The ALJ’s finding is not supported by substantial evidence: SSR 96-08p requires the ALJ to base her RFC assessment on all the relevant evidence, including the effects of treatment, including limitations or restrictions imposed by factors such as the frequency of treatment and disruption to routine. Plaintiff’s was treated by a primary care physician, psychiatrist, pulmonologist, two orthopedists (Dr. W and Dr. B), a varicose vein specialist (Dr. G), as well as by physical therapists, a social worker, and occupational therapist. The record documents at least 23 medical visits in 2015; about a dozen in 2016; some 30 visits in 2017; and over 50 medical appointments or treatments between January and July 2018. The frequency of Plaintiff’s medical treatments alone would make it impossible for her to perform full-time work on a sustained basis.

[1] Therefore the ALJ’s RFC finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
[1]A claimant’s RFC must reflect his ability to perform work on a regular and continuing basis. 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(b), (c).