Cathleen Raney (Raney) appeals the district court’s 1 dеcision upholding the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (Commissioner) denial of supplemental security income (SSI) benefits following a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) and a subsequent denial of review by the Appeals Council. Having reviewed the record and concluding the Commissioner’s decisiоn is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In August 2000, Raney applied for SSI benefits alleging an inability to work since December 29, 1983. Raney, a forty-seven year оld mother of six grown children, has a general equivalency diploma (6ED) but no relevant past work experience. Raney suffers from numerous physical impаirments, including degenerative disc disease, low back pain, diabetes with peripheral neuropathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, stéa-tohepatitis, morbid obesity, hypertension, irregular heartbeat, angina, rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma. Additionally, Raney suffers from recurrent depression and general anxiety, including panic attacks.
The ALJ determined the medical evidence establishеs Raney’s physical and mental impairments are severe, but do not' establish an impairment or combination of impairments of listing-level severity. See Listing of Impairmеnts in Appendix I, Subpart P, Social Security Administration Regulations No. 4. The ALJ found that substantial evidence, considered as a whole, supports “medically determinable' impairments that could cause some limitation, although not to the disabling extent alleged by [Raney].” Based on the record evidence, including Raney’s testimony, the ALJ found Raney was not credible insofar as she claimed she is unable to work. The ALJ determined Raney is able to “perform a somewhat restricted rаnge of light exer-tional level work.” The Appeals Council declined Raney’s request for review, thereby making the ALJ’s decision the final decision of the Commissiоner. Raney sought review in the district court, which summarily affirmed the denial of SSI benefits.
Raney appeals the Commissioner’s decision, contending the ALJ erred in (1) imprоperly rejecting the opinions of Raney’s treating therapist; (2) assessing Raney’s residual functional capacity (RFC) because the ALJ failed to include limitаtions supported by medical evidence; (3) evaluating Raney’s credibility; and (4) failing to consider Raney’s impairments in combination.
II. DISCUSSION
Our review is limited to determining “whethеr the Commissioner’s findings are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole,”
Roberts v. Apfel,
Raney first contends the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinion of Ranеy’s treating-therapist, Jerry Lowe (Lowe). A therapist is not an “acceptable medical source” to establish “a medically determinable impairmеnt.” See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513(a)(1)-(5), 416.913(a)(1)-(5). As Raney correctly concedes,-a therapist’s assessment is considered “other medical evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d)(1). In determining what weight to give “other medical evidence,” the ALJ has more discretion and is permitted to consider any inconsistencies found within the record. 20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(4).
In his report, the ALJ noted Lowe cоmpleted a Mental Health RFC form for Raney on April 3, 2002. In evaluating Raneyis mental health RFC, Lowe found Raney exhibited marked and extreme areas of limitations showing disability. The ALJ first noted Lowe, a “licensed social worker[,] is not a medical source for purposes ■ of Social Security Disability.” In declaring Lowe “is nоt a medical source,” the ALJ omitted the modifier “acceptable,” but correctly considered all the medical evidence in determining what .weight to attribute to Lowe’s opinions. The ALJ further stated Lowe’s RFC form was not consistent with his treatment notes, which documented Raney’s “improvement and do not support disabling symptoms.” Lowe’s treatment records disclose two treatment notes, recorded just days before Lowe completed the RFC form, documenting Raney’s family problems and Lowe’s clinical assessment of Raney as “improved” and “fair.” These assessments are inconsistent with the RFC form and Raney’s claims of disability. Thus, thé ALJ’s finding that some of Lowe’s treatment notes are inconsistent with Lowe’s RFC form is adequately supported by the record.
Raney next claims the ALJ failed to address а number of limitations, particularly limitations on her ability to stand and walk. To support her claim, Raney points to the fact that the ALJ referred only once tо her use of a cane. An RFC determination is based on all the relevant evidence in the record. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1545(a)(1) and 416.945(a)(1). The ALJ found Raney is able to lift a maximum of twenty рounds, routinely lift ten pounds, stand for an hour at a time, sit for sixty minutes at a time, and walk two to three blocks. The ALJ further found Ra-ney can perform no repetitive bending, kneeling, stooping, squatting, crawling, or climbing. The ALJ also found Raney should not be exposed to more than moderate levels of smoke and fumes; she can hаve only occasional contact with the public and coworkers; and she can perform simple, routine, and repetitive work.
Raney’s medical records demonstrate the ALJ’s RFC findings are not inconsistent with those of Raney’s treating physicians. None of Raney’s treating physicians opined she is so impaired or disabled that she cannot work at any job. We also find no medical records or opinions documenting Raney’s use of a cane as being medicаlly necessary. In fact, the ALJ noted that Raney told Dr. Timothy Wahl during a disability evaluation in October 2000 that on good days, she is able to walk without a cane. The records further disclose many of Raney’s physical and mental ailments are, or can be, controlled by medication and diet. The ALJ relied, in part, on a consulting physician who found Raney “could perform light work with no need to alternate sitting and standing” and with some postural, environmental, and moderate mental limitatiоns. Thus, we conclude the ALJ’s RFC findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Raney also contends the ALJ improperly evaluated her credibility. The
*1011
ALJ stated much оf the objective medical evidence, including evidence of missedmedical appointments, documented inconsistent statements to medical-рrofessionals, noncompliance with dietary regime and medication, and her activities of daily living, was inconsistent with Raney’s allegations of disability. Moreоver, the ALJ emphasized the absence of any doctor’s opinion stating Raney is disabled. Our record review convinces us the ALJ evaluated Raney’s credibility in accordance with
Polaski v. Heckler,
Lastly, Raney argues the ALJ failed to consider her multiple physical and mental impairments in combination. In determining a claimant’s RFC, “thе ALJ must consider the effects of the combination of both physical and mental impairments,”
Stormo v. Barnhart,
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Notes
. The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.