that the ALJ failed to consider the relevant factors for evaluating opinion evidence enumerated in 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2)-(6). We disagree. The ALJ expressed valid reasons for giving the medical-source statement little weight, including that it was not supported by Dr. Jirovec’s own treatment records: the records contained few abnormal mental-assessment findings, and these were noted principally when Haught reportedly stopped taking her medication; the records also noted that Haught’s symptoms were controlled by medication when she took it; and Dr. Jirovec did not document any psychologically based limitations. See Hamilton, 518 F.3d at 610 (ALJ must give good reasons for according little weight to treating physician’s opinion); Leckenby v. Astrue, 487 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Schultz v. Astrue, 479 F.3d 979, 983 (8th
holding that treating physicians testimony was properly discounted when it was inconsistent with physicians own treatment reports and the record as a whole and appeared to be based on patients subjective complaints recognizing that treating physicians opinion does not automatically control or obviate need to evaluate record as whole and that aljs decision to discount treating physicians medicalsource statement was upheld where limitations were never mentioned in numerous treatment records or supported by any explanation holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions 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 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