With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". are deemed to be qualified experts in the field of social security disability. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1512(b)(6), 404.1513(c), 404.1527(f)(2), 416.912(b)(6), 416.913(c), and 416.927(f)(2); see also Leach ex rel. Murray v. Barnhart, No. 02 Civ. 3561, 2004 WL 99935, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2004) (“State agency physicians are qualified as experts in the evaluation of medical issues in disability claims. As such, their opinions may constitute substantial evidence if they are consistent with the record as a whole.”). Such reliance is particularly appropriate where, as here, the opinions of these examining and non-examining State agency medical consultants are supported by the weight of the evidence. See Brunson v. Barnhart, 01-CV-1829, 2002 WL 393078, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2002) (<HOLDING>). As such, this Court finds that the ALJ

A: holding that findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate substantial and credible evidence
B: holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages
C: holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record
D: holding that opinions of nonexamining sources may be considered where they are supported by evidence in the record
D.