over a long period of time will have a deeper insight into the medical condition of the claimant than will a person who has examined a claimant but once, or who has only seen the claimant’s medical records.” Doyal v. Barnhart, 331 F.3d 758, 762 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Barker v. Shalala, 40 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir.1994)). It is clear the ALJ sought to circumvent this doctrine. Dr. Kesten treated Garcia’s left leg and lumbar injuries on and off for a period of at least eight years, eventually determining that Garcia would require absence from his workstation every hour for five to ten minutes and would likely be expected to miss more than four days of work per month. R. at 646-648. This opinion is entitled to controlling weight. See Krauser v. Astrue, 638 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Further, the reg ulatory factors weigh
holding that specific workrelated functional limitations are not issues reserved to the commissioner and should be given controlling weight when determined by a treating physician holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury 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 that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician