[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-14663

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00485-TMP

RICHARD MARTIN DEAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, COMMISSIONER,

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(May 24, 2019)

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Richard Dean appeals an order affirming the denial of his application for 

disability insurance benefits. 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Dean challenges the 

decision to discount the medical opinions of Dr. Adam Alterman, Dr. David 

Wilson, and Dr. Sathyan Iyer. Dean also challenges the failure of the 

Commissioner to identify a date for his onset of disability and the finding that he 

was not mentally disabled under Listings 12.04 and 12.06 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. We affirm.

The administrative law judge had good cause to give little weight to Dr. 

Alterman’s opinion that Dean was physically and mentally disabled. Although the 

opinion of a treating physician like Dr. Alterman ordinarily is entitled to 

substantial weight, the administrative law judge was entitled to reject the doctor’s 

opinion as inconsistent with his medical notes and with other evidence in the 

record. Phillips v. Barnhart, 357 F.3d 1232, 1241 (11th Cir. 2004). Dr. Alterman

opined on July 24, 2014, that Dean could sit for eight hours, stand for one hour, 

walk less than one hour, required breaks every 30 minutes, and needed to lay down 

or elevate his legs for five hours, but that opinion was inconsistent with his medical 

notes on July 23, 2014, that Dean had normal strength in his upper and lower 

extremities and that Dean was employed as a truck driver. Dr. Alterman’s opinion 

also conflicted with his records of 15 examinations between January 2012 and 

March 2014 that reported Dean had normal strength in all his extremities and with 

Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 2 of 6 
3

Dean’s function report that he performed household chores, drove, and shopped. 

Dr. Alterman also opined that Dean could concentrate no longer than 15 minutes 

and that his medication caused debilitating side effects, but the doctor’s medical 

notes recorded no side effects from the medications he prescribed that controlled, 

and at times eliminated, Dean’s anxiety. The doctor’s opinion about Dean’s mental 

limitations also was inconsistent with Dean’s statements in his function report that 

he left the house alone, paid bills, managed his savings and checking accounts, and 

purchased money orders.

Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s decision to give 

little weight to Dr. Wilson’s opinion that Dean was mentally disabled. Dr. Wilson 

opined that, beginning July 6, 2011, Dean had “very poor mental control and 

attention” and had “problems with short term and working memory,” but Dr. 

Wilson examined Dean only once in September 2015 when he could have 

determined that Dean’s disabling limitations dated to 2011 only by reviewing his 

medical records, which reported no severe mental limitations. See 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1527(c)(2), (c)(3) (weighing the length of the medical relationship and 

support for the medical opinion). And the administrative law judge was entitled to 

discount Dr. Wilson’s opinion as inaccurate because Dean had discontinued his 

medication. Dr. Wilson’s opinion also was inconsistent with the opinions given in 

March 2014 by Dr. Jack Bentley that Dean’s memory and psychomotor skills were 

Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 3 of 6 
4

normal and by Dr. Robert Estock that Dean could complete an eight-hour workday 

and could remember and complete simple tasks. See id. § 416.927(c)(6) 

(considering “other information in your case record”).

Substantial evidence also supports the administrative law judge’s decision to 

discount Dr. Iyer’s assessment that Dean was limited to performing a restricted 

range of sedentary work. Because Dr. Iyer performed a consultative examination, 

his opinion was not entitled to the substantial weight due the opinion of a treating 

physician. See id. § 404.1527(c)(2). Dr. Iyer’s assessment that Dean could lift and 

carry no more than 10 pounds occasionally and could sit, stand, and walk for onehour periods but for no more than four hours a day was inconsistent with his 

medical notes that the muscle power in Dean’s legs was normal and that he had no 

other physical limitations other than an inability to use heavy weights and a 

limitation on his overhead activities. The October 2014 assessment also conflicted 

with Dean’s testimony that he could lift his right arm above his head and with Dr. 

Alterman’s medical notes in July 2014 that Dean had normal strength in his upper 

and lower extremities and was employed as a truck driver.

Dean argues, for the first time on appeal, that the administrative law judge 

failed to ascertain the onset date of Dean’s disability, but the administrative law 

judge had no reason to make such a finding. The onset date of a disability is 

relevant only when the administrative law judge finds that a claimant is disabled. 

Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 4 of 6 
5

Because the administrative law judge found that Dean was not disabled, he had no 

need to determine an onset date. 

Substantial evidence supports the finding of the administrative law judge 

that Dean’s depression and anxiety did not meet the criteria of Listing 12.04 or 

Listing 12.06. Dean presented no evidence that he had a marked restriction in his 

daily activities, his social functioning, or his ability to maintain concentration, 

persistence, or pace caused by “[m]edically documented persistence, either 

continuous or intermittent,” of a depressive syndrome or caused by “[g]eneralized 

persistent anxiety.” See 20 C.F.R. pt. 404, subpt. P, app. 1, §§ 12.04, 12.06. Dr. 

Alterman recorded that he eliminated Dean’s depression with B12 and folate and 

alleviated Dean’s anxiety with medication. And Dean’s and his wife’s function 

reports revealed that he was capable of social interaction and of living 

autonomously. See id. § 12.00 (evaluating if the degree of limitation interferes 

seriously with a claimant’s ability to function “independently, appropriately, 

effectively, and on a sustained basis”). Dean and his wife reported that they lived 

together and that he shopped, prepared his meals, performed household chores, 

drove, and managed his finances. Dean argues that a magistrate judge erroneously 

affirmed the decision of administrative law judge “on a post hoc rationalization,” 

but the decision of the magistrate judge is of no moment because our review “is 

limited to an inquiry into whether there is substantial evidence to support the 

Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 5 of 6 
6

findings of the Commissioner,” Wilson v. Barnhart, 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th 

Cir. 2002).

We AFFIRM the denial of Dean’s application for benefits.

Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 6 of 6