[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11758

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:15-cv-00872-JBT

MATTHEW JOHN ROMEO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 24, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11758 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Matthew Romeo appeals the district court’s order affirming the 

administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of disability insurance benefits, pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On appeal, Romeo argues that the ALJ improperly 

discounted the opinions of Dr. Gerald Hodan and Drs. Felix and Milagros Subervi. 

Romeo argues that their opinions are fully supported by the record, including 

Romeo’s self-reported problems and observations by professionals. He contends 

that the record clearly demonstrates that he is not able to maintain employment on 

a regular basis and that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ’s denial of 

benefits. After a review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we 

affirm.

In social security appeals, we review the decision of an ALJ as the 

Commissioner’s final decision when the ALJ denies benefits and the Appeals 

Council denies review of the ALJ’s decision. Doughty v. Apfel, 245 F.3d 1274, 

1278 (11th Cir. 2001). We review de novo the legal principles upon which the 

ALJ’s decision is based, but the ALJ’s factual findings are conclusive if supported 

by substantial evidence. Ingram v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 496 F.3d 1253, 1260 

(11th Cir. 2007). Substantial evidence is “more than a scintilla and is such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.” Crawford v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 363 F.3d 1155, 1158 (11th Cir. 

2004) (quotation omitted). Even if the evidence preponderates against the factual 

Case: 16-11758 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 2 of 5 
3

findings made by the Commissioner, we must affirm if the decision reached is 

supported by substantial evidence. Ingram, 496 F.3d at 1260. We will not decide 

facts anew, reweigh the evidence, or substitute our judgment for that of the 

Commissioner. Dyer v. Barnhart, 395 F.3d 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2005).

The ALJ must state with particularity the weight given to different medical 

opinions and the reasons therefor. Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 631 F.3d 

1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011). The ALJ must give the medical opinions of treating 

physicians substantial or considerable weight unless good cause is shown to the 

contrary. Id.; see also Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 280 (11th Cir. 1987) 

(stating that the ALJ may reject any medical opinion if the evidence supports a 

contrary finding). Good cause exists when: (1) the opinion was not bolstered by 

the evidence; (2) the evidence supported a contrary finding; or (3) the opinion was 

conclusory or inconsistent with the doctor’s own medical records. Winschel, 631 

F.3d at 1179. An ALJ must generally give more weight to the opinion of a doctor 

who has examined a claimant, and the longer a treating source has treated a 

claimant, the more weight their opinion is given. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(1), (2). 

A doctor who examines a claimant only once is not considered a treating 

physician. McSwain v. Bowen, 814 F.2d 617, 619 (11th Cir. 1987).

An ALJ must consider the opinions of non-examining physicians, including 

state agency psychological consultants. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(e)(2). The 

Case: 16-11758 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 3 of 5 
4

weight to be given to a non-examining physician’s opinion depends, among other 

things, on the extent to which it is consistent with other evidence. See id.

§ 404.1527(e)(2)(ii); see also Crawford, 363 F.3d at 1158, 1160 (holding that the 

ALJ did not err in relying on a consulting physician’s opinion where it was 

consistent with the medical evidence and findings of the examining physician). 

The opinions of non-examining physicians are entitled to little weight when 

compared to examining physicians, however. Sharfarz, 825 F.2d at 280. The 

more a medical source presents relevant evidence to support an opinion, the more 

weight is given to that opinion. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(c)(3).

A medical opinion that a claimant is disabled constitutes an opinion on an 

issue reserved to the Commissioner and is not controlling. 20 C.F.R. 

§ 404.1527(d)(1). Factors that an ALJ considers in evaluating a medical opinion 

include whether the physician examined or treated the claimant, the length of the 

treatment relationship, the frequency of examination, and the supportability and 

consistency of the opinion. Id. § 404.1527(c).

A claimant’s daily activities may be considered in evaluating and 

discrediting complaints of disabling pain. Harwell v. Heckler, 735 F.2d 1292, 

1293 (11th Cir. 1984). In Harwell, we held that the ALJ properly considered the 

claimant’s use of pain medication and his daily activities in finding that his 

allegation of constant and severe pain was outweighed by other evidence. Id.

Case: 16-11758 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 4 of 5 
5

The ALJ provided sufficient reasons for discounting the opinions of Dr. 

Hodan and Drs. Subervi and Subervi because she stated with particularity the 

weight given to different medical opinions and the reasons why some were given 

more weight than others, as required. Winschel, 631 F.3d at 1179. Moreover, 

none of these doctors were treating physicians because they each only saw Romeo 

once. McSwain, 814 F.2d at 619. Even if they were treating physicians, the ALJ 

established good cause for discounting their opinions because their reported 

observations from examining Romeo contradicted their determinations that Romeo 

was markedly impaired. As to the final conclusion from Drs. Subervi and Subervi 

that Romeo would find it difficult to hold a full-time job, that issue is reserved to 

the Commissioner and was not entitled to any weight. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(1). 

Moreover, the remainder of the record evidence did not support the marked 

limitations found by Dr. Hodan and Drs. Subervi and Subervi. Particularly, 

Romeo made multiple visits to Directions for Mental Health, whose records 

indicated that despite his diagnoses, his behavior and affect were evaluated as 

essentially normal each time and his global assessment of functioning score 

improved with consistent medication.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-11758 Date Filed: 04/24/2017 Page: 5 of 5