
    Sherri P. TANNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-16277.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 21, 2014.
    Sarah Elizabeth White, Shelley Davidson, Westmoreland Patterson Moseley & Hinson, LLP, Macon, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Sanjay S. Karnik, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Savannah, GA, Dennis Robert Williams, Melanie Nelson Williams, Douglas Gregory Wilson, Mary Ann Sloan, David Mansfield, William Lawrence Hogan, Selisa McKay Wright, Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel, Atlanta, GA, Holly Abernethy Grimes, Law Offices of Holly A. Grimes, Decatur, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before CARNES, Chief Judge, HULL and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Emilio M. Garza, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Sherri Tanner appeals from the district court’s affirmance of the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) denial of her claim for disability insurance benefits, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and supplemental security income, 42 U.S.C. § 1383. On appeal, she argues, inter alia, that (1) the ALJ substituted his own opinion for that of the medical experts in the record by assigning Tanner a severe impairment of prescription drug abuse that was not otherwise diagnosed; (2) the ALJ applied the improper legal standard when evaluating the opinions of Tanner’s treating physicians; and (3) the district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to review the record as a whole, specifically in light of the new evidence that Tanner submitted to the Appeals Council.

After review of the record and the briefs of the parties, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that Tanner has not shown reversible error in this case. Even if the ALJ erred in concluding that Tanner had a severe impairment of prescription drug abuse and even if she had only the two other impairments found by the ALJ, Tanner still has not shown error in the ALJ’s other findings or in the ALJ’s or Appeals Council’s ultimate conclusions.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court affirming the denial of Tanner’s claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.

AFFIRMED.  