testimony, see Fair, 885 F.2d at 605 (<HOLDING>); and Dr. Nelson acted as an advocate for
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 holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that an alj is entitled to make a credibility determination regarding the claimants subjective complaints after specifically addressing these complaints and reviewing the medical evidence in the record holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false holding that a doctors reliance on properly discounted subjective complaints is a specific legitimate reason