Stromme

MEMORANDUM ***

Curtis Stromme appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision that Stromme was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history, therefore they are not recited here. Because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision and the decision comports with the relevant law, we AFFIRM.

We reject Stromme’s argument that the ALJ erred in disregarding the opinions of Drs. Strgar and Truhn, both of whom diagnosed Stromme with severe limitations. The ALJ identified a conflict between the opinion of Dr. Reaves and those given by Drs. Strgar and Truhn, and then correctly concluded that Dr. Reaves’s opinion was entitled to the greatest weight. The ALJ credited Dr. Reaves’s opinions because he treated Stromme before Stromme applied for benefits, met with Stromme several times over an eighteen-month period, and had a treating-physician relationship with Stromme that provided him with a unique longitudinal perspective. The ALJ’s decision to credit the opinion of Dr. Reaves over those of Drs. Strgar and Truhn was clearly articulated, supported by…