raised on appeal: whether the ALJ erred by (1) failing to evaluate whether the combined effects of Turner’s impairments equaled Listing 12.08 and (2) failing to account for his exertional impairments in determining Turner’s RFC. We may consider the remainder of the issues that Turner failed to raise before the district court because the pertinent factual record has been fully developed, so the issue is purely one of law. 2. The ALJ’s opinion concludes that Turner’s mental impairments did not meet or medically ec|ual the criteria of Listing 12.07 (Somatoform Disorders), rather than Listing 12.08 (Personality Disorders), an apparent typographical error. Any error, however, was harmless, as the ALJ determined that Turner failed to meet the requirements of Paragraph B of Listing r. 1998) (<HOLDING>). 4. The ALJ also did not err in the
holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions holding that nontreating physicians opinions are entitled to little weight when contradictory to treating physicians opinions and will not constitute substantial evidence standing alone 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 holding that errors such as failing to provide clear and convincing reasons for discrediting a claimants subjective complaints rejecting a treating physicians opinion in favor of a nontreating physicians opinion without providing clear and convincing reasons and erring in assessing the claimants residual functioning capacity are fundamental holding that the alj erred by rejecting a treating physicians opinion in favor of opinions issued by nontreating doctors without providing a sufficient rationale