v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1166 (10th Cir.1997). Any concerns Mr. Taylor had with Dr. Finch’s qualifications could have been addressed at the supplemental hearing, which afforded Mr. Taylor a “meaningful opportunity to address the post-hearing evidence.” Yount v. Barnhart, 416 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir.2005). Mr. Taylor insists that Dr. Finch’s report was deficient because it did not specify the basis for the doctor’s findings, particularly regarding Mr. Taylor’s fine motor skills, but the report was based on the doctor’s complete physical exam and review of Mr. Taylor’s medical records; and it was substantial evidence because it detailed Mr. Taylor’s abilities, including his hand strength, fine motor skills, and range of motion. Cf. Frey v. Bowen, 816 F.2d 508, 515 (10th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). We perceive no due process violation. Mr.
holding the florida appellate courts are not bound by federal precedent which is persuasive not binding authority holding that perjured testimony standing alone does not constitute fraud upon the court holding witnesss testimony identifying appellant is sufficient standing alone to support conviction holding that evaluation forms standing alone unaccompanied by thorough written reports or persuasive testimony are not substantial evidence recognizing federal authority on standing to be persuasive