past relevant work to establish her disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. The RFC is an assessment of the claimant’s ability to do work despite her impairments. 20 C.F.R. § 404-1545(a); Lewis v. Callahan, 125 F.3d 1436, 1440 (11th Cir.1997). The ALJ makes this determination by considering the claimant’s ability to lift weight, sit, stand, push, and pull, among other tasks. 20 C.F.R. § 404-1545(b). Considering the medical records as a whole, it is not clear what level of work, if any, Johnson would be able to perform. Maloy’s RFC evaluation is not dispositive, as its conclusions are from a non-treating, non-examining physician, and the other medical records express no indication of Johnson’s ability to perform her past work. See Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279-81 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Spencer on behalf of Spencer v. Heckler, 765
holding alj properly relied on treating physicians wellsupported opinion especially when the contradictory evidence is plaintiffs own medical opinions about her condition holding that the alj erred by rejecting a treating physicians opinion in favor of opinions issued by nontreating doctors without providing a sufficient rationale holding that erisa does not require plan administrators to give special deference to treating physicians opinions 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