Thus, even presuming Dr. Kitchel's lifting and reaching restrictions are plainly inconsistent with the WCE, his opinion would still be entitled to deference given the longitudinal treatment record. See Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2014) ("even when contradicted, a treating or examining physician's opinion is still owed deference" such that "an ALJ errs when he rejects a medical opinion [by] asserting without explanation that another medical opinion is more persuasive"); Vega v. Comm'r Soc. Sec. Admin., 2019 WL 3238466, *4 (D. Ariz. July 18, 2019) ("the mere existence of controverting opinions is not a legally sufficient reason to reject the opinion of a treating [or examining] physician"). In sum, the ALJ committed harmful legal error in weighing the 2014 medical opinion evidence from Drs. Hoppert and Kitchel.