[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 5 
2

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 

Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 2 of 5 
3

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 

Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 3 of 5 
4

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 

Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 4 of 5 
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.

Case: 15-15252 Date Filed: 09/27/2016 Page: 5 of 5