We review a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Eugene H. Nickerson, Judge), reversing a final decision by defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”), who had found that plaintiff was not entitled to disability benefits under the Social Security Act.
I. FACTS
Plaintiff was born in the Dominican Republic in 1946. She has held several jobs both there and in the United States. In the United States she has worked as a sewing machine operator, an eyeglass lens cutting machine operator, a teaching assistant for a day care center, and a census taker. Most recently, she held a job as an electric outlet assembler at the Eagle Electric Factory in New York. While on the job on September 24, 1990, plaintiff fell down an escalator, injuring her head, neck, and back.
After her fall, plaintiff sought workers’ compensation and filed an application for disability insurance benefits on June 24, 1991, claiming that she was disabled due to L5 radiculopathy (a disease of the nerve roots) and lower back pain. Her application was denied initially and on reconsideration. Plaintiff then requested a hearing, which was held before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on June 16, 1992.
The ALJ denied her application in an opinion dated October 28, 1992, finding that the *310 “clinical and laboratory findings, the opinion and assessment of examining physicians, the treatment she received and the claimant’s activities” contradicted the opinion of her chiropractor, Dr. Jacob K. Sadigh, who had concluded that plaintiff was totally disabled. Before deciding whether plaintiff was disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d), 1 the ALJ carefully considered the following evidence. Medical Tests
An electromyogram taken at the direction of Dr. E. Wiseman on January 21,1991, was found to be positive for left lumbar radiculopathy involving the L5 nerve root. Nerve stimulation studies, however, were within normal limits. Plaintiff received magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in March 1991, which, according to Dr. David P. Gerstman, revealed normal findings (i.e., the test was negative). There was no evidence of disc degeneration, disc herniation or nerve root impingement. The test showed also that the spinal cord ended normally and the spinal canal was of normal caliber.
The Chiropractor’s Findings
Plaintiff began visiting Dr. Sadigh for treatment in October 1990. The frequency of plaintiffs visits to Dr. Sadigh ranged from three times a week to twice a month. Dr. Sadigh reported to the Workers’ Compensation Board that plaintiff suffered from acute moderate cervical and lumbar sprain, cervical disc syndrome, lumbar sciatic neuritis and encephalgia (headache). He reported that plaintiff complained mostly of moderate headaches, moderate lower back pain, restricted cervical mobility, difficulty sitting and doing any physical work, and pain in the right arm, right hip, and thigh. In addition, the chiropractor found rigidity in plaintiff’s neck muscle, a diminished range of motion and spasm of the cervical spine, nerve root damage, and reflex loss. He concluded that, as a result of her injuries, plaintiff can perform “[l]ess than a full range of sedentary work.”
Dr. Wiseman’s Findings
Dr. Sadigh referred plaintiff to Dr. E. Wiseman, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation who saw plaintiff several times. Based on an examination of the plaintiff on January 17, 1991, Dr. Wiseman reported a limited range of motion in the lumbosacral region. He noted that “[djeep tendon reflexes were present and symmetrical bilaterally.” On January 21,1991, he administered an electromyogram and concluded it was positive for left lumbar radiculopathy mostly involving the L5 root. He also conducted a nerve stimulation study that was “within normal limits.” Dr. Wiseman concluded that plaintiff was “unable to perform all her usual duties because there is restricted range of motion, pain and muscle spasticity.” He recommended that plaintiff continue chiropractic treatment, but the records do not indicate that he prescribed any pain medication. Dr. Wiseman completed plaintiffs Workers’ Compensation Board report forms and checked the box marked “total disability.”
Dr. Weiss’s Findings
Dr. David Weiss, an orthopedist, examined plaintiff on August 7, 1991, at the request of the State Insurance Fund, the insurance carrier to the workers’ compensation system. He reported that plaintiff was taking Tylenol “as needed” for lower back and neck pain that also affected her legs and right shoulder. He found that plaintiff was able to walk on her heels and toes and that she could bend forward to her ankles; “back bending, however, reproduces moderate discomfort.” He found her “cervical spine flexion and extension ... full” and her rotation “mildly *311 restricted.” Based on his examination, Dr. Weiss concluded that plaintiff had a “mild partial orthopedic disability.”
