despite statements by plaintiff that he could not read, where plaintiff had a tenth grade education and prior work experience requiring basic reading' and writing skills); POMS DI 2500.001 (17)(e) (listing as relevant “recent education that provides for direct entry into skilled or semiskilled work”). Additionally, multiple documents in the record were personally written or filled out by Plaintiff. [Doc. No. 9, pp. 131— 32, 150, 433-42]. Plaintiffs primary explanation for her difficulty reading — poor vision — further undermines the probative value of her evidence. .[Doc. No. 9, pp. 37, 44, 216]. Because of the strong evidence that Plaintiff was literate, any evidence to the contrary was simply not substantially probative. Vititoe v. Colvin, 549 Fed.Appx. 723, 729 (10th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). Regardless, discussion of Plaintiffs evidence
recognizing ajlthough presiding judge mccormicks opinion in davis  is labeled a concurring opinion it was joined by a majority of the court and may be regarded as an opinion for the court recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence 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