be considered disabled. The ALJ also relied upon Lanclos’s own testimony, specifically, that Landos (1) takes care of three children; (2) performs household chores, including grocery shopping and cooking; and (3) performs all of her daily activities without assistance. The ALJ’s decision describes the opinions of all three of the above physicians, but the legal analysis section fails to explain whether (or the reasons why) the ALJ apparently discredited Reed’s evaluation of Landos. In July 2003, the Appeals Council denied Lanclos’s request for review, and Landos then filed the present action before this Court. II. DISCUSSION The Commissioner concedes that the ALJ’s failure to adequately discuss Reed’s evaluation requires a remand. See Schaal v. Apfel, 134 F.3d 496, 505 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (stating
holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician holding that remand was not required and that the aljs failure to mention treating physicians opinion was harmless error because the alj adopted the treating physicians recommendations holding that failure to provide good reasons to discredit a treating physicians opinion requires remand recognizing that failure to provide good reasons for discrediting a treating physicians opinion is grounds for remand holding that the weight given to a treating physicians opinion is limited if the opinion consists only of conclusory statements