(Id.) Third, Plaintiff argues that because “[the Commissioner] does not address Plaintiff's arguments concerning the ALJ's separate duties under 42 U.S.C. § 421(d) and the principles of Cancanon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-17-04319-PHX-GMS, 2019 WL 1099088, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019),” the Commissioner waived these arguments.

A plaintiff's self-report alone is insufficient to substantiate a medical opinion, especially when the plaintiff has been deemed not credible and the opinion is inconsistent with the objective medical record.See Cancanon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-17-04319-PHX-GMS, 2019 WL 1099088, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019) (recognizing that “[i]f a treating provider's opinions are based ‘to a large extent' on an applicant's self-reports and not on clinical evidence, and the ALJ finds the applicant not credible, the ALJ may discount the treating provider's opinion”) (quoting Ghanim v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2014)).

Since the ALJ could not rely on the opinion of State Agency consultant Dr. Ostrowski, the only option available was to insert her own lay medical opinion. This Court has held that “while the ALJ is responsible for weighing the medical evidence, an ALJ may not substitute his own medical judgment for that of medical experts.” Cancanon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-17-04319-PHX-GMS, 2019 WL 1099088, at *5 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019).

In general, a physician's reliance on a claimant's “subjective complaints hardly undermines his opinion as to [a claimant's] functional limitations, as a patient's report of complaints, or history, is an essential diagnostic tool.” Cancanon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-17-04319-PHX-GMS, 2019 WL 1099088, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019) (quoting Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 2003)). However, “[i]f a treating provider's opinions are based ‘to a large extent' on an applicant's self-reports and not on clinical evidence, and the ALJ finds the applicant not credible, the ALJ may discount the treating provider's opinion.

This reason is particularly problematic here, where the ALJ has at the same time given great weight to Dr. Teed's other opinions, which are based on the same single examination of Plaintiff. See Cancanon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 17-CV-4319-PHX-GMS, 2019 WL 1099088, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 8, 2019) (rejecting this rationale when "the ALJ has at the same time given great weight to the state agency physicians who similarly examined the claimant on one occasion"). The ALJ thus erred by giving little weight to Dr. Teed's opinion that Plaintiff had marked limitations in his ability to interact with supervisors, and this error was not harmless.