Dr. Seo’s Findings
Dr. K. Seo, described by the ALJ as an “impartial consultant [for the Social Security Administration],” examined plaintiff on August 24, 1991. Plaintiff stated to him that she had neck and lower back pain, for which she was reported to be taking Tylenol and Motrin as needed. Dr. Seo’s examinations indicated that plaintiff walked with a “normal gait,” had “no difficulty standing up from the sitting position” or in “getting on and off the examining table.” He reported that toe-heel walking and squatting were “possible.” He also found the following: “normal flexion and extension” of the cervical spine, “normal ROM [range of motion]” of the lumbosacral spine, a normal range of motion of the hips, a normal range of motion of the shoulders, elbows and wrist with pain in the right shoulder; some “diminished sensation” of the right hand and the right leg; one inch muscle atrophy in the left thigh; and a “mild spasm of the sternocleidomastoid muscles.” He concluded that plaintiff had cervical radiculopathy and lumbar radiculopathy. He concluded also that plaintiff “may be able to stand and walk for over one hour and carry more than 10 lbs.”
Dr. Nirou’s Findings
Dr. Nirou examined plaintiff for the Workers’ Compensation Board on October 29, 1991. He found “mild restriction in cervical motions in all planes,” “mild internal rotation defect of the right shoulder,” mild restriction of “trunk motions” and straight leg raising, some numbness of the left lower leg, and a half inch atrophy of the left quadriceps. He reported also that “gross neurological examination are intact” and that her reflexes were “present bilaterally.” Based on his examination, he concluded that plaintiff had a “partial disability.”
Plaintiffs Testimony
Plaintiff testified that she takes Tylenol, Advil, and Motrin four or five times a week for her pain and that she sometimes suffers-from dizziness, which lasts two to three days. She testified that she takes Tylenol more often than Motrin. She also testified that she cooks, watches television, walks short distances and attends church. She stated she did not attend church often, however, because she cannot sit down for too long.
Other Information
Plaintiff underwent several evaluations at the New York Eye and Ear Infirmary in March and April 1992 for hearing loss. An audiologist reported that plaintiff had “moderately-severe to moderate” hearing loss in the right ear and “mild to slight to mild” hearing loss in the left ear. The audiologist reported also that plaintiff had excellent speech recognition at lOdB in the left ear and 50dB in the right ear.
The ALJ’s Decision
While finding that “[t]he medical evidence establishes that the claimant has cervical and lumbosacral strain and moderate to mild hearing loss,” the ALJ concluded nevertheless that “[t]he claimant’s impairments do not prevent [her] from performing her past relevant work” as a sewing machine operator. 2 The ALJ did not credit plaintiff’s testi *312 mony about dizziness, noting that neither the chiropractor nor the physicians reported that she complained of dizziness. The ALJ also noted that plaintiff did not appear to take potent pain medication and that Dr. Wise-man, who saw plaintiff on several occasions at her chiropractor’s request, “did not indicate potent pain medication was prescribed.” The ALJ acknowledged that plaintiffs treating chiropractor and Dr. Wiseman had concluded that she was totally disabled, but found that their opinions were “not well supported by the clinical or laboratory findings.” The ALJ observed that the MRI was negative, nerve stimulation studies were normal and the findings on the neurological examination were “mainly normal.” The ALJ also noted that the opinions of the chiropractor and Dr. Wiseman (both of whom the ALJ characterized as “treating sources”) were “not consistent with other substantial evidence including the findings and opinion of examining physicians.” Finding that plaintiff “retains the ability to sit for prolonged period, bend, push and pull and is able to perform some walking and standing,” the ALJ concluded that plaintiff could return to her job as a sewing machine operator and therefore was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A). 3
The Appeals Council denied plaintiffs request for review on May 28, 1993, thereby rendering the ALJ’s decision a final determination by the Secretary.
The District Court’s Decision
Plaintiff brought an action in district court seeking review of the Secretary’s decision. Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. In a decision dated June 2, 1994, the district court granted plaintiffs motion, thereby reversing the decision of the Secretary. In doing so, the court held that the opinion of plaintiffs chiropractor had “a binding effect under the treating physician rule in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary.”
II. DISCUSSION
The findings of the Secretary are conclusive unless they are not supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g);
Jones v. Sullivan,
A. A Chiropractor’s Opinion Is Not a Medical Opinion
We had previously left unresolved the question whether a chiropractor could qualify as a “treating physician” or “treating source” whose opinion is entitled to controlling weight under our Circuit’s treating physician rule.
