Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15252
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-01298-JHE
DENNIS WILLIAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(September 27, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dennis Williams appeals the district court’s order affirming the final
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his
Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 2 of 5
application for supplemental security income benefits. Williams alleges that he is
disabled due to back problems, numbness in his extremities, and depression. The
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Williams was not disabled
during the period between November 30, 2010, and August 21, 2012. Williams
makes three arguments on appeal. He first argues that the ALJ improperly rejected
the opinions of two consultative doctors and substituted his own opinion for theirs.
Williams also argues that the ALJ erred in determining that his depression was not
severe and in failing to include limitations due to depression in his residual
functional capacity (“RFC”) assessment. Williams finally argues that the ALJ’s
denial of disability was not supported by substantial evidence due to the errors
alleged in his first two arguments.
I.
Williams first argues that the ALJ improperly rejected the consultative
opinions of Dr. David Wilson and Dr. Sathyan Iyer without good cause or valid
explanation. He alleges that the ALJ improperly substituted his own opinion for
the opinions of Dr. Wilson and Dr. Iyer.
We review de novo the legal principles on which the ALJ’s opinion is based,
and we review the resulting decision to determine whether it is supported by
substantial evidence in the record. Moore v. Barnhart, 405 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam). “Substantial evidence is . . . such relevant evidence as a
2
Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 3 of 5
reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. The
person seeking social security benefits bears the burden of proving that he is
disabled. Id.
In reviewing the medical evidence in a claimant’s case, the ALJ is required
to “state with particularity the weight he gave the different medical opinions” and
his reasons for assigning that specific weight. Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278,
279 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). “[T]he ALJ may reject any medical opinion if
the evidence supports a contrary finding.” Id. at 280.
The ALJ did not err in according “[s]ome weight” to Dr. Iyer’s opinion. The
specific medical problems noted in Dr. Iyer’s opinion are not inconsistent with the
ALJ’s RFC assessment of Williams’s physical limitations. The Iyer opinion also
indicated that Williams could have some nonspecific impairment of various
functions, which is not inconsistent with the ALJ’s inclusion of some limitations in
those areas of Williams’s RFC assessment.
Substantial evidence also supports the ALJ’s decision to give no weight to
Dr. Wilson’s opinion. Dr. Wilson’s opinion was based on a one-time evaluation
and not a longitudinal history of treatment for depression. This evaluation was
also inconsistent with the other medical evidence, including notes from Williams’s
treating physician (to which the ALJ accorded “great weight given the nature and
3
Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 4 of 5
extent of his treating relationship”) that indicate he only sporadically complained
of depression and was not on a long-term treatment plan for depression.
II.
Williams next argues that the ALJ erred in determining that his depression
was not severe because the ALJ failed to acknowledge that impairments must be
slight in order to be considered nonsevere. He also asserts that the ALJ erred in
failing to include limitations due to the effects of his depression in his RFC
assessment.
In evaluating disability claims, the ALJ uses a five-step, sequential
evaluation process to determine whether a claimant is disabled. Winschel v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011). The second step of
this process requires the ALJ to determine “whether the claimant has a severe
impairment or combination of impairments.” Id. At this step, an impairment is not
considered severe “only if the abnormality is so slight and its effect so minimal
that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to
work, irrespective of age, education or work experience.” McDaniel v. Bowen,
800 F.2d 1026, 1031 (11th Cir. 1986).
The ALJ did not err in his decision about the severity of Williams’s
depression or in the limitations included in the RFC assessment. The only
evidence supporting Williams’s claim that his depression qualified as a severe
4
Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 5 of 5
impairment was Dr. Wilson’s report. The ALJ was free to reject this report
because it was not consistent with rest of the medical evidence, including the
treatment notes by Williams’s treating physician. Further, the ALJ took into
account Williams’s medically determinable mental impairment in establishing
limitations in the RFC assessment, and found that Williams had only “mild”
limitations based on this impairment.
III.
Finally, Williams’s argues that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence because of the errors discussed in his first two arguments on
appeal. Because our examination of these two arguments revealed no error,
Williams’s argument about substantial evidence must also fail. We affirm the
decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying
Williams’s application for supplemental security income benefits.
AFFIRMED.
5