capacity is a medical question.” Id. RFC is defined as the claimant’s maximum remaining ability to do sustained work activities in an ordinary work setting on a regular and continuing basis, i.e., eight hours a day, five days a week, or an equivalent work schedule. SSR 96-8P, 1996 WL 374184 (July 2, 1996). RFC is what an individual can still do despite her impairments and the resulting limitations. Id. An ALJ should obtain medical evidence that addresses the claimant’s “ability to function in the workplace.” Nevland v. Apfel, 204 F.3d 853, 858 (8th Cir.2000). While RFC is a medical question, RFC is not based solely on “medical” evidence. See Nevland, 204 F.3d at 858; see also McKinney v. Apfel, 228 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir.2000) and Roberts v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). If the claimant is able to perform other
holding that commissioner committed legal error by foregoing opportunities to develop claimants medical history and by rejecting treating physicians medical assessment without fully developing factual record holding that where the alj had already  obtained and considered reports from treating physicians the alj had before him a complete medical history and the evidence received from the treating physicians was adequate for him to make a determination as to disability holding that the commissioner must determine a claimants rfc based on all of the relevant evidence including medical records observations of treating physicians and others and an individuals own description of the limitations holding that the alj properly relied on the assessments of a nonexamining physician and not claimants treating physicians in determining the rfc at step four holding that the alj erred in failing to give the findings and assessments of the treating physicians any weight when the medical evidence and claimants testimony supported a diagnosis of cfs