[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14340

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00969-DAB

ANTONIO TILLMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 4, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 13-14340 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Antonio Tillman appeals the district court’s order affirming the Social 

Security Administration’s denial of his application for supplemental security 

income. He contends the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by failing to 

explicitly assign weight to the opinions of two emergency room physicians, each of 

whom examined him and commented on his alleged disability. He also complains 

that the ALJ failed to give those opinions sufficient weight in his disability 

evaluation. After careful review,1 we conclude Tillman’s arguments fail, and we 

therefore affirm.

Tillman first faults the ALJ for failing to explicitly assign weight to the 

opinions of doctors Ullah and Subhani, who treated Tillman during his 

hospitalization following a stroke in 2006. Ordinarily, an ALJ’s failure to explain 

the particular weight given to the different medical opinions provided is reversible 

error. Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987). However, when the 

ALJ’s error did not affect its ultimate findings, the error is harmless, and the ALJ’s 

decision will stand. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983). In 

the instant case, the ALJ expressly noted and considered the diagnostic evidence 

on which Ullah and Subhani relied in forming their opinions, and that evidence, 

along with other objective medical evidence in the record and Tillman’s own 

 1 In a Social Security appeal, we affirm the Commissioner’s decision if it “is supported 

by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards.” Winschel v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Case: 13-14340 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

testimony, showed that he was not disabled and incapable of work. For example, 

Ullah opined that Tillman was “severely disabled” and “unable to function 

independently,” but he did not offer any detailed explanation supporting this 

opinion, and when Tillman was discharged only days after Ullah’s examination, 

his symptoms were stable, and he had been ambulating “quite safely” with the use 

of a cane. Moreover, Ullah’s and Subhani’s opinions concerned matters ultimately 

reserved to the Commissioner for final determination (i.e., whether Tillman was 

legally disabled) and were therefore not entitled to controlling weight. See 20 

C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(3), 416.927(d)(1)-(3); Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 872, 

878 (11th Cir. 1986). Thus, while we acknowledge the ALJ’s failure to 

specifically reference the opinions of Ullah and Subhani, we conclude that this 

failure did not affect the result in Tillman’s case.

For the same reasons, we conclude that the ALJ did not accord Ullah’s and 

Subhani’s opinions too little weight. Given the totality of the evidence presented 

and Tillman’s own testimony concerning the activities he regularly performed, it is 

clear that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision to discount the 

opinions of Ullah and Subhani, which spoke to matters ultimately reserved to the 

Commissioner, were conclusory and based on limited underlying relationships 

with Tillman, and were contradicted by other evidence in the record. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-14340 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 3 of 3