] history of near normal objective mental status examinations as observed by her healthcare providers over time."). Turning now to the record, the Court finds after careful consideration that the ALJ gave good reasons, supported by substantial evidence, for discounting Dr. Chaganti
Haldol is an antipsychotic drug indicated for the treatment of mental disorders such as schizophrenia. Pashia v. Berryhill, No. 4:16 CV 1267 ACL, 2017 WL 4310433, at *6 n. 3 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 28, 2017) (citing WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/drugs). In Knecht, by contrast, the drug apomorphine was found to have no proven therapeutic value and its use was not recognized as acceptable medical practice.