that the district court erred in doing so. 2 . Ms. Williams requested this court to accommodate her asserted difficulties with written and verbal communications by accepting her district court briefs as her appellate brief. By an order dated September 26, 2005, this court granted the request in part. Accordingly, we have considered those portions of Ms. Williams’ district court briefs she incorporated by reference in her appellate briefs. 3 . The district court also noted that Ms. Williams sought to rely on her own “medical opinion of why her disc disease is disabling.” R. Vol. I, Doc. 37, at 21; see also id. at 23 (rejecting Ms. Williams' attempt "to argue that her own medical opinions of the meaning of this MRI are more persuasive than Dr. Jatana’s opinions of this MRI”); id. at 24 (<HOLDING>). Ms. Williams has not argued on appeal that
holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations holding that an alj may discount a treating physicians opinion where the physician has offered inconsistent opinions recognizing treating physicians opinion that he would expect the applicant to miss more than two or more days of work per month as an opinion regarding the nature and severity of a medical condition that is entitled to controlling weight if wellsupported by medical findings and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence 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 alj properly relied on treating physicians wellsupported opinion especially when the contradictory evidence is plaintiffs own medical opinions about her condition