At the prior supplemental hearing, claimant indicated that the medication he was taking for pain was Extra Strength Tylenol and Extra Strength Excedrin, both nonprescription medicines. At the latest supplemental hearing, claimant testified that he was taking Nalfon, which the Physician’ 7) (stating that evidence of conservative treatment permits the ALJ to discount the claimant’s testimony regarding the severity of an impairment); Sienkiewicz v. Barnhart, 409 F.3d 798, 804 (7th Cir.2005) (noting with approval the ALJ’s consideration of the nature of plaintiffs treatment as having been “routine and conservative” in making his credibility decision) (internal quotation marks omitted); Knepp v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 78, 83 (3d Cir.2000) (same); Wolfe v. Chater, 86 F.3d 1072, 1078 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Fourth, and finally, as to Appellant’s
holding that a history of conservative medical treatment undermines allegations of disabling symptoms holding that a physicians conservative medical treatment for a particular condition tends to negate a claim of disability holding that opting for conservative treatment instead of surgery is not substantial evidence that the claimant was not disabled holding that a claimant establishes a prima facie case for compensable medical treatment where a qualified physician indicates treatment was necessary for a workrelated condition holding that emtala does not provide a private cause of action against individual physicians or against physicians medical corporations