reported that he suffers from bi-polar disorder. The ALJ’s failure to recognize that Plaintiff suffers from such is not supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiffs care providers have consistently reported that Plaintiff experiences mood swings, hallucinations, and thought disorders, as well as an inability to sustain concentration or focus for any significant period of time. Plaintiffs GAF score has consistently been rated as ranging from 40-48, consistent with “serious” to “major” impairment in the ability to function. The ALJ’s RFC determination is utterly inconsistent with the findings and opinions of Plaintiffs treating physicians and other evidence of record. In support of his decision, the ALJ ident tion Annual Review — -vol. 6 112 (American Psychiatric Pub., Inc.1987) (<HOLDING>); Herbert Wagemaker, M.D. and Ann Buchholz,
recognizing that noncompliance with treatment is the major clinical problem encountered by most clinicians who treat manicdepressive patients holding that doctor who was contacted by patients treating physician to discuss treatment alternatives does not owe duty of care to patient whose case is discussed such as would support medical malpractice claim holding a physician plaintiff did not have a property interest in his clinical access privileges holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith  holding that psychiatrist has duty to third parties to exercise due care in treatment and release of committed patients