there is objective evidence which supports Dr. Crow’s medical opinion. “It is the ALJ’s function to resolve conflicts among the various treating physicians.” Estes v. Barnhart, 275 F.3d 722, 725 (8th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The opinions and findings of the claimant’s treating physician are entitled to considerable weight. Indeed, if they are not controverted by substantial medical or other evidence, they are binding. Cunningham v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 496, 502 (8th Cir.2000). Nonetheless, while the opinion of the treating physician should be given great weight, this is true only if the treating physician’s opinion is based on sufficient medical data. Chamberlain v. Shalala, 47 F.3d 1489, 1494 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Matthews v. Bowen, 879 F.2d 422, 424 (8th Cir.1989)) (<HOLDING>). When diagnoses of treating doctors are not
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 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 a treating physicians medical opinion must be given controlling weight only when it is well supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in the record holding that opinions of treating doctors are not conclusive in determining disability status and must be supported by medically acceptable clinical and diagnostic data holding that trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence