F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see also Rogers v. Comm’r of Social Sec., 486 F.3d 234, 243 (6th Cir.2007) (stating that “fibromyalgia patients present no objectively alarming signs”); Green-Younger v. Barnhart, 335 F.3d 99, 108 (2d Cir.2003) (explaining that “there are no objective tests which can conclusively confirm [fibromyalgia]” (quotation marks and citation omitted)); Sarchet v. Chater, 78 F.3d 305, 306 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that “[t]here are no laboratory tests for the presence or severity of fibromyalgia”). The lack of objective clinical findings is, at least in the case of fibromyalgia, therefore insufficient alone to support an ALJ’s rejection of a treating physician’s opinion as to the claimant’s functional limitations. See Green-Younger, 335 F.3d at 105-08 (<HOLDING>). Given the nature of fibromyalgia, a
holding that because fibromyalgia is a disease that eludes objective measurement alj improperly discredited treating physicians disability determination based upon lack of objective evidence holding that an insurance company could not deny a claim for longterm disability benefits based on a lack of objective medical evidence when the original policy did not refer to the objective medical evidence standard and never defined that term holding that the lack of hard evidence did not supply a good reason for rejecting a treating source physicians assessment where the disability was fibromyalgia holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations holding that where the alj had already  obtained and considered reports from treating physicians the alj had before him a complete medical history and the evidence received from the treating physicians was adequate for him to make a determination as to disability