See Poole v. Railroad Retirement Bd.,
The regulation most relevant to our inquiry provides that the Secretary will give controlling weight to a “treating source’s opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s)” if it is “well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1994) (effective August 1991). 5 This provision is part of a subsection entitled “How we weigh medical opinions.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) (1994); a treating source’s opinion thus must be a medical opinion under this provision’s “controlling weight” rule. 6
According to the regulations, however, a chiropractor’s opinion is not a medical opinion. The regulations provide that “Medical opinions are statements from physicians and psychologists or other acceptable medical sources that reflect judgments about the nature and severity of your impairments)....” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(a)(2) (emphasis added). Section 404.1513(a) lists five categories of “acceptable medical sources,” none of which mentions chiropractors. Instead, chiropractors are expressly listed in a different section, under “other sources” whose “[i]nformation ... may also help us to understand how your impairment affects your ability to work.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(e) (1994). Because the regulations do not classify chiropractors as either physicians or “other acceptable medical sources,” chiropractors cannot provide medical opinions. 7
*314 Accordingly, the district court erred when it held that the chiropractor’s opinion had “binding effect ... in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary.” Under the current regulations, the ALJ has the discretion to determine the appropriate weight to accord the chiropractor’s opinion based on all the evidence before him; under no circumstances can the regulations be read to require the ALJ to give controlling weight to a chiropractor’s opinion. 8
B. The Secretary’s Finding Was Supported by Substantial Evidence
Had the district court been correct in finding that the chiropractor’s opinion was a “medical opinion,” then we would have accorded special weight to that opinion and thus looked to see only whether the other substantial evidence rebutted the chiropractor’s conclusions. If it did not, then the opinion would enjoy controlling weight and the plaintiff would prevail. However, since a chiropractor’s opinion is not a “medical opinion” and therefore, could not be entitled to controlling weight, we look to see whether the Secretary’s findings on the whole are supported by substantial evidence.
The district court found that substantial evidence did not support the Secretary’s finding that plaintiff was riot entitled to disability benefits. When analyzed under the proper legal standard, however, it is clear that substantial evidence supported the Secretary’s finding. The Supreme Court has defined substantial evidence as “more than a mere scintilla.... [what] a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Richardson v. Perales,
In this case, two examining physicians, Dr. Weiss 9 and Dr. Nirou, explicitly found that plaintiff was only partially disabled. A third physician, Dr. Seo, found normal range of motion of plaintiffs lumbosacral spine and normal flexion and extension of the cervical spine. None of these doctors indicated that plaintiff would be unable to perform a job that would require her mostly to sit and push or pull objects. Moreover, an MRI was negative, with no finding of disc degeneration, disc herniation, nerve root impingement or ligamentous damage, and nerve stimulation studies were within normal limits. And plaintiff testified that she primarily takes over-the-counter medicine to alleviate her pain.
Only plaintiffs chiropractor, Dr. Sadigh, explicitly found that plaintiff would be unable to perform even sedentary work. Yet as we have observed, the Secretary had discretion *315 to decide what weight, if any, Dr. Sadigh’s opinion deserved in the circumstances presented. The ALJ ultimately accorded little weight to Dr. Sadigh’s opinion because he found it to be “not well supported” by the clinical or laboratory findings or by the other substantial evidence. While Dr. Wiseman, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation — to whom plaintiff was referred by Dr. Sadigh, and whom the ALJ also considered a “treating source” — found plaintiff to be totally disabled for purposes, of workers’ compensation, 10 he found many fewer problems with plaintiffs spine than did Dr. Sadigh. And the ALJ found that Dr. Wiseman’s opinion likewise was inconsistent with other substantial evidence, such as the other physicians’ reports and medical tests. 11
The opinions of three examining physicians, plaintiffs own testimony, and the medical tests together constitute substantial evidence adequately supporting the Secretary’s conclusion that plaintiffs injuries did not prevent her from resuming her job as a sewing machine operator. 12 Accordingly, we must reverse the judgment of the district court.
C. Other Claims
Plaintiff contends that we must remand the case because the ALJ failed to make sufficiently specific findings regarding her ability to perform her past work as a sewing machine operator. In fact, the ALJ explicitly found that “based on the record the claimant retains the ability to sit for prolonged period, bend, push and pull and is able to perform some walking and standing.” In making this finding, the ALJ relied on the fact that no examining physician, including the “impartial consultant,” Dr. Seo, had indicated that plaintiff had difficulty sitting for a prolonged period of time.
