Nor does alleging such a condition or symptom substitute for properly alleging that the symptom actually affects a claimant's RFC. Further, the ALJ “need not engage in a formalistic factor-by-factor recitation of the evidence when evaluating the functional effects of a claimant's subjective symptoms,” nor do the regulations require the ALJ to “discuss every factor listed . . .; they expressly provide that she does not need to do so.” Guillar v. Comm'r, SSA, 845 Fed.Appx. 715, 721 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished) (emphasis added) (quotations omitted) (citing SSR 16-3p); cf. Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 775-76 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (holding that an ALJ's decision may be read “as a whole”).
Moreover, as established above, the ALJ had previously discussed Plaintiff's medical record, including objective medical evidence, his daily activities, limited work activity, and conservative medical treatment. See Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (10th Cir. 2012) (explaining that when an ALJ sets forth a summary of the relevant objective medical evidence earlier in his decision, he is not required to repeat the same summary again when evaluating medical opinions).
Although these explanations were not included in the discussion about Dr. Martinich's opinions specifically, the ALJ was not required to repeat her previous findings when weighing Dr. Martinich's opinions. See Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The ALJ set forth a summary of the relevant objective medical evidence earlier in his decision and he is not required to continue to recite the same evidence again in rejecting [a medical source] opinion.”).
But an ALJ is not required to repeat an earlier discussion of the medical evidence when evaluating an opinion or report. Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The ALJ set forth a summary of the relevant objective medical evidence earlier in his decision and he is not required to continue to recite the same evidence again in rejecting Dr. Wright's opinion.”);
, the lack of a contemporaneous discussion does not mean this Court is unable to review the ALJ's decision. See Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (10th Cir.2012) (ALJ "is not required to continue to recite the same evidence again" if already discussed earlier); Best-Willie, 514 Fed.Appx. at 733.
It is well-established that a contemporaneous discussion is not mandatory when an ALJ previously discusses evidence and then later cites to that evidence when determining the persuasiveness of an opinion. Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (10th Cir. 2012). B. Harmful Error Analysis
Thus, other than considering the evidence, the ALJ had no other duty. See Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 778 (10th Cir. 2012) (noting that “[t]he ALJ was not required to discuss” the physician's “notes in her treatment records about the limitations in [the plaintiff's] cervical range of motion” because the notes did not constitute “an opinion that could be evaluated by the ALJ” when the physician “did not opine as to how those limitations would affect [the plaintiff's] ability to function.”).
The ALJ did not err by failing to repeat the information during the evaluation of Dr. Dave's opinion and Dr. Osborne's finding. See, e.g., Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (10th Cir. 2012) (“The ALJ set forth a summary of the relevant objective medical evidence earlier in his decision and he is not required to continue to recite the same evidence again in rejecting Dr. Wright's opinion.”).
Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777, 2012 WL 6685446, at *4 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Oldham v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2007)); see also Webb v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 750 Fed.Appx. 718, 721 (10th Cir. 2018) (“An ALJ may discount a treating physician's opinion because it is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence or assesses new restrictions without explanation or support.”).
In fact, in detailing the objective evidence, the ALJ mentioned examination findings from a December 2020 primary care appointment with Dr. Schultz, explaining that Plaintiff had a left foot drop, but was not tripping.See Endriss v. Astrue, 506 Fed.Appx. 772, 777 (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (“The ALJ set forth a summary of the relevant objective medical evidence earlier in his decision and he is not required to continue to recite the same evidence again in rejecting [an] opinion.”).