of pain are “well documented” in her treatment records. (Dk. 6, p. 20). The ALJ’s decision does not give the court any reason to think that these treatment records, in particular the consistent prescription of significant pain medications and muscle relaxants, were even considered in regards to the credibility findings. Instead, the ALJ did not even acknowledge the relevance of those records for that purpose: “The undersigned has reviewed the treatment evidence of record, finding no residual functional capacity analyses or opinions therein, and therefore has assigned limited weight to these reports.” (R. 14). The court found ample reports in the record of chronic pain and repeated prescriptions for significant pain medications and muscle relaxants. See Hamlin, 365 F.3d at 1221-22 (<HOLDING>). The consultative examination report even
recognizing the established principle that the alj is not required to take the claimants assertions of pain at face value holding that evidence relied on by alj was insufficient to undermine pain allegations where medical records were replete with claimants reports of pain and of prescriptions holding that the alj did not err in discounting a claimants reports of pain where they were not supported by the medical record holding that alj may not base adverse credibility finding on his perceptions of claimants pain at the hearing where record shows objective evidence of claimants pain holding that alj properly evaluated credibility where he cited specific instances where claimants complaints about pain and other subjective symptoms were inconsistent with the objective medical evidence of record