opinions is as follows: ■The undersigned gives these opinions great weight and adopted some of the postural restrictions but has further restricted the claimant to no climbing of ladders, ropes, or scaffolds and no work around hazards due to her ankle and diabetes. PagelD 71. The ALJ makes no effort to specifically scrutinize the opinions of the record-reviewers and points to nothing in the record to support their warranting “great weight.” The ALJ’s conclusory assessment of the record-reviewers’ opinions thus erroneously fails to give a meaningful explanation of any of the required 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c) factors, and evidences application of “greater scrutiny” to the opinions given by treating sources, a practice deemed error by the Sixth Circuit. See Gayheart, 710 F.3d at 380 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that the
holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding that the regulations do not allow the application of greater scrutiny to a treatingsource opinion as a means to justify giving such an opinion little weighty and indeed they call for just the opposite 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 holding a medical opinion to be not significantly probative where the opinion was contrary to other substantial record evidence