Unpublished Dispositionlorene Lane, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-appellee, 895 F.2d 1413 (6th Cir. 1990)

Plaintiff Lorene Lane appeals the order of the district court granting summary judgment for defendant and affirming the denial of social security disability benefits to plaintiff.

After carefully examining the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports a finding that plaintiff is not disabled. Therefore, we affirm the district court's judgment.

Plaintiff's application for disability benefits was denied

initially and upon reconsideration. After the district

court remanded the case to the Secretary for consideration

of plaintiff's mental disorder as required by the Social

Security Disability Reform Act of 1984, plaintiff was again

found to be "not disabled."

Plaintiff challenges the determination that there is

substantial evidence to support the conclusion that she is

not disabled because she can perform her past relevant work.

She asserts that the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ")

incorrectly believed "that a psychologist's report was to be

given less weight than that of a psychiatrist."

Plaintiff erroneously argues that more is involved here than a resolution of conflicting medical evidence, and that it is the medical interpretations of plaintiff's symptoms that conflict. Conflicting expert opinions are commonplace in cases of this kind. The ALJ has the responsibility to weigh the medical evidence if conflicting medical opinions have been presented, McCann v. Califano, 621 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1980), and to decide which opinions, if any, are supported by the evidence of record. The ALJ did just that in this case.

This court has no authority to reweigh conflicting evidence. Garner v. Heckler, 745 F.2d 383 (6th Cir. 1984). After careful examination of the record, we are satisfied that substantial evidence supports the finding that plaintiff is not disabled.

For the reasons given above, we AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of defendant.