See Dumas v. Schweiker,
*316
Finally, plaintiff urges that we remand the case to the Secretary for- a supplemental hearing to allow plaintiff the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Weiss, whose report was included in the workers’ compensation file and was submitted by plaintiff to the ALJ one day after the hearing upon the ALJ’s request. Plaintiff objected to its introduction into evidence without being granted the concomitant opportunity to cross-examine the report’s author. The ALJ never ruled on plaintiffs objection, issuing a ruling without any additional hearing. Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s failure to permit cross-examination of Dr. Weiss violated her due process rights, citing
Townley v. Heckler,
The Secretary argues that because plaintiff was represented by the same law firm in her earlier workers’ compensation case, plaintiffs counsel had “knowledge of and access to” Dr. Weiss’s report long before the hearing was held. In the Secretary’s view, the Supreme Court’s decision in
Richardson v. Perales
is therefore more apposite than
Gullo
or
Townley
to the facts of this case. In
Perales,
the Court held that the claimant’s failure to take advantage of his opportunity to request subpoenas for the physicians whose reports were relied upon in his Social Security disability claim hearing precluded claimant’s contention that he was denied the right of cross-examination.
We agree with the Secretary. Plaintiff knew that she had been examined by Dr. Weiss at the behest of the Workers’ Compensation Board, and should have known that his report would be included in the Board’s file — portions of which her attorneys sought to introduce at the disability benefits hearing. Furthermore, plaintiff was represented by the same law firm before both the Workers’ Compensation Board and the Social Security Administration. Accordingly, “knowledge” of Dr. Weiss’s report is imputable to both plaintiff and her counsel. Because the medical report was available upon request from the Workers’ Compensation Board, plaintiff and her counsel also had “access” to the medical report. We therefore reject her final challenge to the proceedings before the ALJ.
III. CONCLUSION
To summarize:
1. The regulation issued by the Secretary in August 1991, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d), cannot be read to require the Secretary to accord controlling weight to the opinion of a chiropractor. Rather, the Secretary has the discretion to give a chiropractor’s opinion the weight she believes it deserves based on the facts of the particular case.
*317 2. Substantial evidence supported the Secretary’s finding, on the record as it now stands, that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
3. The ALJ made the requisite' specific findings regarding plaintiffs ability to perform her past work as a sewing machine operator.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed.
Notes
. That section provides in relevant part as follows:
(1) The term "disability” means—
(A) inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months;
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)—
(A) An individual shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy....
. The ALJ followed a five-step process set out in the Secretary's regulations in order to determine whether plaintiff was entitled to disability benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (1994). We described those steps in
Berry v. Schweiker,
First, the Secretary considers whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity. If he is not, the Secretary next considers whether the claimant has a “severe impairment” which significantly limits his physical or mental ability to do basic work activities. If the claimant suffers such an impairment, the third inquiry is whether, based solely on medical evidence, the claimant has an impairment which is listed in Appendix 1 of the regulations [or is equal to an impairment listed there]. If the claimant has such an impairment, the Secretary will consider him disabled.... Assuming the claimant does not have a listed impairment, the fourth'inquiry is whether, despite the claimant's severe impairment, he has the residual functional capacity to perform his past work. Finally, if the claimant is unable to perform his past work, the Secretary then determines whether there is other work which the claimant could perform.
The ALJ in the case at bar found that plaintiff was not currently engaged in substantial gainful activity and suffered from an impairment that affected her ability to perform work-related activity. But the ALJ found that plaintiff did not have
*312
an impairment that is either listed in Appendix 1 to Subpart P,
see
20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1, at 375-449 (1994), or that is of equal severity to an impairment listed there. Consequently, the ALJ had to determine whether plaintiff has the residual functional capacity to perform work she had done in the past. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(e) (1994);
Berry,
. See supra note 1.
. In Poole, we held that substantial evidence did not support the United States Railroad Retirement Board's finding that petitioner was not entitled to a total and permanent disability annuity. Id. at 662. In so holding, we reasoned that the opinion of petitioner's chiropractor merited "significant weight.” Id. Our decision today, based on an interpretation of regulations promulgated after the decision in Poole, does not prevent the Secretary from according a chiropractor’s opinion significant weight in appropriate circumstances.
