and surgery. Sharp’s extensive medical records paint a picture of an individual faced with a serious ailment that has increasingly interfered with his daily activities, whether work related or not. “[I]n evaluating ... [an] episodic disease,” this court has noted, “consideration should be given to the frequency and duration of the [disease’s] exacerbations, the length of the remissions, and the evidence of any permanent disabilities.” Wilcox v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 272, 277 (6th Cir.1990). Consistent with this approach, Sharp’s treating physician stated that “[i]t is my estimation that approximately ten days per month [Sharp] has such a severe episode [of vertigo] that he is not able to work,” that such episodes are “associated with nausea, vomiting, ataxia, and severe disequilib r.2002) (<HOLDING>). That leaves the ALJ’s last justification—
holding that a treating physicians medical opinion must be given controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record holding alj properly relied on treating physicians wellsupported opinion especially when the contradictory evidence is plaintiffs own medical opinions about her condition holding that the weight given a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements holding that the weight given to a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements recognizing treating physicians opinion that he would expect the applicant to miss more than two or more days of work per month as an opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition that is entitled to controlling weight if wellsupported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence