[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 62 Richard De an 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.
T he administrative law judge had good cause to give little weight to Dr. Alterman’s opinion that Dean was physically and men tally disabled. Although the opinion of a treating physician like Dr. Alterman ordinarily is entitled to substantial weight, the administrative law judge w as 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 inco nsistent 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 record s of 15 e xaminations between January 2012 and March 2014 that re port ed Dean had normal strength in a ll hi s extremities and with

Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 2 of 63 Dean’s function report that he performed household chores , dr ove, and shopped

. Dr. Alterman also opined that Dean could concentrate no longer than 15 minutes and that his medication cause d debilitating side effects , but the doct or’s medical notes recorded no side effects from the medication s he prescribed that controlled, and at times eliminated, Dean’s anxiety. T he doctor’s opinion about Dean’s mental limitations also was inconsistent with Dean’s statements in his function repor t that he left the house alone, paid bills , managed his savings and checking accounts , and purchased money orders

. Substantial evidence supports t he administrative law judge ’s decision to give little weight to Dr. Wilson’s opinion that Dean was mentally disabled. Dr. Wilson opin ed 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 examine d Dean only once in Septem ber 2015 when h e 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 relationsh ip and support for the medical opinion). And the administrative law judge was entitled to discount Dr. Wilson’s opinion as inaccurate because D ea n 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 64 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”). Substanti al evidence also supports t he administrative law judge ’s decision to discount Dr. Iyer’s assessment that Dean was limited to perform ing a restricted range of sedentary work. Be cause 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 one

hour periods but for no more than four hours a day w as inconsistent with his medical notes that the muscle power in Dean’s legs was normal and that h e had no other physical limitations other than an inability to use heavy weights and a limitation on his overhead activities. T he October 2014 assessment also conflicted with Dean’s testimony that he could lift his right arm above his head and with Dr. Alt erman’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 argue s, f or 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 65 Because the admini strative law judge found that Dean was not disabled, he ha d 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 Lis ting 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 document ed persistence, either continuous or inte rmittent,” 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 alleviat ed Dean’s anxiety with medication. And Dean’s and his wife’s function reports revealed that he was capable of s ocial 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 , p re pared 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 66 findings of the Commissioner, ” Wilson v. Barnhart , 284 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2002)

. We AFFIRM the denial of Dean’s application for benefit s. Case: 18-14663 Date Filed: 05/24/2019 Page: 6 of 6