Case: 18-14885 Date Filed: 04/30/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14885
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-01495-KOB
LUTISHA IRENE BUSH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
COMMISSIONER,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 30, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14885 Date Filed: 04/30/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Lutisha Bush appeals a decision affirming the denial of her application for
supplemental security income.
42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g), 1383(c)(3). Bush argues that
the administrative law judge gave insufficient weight to the opinion of her
examining psychologist that she was mentally disabled. We affirm.
The administrative law judge was entitled to give limited weight to the
opinion of Dr. Ashley Hampton. The administrative law judge correctly
disregarded Dr. Hampton’s opinion that Bush was unable to work because that
determination rests with the Commissioner. See
20 C.F.R. § 416.927(d)(1). And, as
the administrative law judge explained in her decision, see Winschel v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec.,
631 F.3d 1176, 1179 (11th Cir. 2011), Dr. Hampton, who examined
Bush once regarding her application for disability, see
42 U.S.C. § 404.1527(2)(i)–
(ii), offered an opinion that was internally inconsistent, see
id. § 404.1527(c)(4),
and conflicted with evidence in the record. Dr. Hampton opined that Bush might
encounter problems interacting with coworkers, supervisors, and the public, yet Dr.
Hampton recorded that Bush was cordial, polite, and affable. Dr. Hampton also
opined that Bush would have difficulty concentrating, yet that opinion conflicted
with the doctor’s notes that Bush was alert and focused well and with a report in
September 2015 from a physician at CED Mental Health Center that Bush’s
attention and concentration were adequate. But notwithstanding those
shortcomings, the administrative law judge considered Dr. Hampton’s opinions
2
Case: 18-14885 Date Filed: 04/30/2019 Page: 3 of 3
that Bush had problems with attentiveness and mood in determining that she had
moderate difficulties with concentration, persistence, or pace. The weight given to
Dr. Hampton’s opinion distinguishes Bush’s case from Wilder v. Chater,
64 F.3d
335 (7th Cir. 1995), where the administrative law judge disregarded undisputed
testimony from a court-appointed psychiatrist about “the date of onset of [the
applicant’s] disabling depression.”
Id. at 337. And Bush does not dispute that
substantial evidence supports the decision that she is not disabled.
We AFFIRM the denial of Bush’s application for benefits.
3