. In
Schisler,
. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d) provides in relevant part:
(d) How we weigh medical opinions. Regardless of its source, we will evaluate every medical opinion we receive____
(2) Treatment Relationship. Generally, we give more weight to opinions from your treating sources, since these sources are likely to be the medical professionals most able to provide a detailed, longitudinal picture of your medical impairment(s) and may bring a unique perspective to the medical evidence that cannot be obtained from the objective medical findings alone or from reports of individual examinations, such as consultative examinations or brief hospitalizations. If we find that a treating source's opinion on the issue(s) of the nature and severity of your impairment(s) is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is not inconsistent with the other substantial evidence in your case record, we will give it controlling weight....
. Plaintiff suggests that by failing to consider chiropractors to be physicians or "other acceptable sources,” the Secretary exceeded her authority in promulgating § 404.1513(a), because Congress has "legislated a definition of chiropractors as being physicians.” Appellee's Br. at 39. Plaintiff relies on a definition of physicians provided in Title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act. Plaintiff's argument fails for sever- ' al reasons. First, under basic canons of statutory construction, the definition of physicians for the purpose of determining what services are reimbursable under Medicare does not govern how physicians should be defined for purposes of determining eligibility for disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Second, the definition itself is not helpful to plaintiff because it expressly states its limited purpose: "The term ‘physician’ ... means ... (5) a chiropractor who is licensed as such by the State ... but only for the purpose of subsections (s)(1) and (s)(2)(A) of this section and only with respect to treatment by means of manual manipulation of the spine (to correct a subluxation demonstrated by X-ray to exist)...." 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(r) (emphasis added). The subsections this definition cross-references discuss reimbursement for a physician’s services and supplies. Thus, all this definition tells us is that chiropractors may be reimbursed under Medicare for services and supplies in connection with manual manipulation of the spine. Moreover, the requirement that a chiropractor's diagnosis — unlike that of a medical doctor — be corroborated by X-ray evidence further undercuts plaintiff's assertion that Congress meant to place chiropractors on a par with medical doctors. Accordingly, 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(r) is not the "governing statute” for purposes of determining who is an acceptable medical source in disability cases and, in any event, 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) does not contradict it.
. Plaintiff's proposed standard — that "the opinion of a treating chiropractor should be given the same weight as the opinion of a treating medical doctor, when such opinion is rendered in relation to limitations stemming from a condition within that chiropractor's area of expertise,” Appellee’s Br. at 38 — is not consistent with the regulations, which decline to impose any hard and fast rule on the weight to be given a chiropractor’s opinion and which make clear that a chiropractor's opinion, regardless of whether it concerns an impairment within the realm of the chiropractor's expertise, is not considered an "acceptable medical source.” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) & (e). Other Circuits have also recognized the subordinate status that the opinions of chiropractors occupy under the regulations.
See, e.g., Lee v. Sullivan,
. The district court did not credit Dr. Weiss’s findings because he examined plaintiff at the request of the State Insurance Fund: "[A] report submitted by a witness whose self-interest may well have dictated its contents cannot and should not be permitted to constitute substantial evidence.”
. The Secretary argues that in checking off the “total disability" box on the Workers’ Compensation forms Dr. Wiseman indicates only that he found plaintiff unable to perform her job as an electrical outlet assembler — the job she held when she suffered her bad fall and for which she sought compensation. We need not resolve this question because we find that, even assuming he had found plaintiff unable to perform any job, substantial evidence would still contradict his finding.
. Therefore, assuming Dr. Wiseman examined plaintiff enough times (five) to be considered a “treating source,” the ALJ justified his decision not to accord Dr. Wiseman's opinion controlling . weight.
. Plaintiff argues that the evidence in this case cannot meaningfully be distinguished from that in
Poole,
where we found that the substantial evidence did not support the finding of the United States Railroad Retirement Board that petitioner was not totally disabled. We disagree. In
Poole,
“all of [the] specialists ha[d] reached substantially the same conclusion that Poole [wa]s in fact disabled."
. In
Ferraris v. Heckler,
*316 In Ferraris, however, the burden was on the Secretary to,show that the claimant could perform "some less demanding, but gainful, employment,” id. at 584, because the claimant had met his ultimate burden of proving that he could not return to his past work as a waiter. By contrast, in the case at bar, not only was the burden on plaintiff, but also no physician indicated any limitations on plaintiff’s ability to sit. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the ALJ to conclude from the absence of particular findings by "acceptable medical sources” that plaintiff could sit for a "prolonged period” and that, based on plaintiff’s testimony about what her past work as a sewing machine operator entailed, she could resume that job.