Pick. (AR 145.) Dr. Pick reviewed the records in Robinson's claim file as well as the records she submitted with her appeal. (AR 145-56.) Dr. Pick did not examine Robinson. (AR 145.)
30. In his September 28, 2006 report, Dr. Pick noted that when he spoke to Dr. Lum, Robinson's internist, Dr. Lum said he had not seen her since January 2006. (AR 153.) Dr. Lum did not know if Robinson was working when he last saw her, but his recollection was that she was able to work. (Id.) Dr. Pick specifically asked Dr. Lum if Robinson could engage in sedentary work activities, and Dr. Lum replied in the affirmative. (Id.)
31. Dr. Pick also spoke to Dr. Flatley, who stated that he had not seen Robinson since June 2006,sedentary to light category work activities on a full-time basis. (AR 155-56.)
37. Based on a review of the evidence contained in the claim file, including the opinion provided by Dr. Pick, the signed summaries by Dr. Lum and Dr. Flatley, and the concurrence letter from Dr. Jochen on November 18, 2005, Hartford determined that Robinson was capable of full-time work at the sedentary to light physical demand level. (AR 6-10.)
38. On October 6, 2006, Appeal Specialist Kim Huber wrote Robinson a detailed letter explaining why the denial of her claim was upheld on appeal. (AR 133-38.) She also provided a copy of Dr. Pick's independent record review and copies of the signed statements received from Drs. Lum and Flatley, pursuant to Robinson's request. (AR 133-38.)
39. Approximately one and